Author Topic: HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P)  (Read 174001 times)

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5259
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4912
  • Likes Given: 1218
The "crew rated" discussion up thread has me confused:

The system can't be crew rated until it has a crew, and it can't have a crew until it's been crew rated.

Is that about right?

As I explained upthread (see the link below), there is two types of certifications: one is for the system which is certified for safety after it has flown its crewed demo missions and met a number of other criteria (whitelancer64 calls this operational certification; that is not the official term in the relevant documents but it describes the general idea).

However, each individual crewed mission must also be certified that it is human rated and this applies regardless of whether it is a crewed demo or a post certification/operational mission (i.e., it applies if there is NASA astronauts on board the mission).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2433889#msg2433889
The crew rating is about the hardware and software design of the spacecraft or LV meeting the design crew rating criteria not about demos. But a flight without crew to show that the hardware and software work as designed can be a part of the testing program to validate design. Hence the award of the design being crew rated. Without a crew rating. Not even a demo crew would step aboard. The F9 was designed from the beginning to fully meet all the design standards for crew rating of a LV as well as Starship from the standpoint of an LV. The Atlas V was deficient in some that had to be rectified before it could be certified a crew rating design LV. Though the Vulcan was designed ground up to meet the crew rating standards.

But there is always a step beyond the design and taht is testing proof that the actual meets the design. This is the final certification to allow use to carry crew on a regular basis. Sometimes called the crew operational certification. Meaning the design to crew standards is actually met in practice.

What has not been shown for Starship is that its design as reviewed meets the crew standards. Mostly because some of the designs are not yet completed such as the cabin, software, human/ship interfaces for its control, entry/exit, emergency features and procedures, and other features related to crew but not propulsion or structure.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16433
  • Liked: 6488
  • Likes Given: 2820
The "crew rated" discussion up thread has me confused:

The system can't be crew rated until it has a crew, and it can't have a crew until it's been crew rated.

Is that about right?

As I explained upthread (see the link below), there is two types of certifications: one is for the system which is certified for safety after it has flown its crewed demo missions and met a number of other criteria (whitelancer64 calls this operational certification; that is not the official term in the relevant documents but it describes the general idea).

However, each individual crewed mission must also be certified that it is human rated and this applies regardless of whether it is a crewed demo or a post certification/operational mission (i.e., it applies if there is NASA astronauts on board the mission).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2433889#msg2433889
The crew rating is about the hardware and software design of the spacecraft or LV meeting the design crew rating criteria not about demos. But a flight without crew to show that the hardware and software work as designed can be a part of the testing program to validate design. Hence the award of the design being crew rated. Without a crew rating. Not even a demo crew would step aboard. The F9 was designed from the beginning to fully meet all the design standards for crew rating of a LV as well as Starship from the standpoint of an LV. The Atlas V was deficient in some that had to be rectified before it could be certified a crew rating design LV. Though the Vulcan was designed ground up to meet the crew rating standards.

But there is always a step beyond the design and that is testing proof that the actual meets the design. This is the final certification to allow use to carry crew on a regular basis. Sometimes called the crew operational certification. Meaning the design to crew standards is actually met in practice.

What has not been shown for Starship is that its design as reviewed meets the crew standards. Mostly because some of the designs are not yet completed such as the cabin, software, human/ship interfaces for its control, entry/exit, emergency features and procedures, and other features related to crew but not propulsion or structure.

Thanks for your explanations. If I understood your post correctly, it doesn't contradict anything I said. Right?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5259
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4912
  • Likes Given: 1218
The "crew rated" discussion up thread has me confused:

The system can't be crew rated until it has a crew, and it can't have a crew until it's been crew rated.

Is that about right?

As I explained upthread (see the link below), there is two types of certifications: one is for the system which is certified for safety after it has flown its crewed demo missions and met a number of other criteria (whitelancer64 calls this operational certification; that is not the official term in the relevant documents but it describes the general idea).

However, each individual crewed mission must also be certified that it is human rated and this applies regardless of whether it is a crewed demo or a post certification/operational mission (i.e., it applies if there is NASA astronauts on board the mission).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2433889#msg2433889
The crew rating is about the hardware and software design of the spacecraft or LV meeting the design crew rating criteria not about demos. But a flight without crew to show that the hardware and software work as designed can be a part of the testing program to validate design. Hence the award of the design being crew rated. Without a crew rating. Not even a demo crew would step aboard. The F9 was designed from the beginning to fully meet all the design standards for crew rating of a LV as well as Starship from the standpoint of an LV. The Atlas V was deficient in some that had to be rectified before it could be certified a crew rating design LV. Though the Vulcan was designed ground up to meet the crew rating standards.

But there is always a step beyond the design and that is testing proof that the actual meets the design. This is the final certification to allow use to carry crew on a regular basis. Sometimes called the crew operational certification. Meaning the design to crew standards is actually met in practice.

What has not been shown for Starship is that its design as reviewed meets the crew standards. Mostly because some of the designs are not yet completed such as the cabin, software, human/ship interfaces for its control, entry/exit, emergency features and procedures, and other features related to crew but not propulsion or structure.

Thanks for your explanations. If I understood your post correctly, it doesn't contradict anything I said. Right?
I think so.

Just a little clarification on the difference what data the 2 certifications are based on: the design or the in use.

The design can be great but never works in use. Some of the reason for such occurring is the manufacturing and the unknown interface problems between systems that each separately work perfectly. But together in the actual environment of use they fail to work as required.

EDIT: put the response in wrong place. Fixed.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2022 07:34 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10807
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 714
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16433
  • Liked: 6488
  • Likes Given: 2820
Progress for Options A and B can be tracked at this link (it hasn't been updated yet):
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0034_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-

As of now the award for Option A is $3B, so the combined amount should be updated to $4.15B in a few days.

So for Option A, here are the current amounts:

Quote from: USA Spending
Outlayed Amount: $799,409,616.24
Obligated Amount: $1,258,400,016.25
Current Award Amount: $3,031,455,921.24
Potential Award Amount: $3,031,455,921.24

Start Date: May 13, 2020
Current End Date: Jul 27, 2025
Potential End Date: Jul 27, 2025

As expected the total amount of the HLS-Starship contract has now been revised to $4.2B when combining Options A & B. The current and potential end dates are now November 15, 2027 to take into account the Option B work. On November 15th 2022, $147M was obligated for the exercise of Option B.

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0034_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-
« Last Edit: 12/01/2022 05:30 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16433
  • Liked: 6488
  • Likes Given: 2820
The Appendix P proposals are due today. This is significant because the companies often release some information about their proposals after the due date.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38639
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 67040
  • Likes Given: 29708
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232

Quote
The National Team has submitted its proposal for NASA’s SLD program to help the US establish a sustained lunar presence. The National Team partners are @BlueOrigin, @LockheedMartin, @DraperLab, @Boeing, @Astrobotic, and @Honeybee_Ltd.

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon/sld-national-team/

Quote
Sustaining Lunar Development

The National Team of Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Draper, Boeing, Astrobotic, and Honeybee Robotics is competing for a NASA Sustaining Lunar Development contract to develop a human landing system for the Artemis program. In partnership with NASA, this team will achieve sustained presence on the Moon.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2022 08:05 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38639
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 67040
  • Likes Given: 29708
twitter.com/joroulette/status/1600234093144219649

Quote
Blue Origin confirms it submitted another proposal to NASA for a lunar lander, this time without Northrop Grumman as a partner

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1600241377639821312

Quote
Northrop Grumman submitted its own SLD bid, per sources. They have a corporate partner but idk who it is.

Offline TrevorMonty

twitter.com/joroulette/status/1600234093144219649

Quote
Blue Origin confirms it submitted another proposal to NASA for a lunar lander, this time without Northrop Grumman as a partner

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1600241377639821312

Quote
Northrop Grumman submitted its own SLD bid, per sources. They have a corporate partner but idk who it is.
My pick is NG has partnered with Firefly and AE Industries who are also involved in Sierra Space.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16433
  • Liked: 6488
  • Likes Given: 2820
Sierra Space was/is with Dynetics for Appendix N (and for the base period).

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1135
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1206
  • Likes Given: 3441
Dynetics could be the NG partner this time around.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6652
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1617
  • Likes Given: 1535
Sierra Space was/is with Dynetics for Appendix N (and for the base period).

For reference: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50843.msg2411337#msg2411337
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38639
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 67040
  • Likes Given: 29708
Dynetics could be the NG partner this time around.

Voila

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1600476123179241473

Quote
Dynetics confirms it has bid for NASA’s sustaining Human Landing System contract. Northrop Grumman is a partner.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Liked: 714
  • Likes Given: 804
This is excellent news, IMHO.
NG are amongst the most innovative space companies at the moment, and of course they have the legacy of the LEM if that counts for anything.

In my non expert opinion I am excited about this proposal...
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6895
  • Likes Given: 3489
This proposal touts the experience base of the 2 compaines as the basis for their proposal. They even included a picture of what it may actually look like, instead of a map of their political clout base. I wish them all the luck in the world.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16433
  • Liked: 6488
  • Likes Given: 2820
Where does that leave Sierra Space?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38639
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 67040
  • Likes Given: 29708
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/leidos-dynetics-team-and-northrop-grumman-to-collaborate-on-nasa-human-landing-system-bid-301697017.html

Quote
Leidos Dynetics Team and Northrop Grumman to Collaborate on NASA Human Landing System Bid
NEWS PROVIDED BY
Leidos

Dec 07, 2022, 08:00 ET
HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Dec. 7, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Dynetics, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Leidos, today announced it has submitted a bid on the Human Landing System (HLS) Sustaining Lunar Development (SLD) contract for NASA's Artemis Mission. Northrop Grumman will join the Dynetics team in this pursuit.

"We're excited to enter the competition to support NASA's Sustaining Lunar Development efforts, adding Northrop Grumman to our team," said Leidos Dynetics Group President Steve Cook. "As the only company to successfully build a crewed lunar lander, Northrop Grumman will be an excellent partner as we support NASA's inspiring efforts to return humans to the lunar surface. We will leverage their expertise and legacy of human space exploration, including their ongoing contracts to build the Habitation and Logistics Outpost for NASA's lunar Gateway and to provide commercial resupply services to the International Space Station, significantly bolstering our pursuit. We're pleased they have joined us in this historic effort."

For more than three years, the Dynetics team has been a prime contractor for HLS. It was one of 11 companies selected in 2019 under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnership (NextSTEP-2) Appendix E contract. The Leidos subsidiary was then selected under NextSTEP-2 Appendix H in 2020, alongside SpaceX and Blue Origin.

In September 2021, Dynetics was one of five companies selected under Appendix N, which allows industry partners to collaborate with NASA to mature lander designs and conduct risk reduction activities in support of sustainable lander development. The recent SLD solicitation – also known as NextSTEP-2 Appendix P – was released on September 16, 2022.

Northrop Grumman has also been a primary supporter of HLS, winning prime contracts under Appendices E and N.

"Our capabilities and experience in pioneering human exploration and space logistics will help provide a lunar transportation system that our nation can rely on for years to come," said Steve Krein, Vice President, Civil and Commercial Space, Northrop Grumman.

"NASA is counting on industry to lead the development of returning astronauts to the moon," Cook said. "We believe our partnership with Northrop Grumman makes us more than ready for the challenge. We look forward to the hard work ahead."

Certain statements in this announcement constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These statements are based on management's current beliefs and expectations and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. These statements are not guarantees of future results or occurrences. A number of factors could cause our actual results, performance, achievements, or industry results to be different from the results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the "Risk Factors" set forth in Leidos' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, and other such filings that Leidos makes with the SEC from time to time.  Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. Leidos does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statements were made.

Image caption:

Quote
Human Landing System rendering provided by the Leidos Dynetics team.
(PRNewsfoto/Dynetics)

Edit to add: any specific discussion on this proposal is best in the separate Dynetics lander thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50843.0
« Last Edit: 12/07/2022 01:02 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6895
  • Likes Given: 3489
Where does that leave Sierra Space?

I don't know. Does anyone know if they submitted a proposal?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline primer_black

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Virginia
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 24
Where does that leave Sierra Space?

I don't know. Does anyone know if they submitted a proposal?

Sierra is supporting the Blue National Team this time around.

Blue was insisting on exclusivity for nearly all of their partners, so they may only have been able to support NT rather than be a merchant provider.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5259
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4912
  • Likes Given: 1218
Where does that leave Sierra Space?

I don't know. Does anyone know if they submitted a proposal?

Sierra is supporting the Blue National Team this time around.

Blue was insisting on exclusivity for nearly all of their partners, so they may only have been able to support NT rather than be a merchant provider.
Sierra Space may be a provider of the carbon composite crew cabin. They have significant recent experience in being able to do this quickly and low cost from their past and current work with Dream Chaser crew and now cargo.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1