https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232QuoteThe 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/QuoteSustaining Lunar DevelopmentThe 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.
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/
Sustaining Lunar DevelopmentThe 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.
#Artemis is an inspiration to our world and the next generation of explorers. We are bringing our rich history of deep space exploration and human spaceflight to the National Team to develop a lander that will usher in the new, lunar economy.
Draper is ready to go back to the Moon! This time we will go with the National Team, led by Blue Origin and with teammates Astrobotic, Boeing, Honeybee Robotics and Lockheed Martin.
The Moon holds a special place in humanity’s imagination. We are excited to help drive a new generation of exploration that will learn more about our cosmic neighbor and, ultimately, about all of us. The National Team's focus on teamwork will make the dream work for all.
We’re heading to the Moon (again)! Astrobotic is continuing to make space accessible to the world by supporting the SLD National Team led by @blueorigin. We bring 15 years of focus and lunar experience with us – and a whole lot of #Pittsburgh & #Mojave grit! #ToTheMoon #Artemis
Boeing in, Northrop Grumman out. Last time, Boeing was bidding their own SLS-class lander, and Northrop Grumman was to be responsible for the National Team's transfer stage. The Appendix P lander will certainly not launch on SLS and is not likely to be a three-stage design. How Big Blue, Little Blue, and Lockheed divvy up the work will be interesting. Maybe Blue Origin is the propulsion supplier and overall prime, while Boeing and Lockheed do the lander stages?
This sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.
Quote from: butters on 12/06/2022 08:24 pmBoeing in, Northrop Grumman out. Last time, Boeing was bidding their own SLS-class lander, and Northrop Grumman was to be responsible for the National Team's transfer stage. The Appendix P lander will certainly not launch on SLS and is not likely to be a three-stage design. How Big Blue, Little Blue, and Lockheed divvy up the work will be interesting. Maybe Blue Origin is the propulsion supplier and overall prime, while Boeing and Lockheed do the lander stages?It's probably my own bias but I can't shake the feeling that they might be getting Boeing to literally slot into NG's old role as transfer element provider. In that case, could we be looking at some kind of EUS-derived stage?
This is noteworthy because Blue Origin has a healthy internal effort to develop a fully reusable lunar lander concept, on its own. But it does not look like the company bid that option to NASA for this round of contracts.
Quote from: jadebenn on 12/06/2022 09:33 pmQuote from: butters on 12/06/2022 08:24 pmBoeing in, Northrop Grumman out. Last time, Boeing was bidding their own SLS-class lander, and Northrop Grumman was to be responsible for the National Team's transfer stage. The Appendix P lander will certainly not launch on SLS and is not likely to be a three-stage design. How Big Blue, Little Blue, and Lockheed divvy up the work will be interesting. Maybe Blue Origin is the propulsion supplier and overall prime, while Boeing and Lockheed do the lander stages?It's probably my own bias but I can't shake the feeling that they might be getting Boeing to literally slot into NG's old role as transfer element provider. In that case, could we be looking at some kind of EUS-derived stage?Would be interesting for sure but EUS is 8.4m in diameter like the SLS CS, how would they even launch that? Could a minimally modified EUS-based transfer stage keep enough LH2 on its way to the moon and while loitering around waiting for crew?
Quote from: aperh1988 on 12/06/2022 10:01 pmQuote from: jadebenn on 12/06/2022 09:33 pmQuote from: butters on 12/06/2022 08:24 pmBoeing in, Northrop Grumman out. Last time, Boeing was bidding their own SLS-class lander, and Northrop Grumman was to be responsible for the National Team's transfer stage. The Appendix P lander will certainly not launch on SLS and is not likely to be a three-stage design. How Big Blue, Little Blue, and Lockheed divvy up the work will be interesting. Maybe Blue Origin is the propulsion supplier and overall prime, while Boeing and Lockheed do the lander stages?It's probably my own bias but I can't shake the feeling that they might be getting Boeing to literally slot into NG's old role as transfer element provider. In that case, could we be looking at some kind of EUS-derived stage?Would be interesting for sure but EUS is 8.4m in diameter like the SLS CS, how would they even launch that? Could a minimally modified EUS-based transfer stage keep enough LH2 on its way to the moon and while loitering around waiting for crew?Given its Boeing & LM in team they may use Centaur.Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
So Blue is choosing political expediency over technical excellency a 2nd time, I hope they get taught a lesson on why this is a bad idea a 2nd time as well...
The very prominent map of suppliers spread across the whole of the US tells us what their main selling point is going to be....
Quote from: Welsh Dragon on 12/07/2022 07:24 amThe very prominent map of suppliers spread across the whole of the US tells us what their main selling point is going to be....Little bit of cynicism there.. but exactly what came into my mind when I saw that page. It wasn't the lander or the tech that was prominent but "look how we touch every state" that we front and center.One of the reasons why it's hard to like Blue management.
New thread for the lunar lander proposed by the Blue Origin lead ‘National Team’ for HLS Option B contract:Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/06/2022 08:02 pmhttps://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232QuoteThe 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/
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232QuoteThe 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/
Little bit of cynicism there.. but exactly what came into my mind when I saw that page. It wasn't the lander or the tech that was prominent but "look how we touch every state" that we front and center.One of the reasons why it's hard to like Blue management.Quote from: Welsh Dragon on 12/07/2022 07:24 amThe very prominent map of suppliers spread across the whole of the US tells us what their main selling point is going to be....
If for example NASA would select Northrop-Grumman for the SLD award, then it is given that we will see another round of protests with GAO, followed by the inevitable lawsuits once GAO rejects the protest. One of the points will be that "Blue offers much more value for money" (translation: "Look Ma! Jobs in all 50 States!")
Quote from: woods170 on 12/07/2022 10:30 amIf for example NASA would select Northrop-Grumman for the SLD award, then it is given that we will see another round of protests with GAO, followed by the inevitable lawsuits once GAO rejects the protest. One of the points will be that "Blue offers much more value for money" (translation: "Look Ma! Jobs in all 50 States!")Quite possibly, but they would lose again unless such ‘diversity of sourcing’ was a high enough priority evaluation criterion. I haven’t looked at NASA’s RFP docs to know for this contract whether that is a key criterion?
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/07/2022 01:10 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/07/2022 10:30 amIf for example NASA would select Northrop-Grumman for the SLD award, then it is given that we will see another round of protests with GAO, followed by the inevitable lawsuits once GAO rejects the protest. One of the points will be that "Blue offers much more value for money" (translation: "Look Ma! Jobs in all 50 States!")Quite possibly, but they would lose again unless such ‘diversity of sourcing’ was a high enough priority evaluation criterion. I haven’t looked at NASA’s RFP docs to know for this contract whether that is a key criterion?It isn't. There is some incentives for using small businesses as contractors but jobs in key districts doesn't give you bonus points.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/06/2022 08:57 pmThis sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.probably more the case that more contractors means better chance at winning with congress
Quote from: deadman1204 on 12/06/2022 09:41 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/06/2022 08:57 pmThis sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.probably more the case that more contractors means better chance at winning with congressA note from recent history: NASA made the source selection for Option A. Congress screamed bloody murder, but NASA had the statutory authority to make the selection, not Congress.I'm sure that a lot of Bill's buddies have pulled him aside for a quiet word, and he in turn has had a quiet word with the relevant deputies, but last time this was done, the Administrator wasn't on the source selection committee. App. P lays out essentially the same selection scoring and criteria as Option A did, and "ability to optimally disburse pork" isn't on the list.I'm not naive; there will be political pressure. But NASA has to live with what they select. If it strokes the right districts but can't do the mission at an affordable price, it's probably not going to be selected.
I've made this point on other threads, but it bears repeating in this context: If Starship works even a little bit, methalox to NRHO is about to become at least 10x cheaper than it is currently. Any architecture that de-features itself in order to minimize propellant costs is making a terrible mistake.From what's been made public about Blue's offering, I see no evidence that they haven't made this exact mistake.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 05:18 amQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/06/2022 09:41 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/06/2022 08:57 pmThis sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.probably more the case that more contractors means better chance at winning with congressA note from recent history: NASA made the source selection for Option A. Congress screamed bloody murder, but NASA had the statutory authority to make the selection, not Congress.I'm sure that a lot of Bill's buddies have pulled him aside for a quiet word, and he in turn has had a quiet word with the relevant deputies, but last time this was done, the Administrator wasn't on the source selection committee. App. P lays out essentially the same selection scoring and criteria as Option A did, and "ability to optimally disburse pork" isn't on the list.I'm not naive; there will be political pressure. But NASA has to live with what they select. If it strokes the right districts but can't do the mission at an affordable price, it's probably not going to be selected.Emphasis mine.IMO the reason that US Congress was in no position to directly/indirectly influence the decision for HLS Option A, was because Option A was awarded during the limbo period in-between two NASA administrators. It was the interim NASA management, in between the stints of Jim Bridenstine and Bill Nelson, who awarded Option A to SpaceX. Jim Bridenstine was no longer in office, and Bill Nelson was not yet in office. That is a great time to get crucial decisions made, without unwanted intervention/influencing by folks like Shelby, Cantwell, Wicker, etc. Such influence is mostly exerted thru the politically appointed NASA administrators. Fine example: how senator Shelby shot down Bridenstine's efforts, to get Orion flying on another launcher. It took just one phone call. Another example: how any talk at NASA, about using depots in the "return to Moon" efforts, was shot down by Shelby. It took just one phone call in which Shelby threatened to defund an entire NASA program, if they didn't clam up about depots.Third example: it was efforts by senators Cantwell and Wicker that led to NASA now solliciting for a second HLS provider. But had it been up to NASA, than no second lander was needed. Their own reporting said that there is no market to sustain a second HLS provider in the long run, unlike for example the situation at CCP.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/08/2022 08:01 amQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 05:18 amQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/06/2022 09:41 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/06/2022 08:57 pmThis sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.probably more the case that more contractors means better chance at winning with congressA note from recent history: NASA made the source selection for Option A. Congress screamed bloody murder, but NASA had the statutory authority to make the selection, not Congress.I'm sure that a lot of Bill's buddies have pulled him aside for a quiet word, and he in turn has had a quiet word with the relevant deputies, but last time this was done, the Administrator wasn't on the source selection committee. App. P lays out essentially the same selection scoring and criteria as Option A did, and "ability to optimally disburse pork" isn't on the list.I'm not naive; there will be political pressure. But NASA has to live with what they select. If it strokes the right districts but can't do the mission at an affordable price, it's probably not going to be selected.Emphasis mine.IMO the reason that US Congress was in no position to directly/indirectly influence the decision for HLS Option A, was because Option A was awarded during the limbo period in-between two NASA administrators. It was the interim NASA management, in between the stints of Jim Bridenstine and Bill Nelson, who awarded Option A to SpaceX. Jim Bridenstine was no longer in office, and Bill Nelson was not yet in office. That is a great time to get crucial decisions made, without unwanted intervention/influencing by folks like Shelby, Cantwell, Wicker, etc. Such influence is mostly exerted thru the politically appointed NASA administrators. Fine example: how senator Shelby shot down Bridenstine's efforts, to get Orion flying on another launcher. It took just one phone call. Another example: how any talk at NASA, about using depots in the "return to Moon" efforts, was shot down by Shelby. It took just one phone call in which Shelby threatened to defund an entire NASA program, if they didn't clam up about depots.Third example: it was efforts by senators Cantwell and Wicker that led to NASA now solliciting for a second HLS provider. But had it been up to NASA, than no second lander was needed. Their own reporting said that there is no market to sustain a second HLS provider in the long run, unlike for example the situation at CCP.I think that the same decision would have been made under Bridenstine. Both Lueders (HEO Director at the time and the selection officer for Option A) and Jurczyk (Associate Director and Acting Administrator at that time) were named by Bridenstine. It's hard to say what would have happened for Option A under Nelson. Nelson replaced Lueders with Jim Free and Jurczyk retired (and was replaced by Associate Administrator Bob Cabana). NASA always wanted 2 providers, the decision to go with one provider was made given the funding that was available. LETS (the precursor to Appendix P) was announced on the same day that the Option A award was made. In any event, we may end up with the same decision with Appendix P and Option B that would have been made had 2 providers been selected for Option A.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/08/2022 01:54 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/08/2022 08:01 amQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 05:18 amQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/06/2022 09:41 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/06/2022 08:57 pmThis sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.probably more the case that more contractors means better chance at winning with congressA note from recent history: NASA made the source selection for Option A. Congress screamed bloody murder, but NASA had the statutory authority to make the selection, not Congress.I'm sure that a lot of Bill's buddies have pulled him aside for a quiet word, and he in turn has had a quiet word with the relevant deputies, but last time this was done, the Administrator wasn't on the source selection committee. App. P lays out essentially the same selection scoring and criteria as Option A did, and "ability to optimally disburse pork" isn't on the list.I'm not naive; there will be political pressure. But NASA has to live with what they select. If it strokes the right districts but can't do the mission at an affordable price, it's probably not going to be selected.Emphasis mine.IMO the reason that US Congress was in no position to directly/indirectly influence the decision for HLS Option A, was because Option A was awarded during the limbo period in-between two NASA administrators. It was the interim NASA management, in between the stints of Jim Bridenstine and Bill Nelson, who awarded Option A to SpaceX. Jim Bridenstine was no longer in office, and Bill Nelson was not yet in office. That is a great time to get crucial decisions made, without unwanted intervention/influencing by folks like Shelby, Cantwell, Wicker, etc. Such influence is mostly exerted thru the politically appointed NASA administrators. Fine example: how senator Shelby shot down Bridenstine's efforts, to get Orion flying on another launcher. It took just one phone call. Another example: how any talk at NASA, about using depots in the "return to Moon" efforts, was shot down by Shelby. It took just one phone call in which Shelby threatened to defund an entire NASA program, if they didn't clam up about depots.Third example: it was efforts by senators Cantwell and Wicker that led to NASA now solliciting for a second HLS provider. But had it been up to NASA, than no second lander was needed. Their own reporting said that there is no market to sustain a second HLS provider in the long run, unlike for example the situation at CCP.I think that the same decision would have been made under Bridenstine. Both Lueders (HEO Director at the time and the selection officer for Option A) and Jurczyk (Associate Director and Acting Administrator at that time) were named by Bridenstine. It's hard to say what would have happened for Option A under Nelson. Nelson replaced Lueders with Jim Free and Jurczyk retired (and was replaced by Associate Administrator Bob Cabana). NASA always wanted 2 providers, the decision to go with one provider was made given the funding that was available. LETS (the precursor to Appendix P) was announced on the same day that the Option A award was made. In any event, we may end up with the same decision with Appendix P and Option B that would have been made had 2 providers been selected for Option A.This 2 providers is a myth created by blue origin. NASA never "always wanted" two. They said it would be nice to get 2. After only spaceX one and blue started spending tons of money in congress, the tune changed to "wanted 2" and then "always wanted 2" because that statement played nice with all the pressure from congress.
While NASA reserves the right to change its HLS acquisition strategy at any time, NASA is currently planning to award Base Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) to up to four contractors; exercise Option A CLINs for up to two of those contractors; and later exercise Option B CLINs for either one or two Option A contractors.
Politics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 05:24 amI've made this point on other threads, but it bears repeating in this context: If Starship works even a little bit, methalox to NRHO is about to become at least 10x cheaper than it is currently. Any architecture that de-features itself in order to minimize propellant costs is making a terrible mistake.From what's been made public about Blue's offering, I see no evidence that they haven't made this exact mistake.To make this part of an Appendix P HLS bid, SpaceX must formally become part of the bid. BO cannot say "we will reload from a SpaceX depot" unless SpaceX agrees and is contractually committed. We also don't know yet how hard it is to implement the customer side of a depot-to-customer transfer. for all we know at this point, the customer may need to dock to a 9-meter docking ring. this also makes the viability of the Starship program a single point of failure for the Artemis program. Avoiding this is just about the only legitimate reason to have Appendix P in the first place.
NASA always said that they had a preference for 2. They said so verbally on a number of occasions. One was a possibility but it wasn't their preference. The BAA reflects that too (see below). The base period could have up to 4 providers but Options A and B had a maximum of 2. It's possible that Appendix P will have no awards if the bids are too high or if Congress doesn't provide enough funding for HLS. Incidentally, Option B and Appendix P have a lot of optional CLINs which makes it possible for NASA to drop a provider if they are unhappy with their performance.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/08/2022 03:11 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 05:24 amI've made this point on other threads, but it bears repeating in this context: If Starship works even a little bit, methalox to NRHO is about to become at least 10x cheaper than it is currently. Any architecture that de-features itself in order to minimize propellant costs is making a terrible mistake.From what's been made public about Blue's offering, I see no evidence that they haven't made this exact mistake.To make this part of an Appendix P HLS bid, SpaceX must formally become part of the bid. BO cannot say "we will reload from a SpaceX depot" unless SpaceX agrees and is contractually committed. We also don't know yet how hard it is to implement the customer side of a depot-to-customer transfer. for all we know at this point, the customer may need to dock to a 9-meter docking ring. this also makes the viability of the Starship program a single point of failure for the Artemis program. Avoiding this is just about the only legitimate reason to have Appendix P in the first place.I'm not sure this is right. BO/NT would absolutely have to state how they were getting their prop to NRHO, but it could have a third-party relationship with SpaceX as a simple subcontractor.The overlapping sources problem is indeed the sticking point here. However, there's a solution: SpaceX could contract with BO/NT to deliver prop at $xx/t. It would then have four ways, in ascending order of cost, of achieving that contract:1) Starship tankers filling a depot, and the depot filling up the BO/NT components.2) Starship tankers with depot-like attachments to directly fill BO/NT.3) If Starship is grounded but the depot's on station, FHE's or FH2R's filling a depot.4) If Starship is grounded and the depot's offline, FHE's of FH2R's directly filling the BO/NT stuff.SpaceX can then do the actuarial jiggery-pokery to decide what their risk-adjusted cost is for all of these items, and then apply whatever markup they're going to provide. I can't imagine that, even with the risk-adjustment, this wouldn't result in a 10x reduction in methalox costs.Of course, if BO/NT is still planning on using the BE-7, then they need hydrolox, and that's a whole 'nother story. But Dynetics might be interested in the same deal.A necessary condition for this working is that SpaceX commit to supporting the docking and refueling interfaces as an open standard, which slows them down a bit. But what they get in return is first-mover advantages in open-market cislunar refueling, which will be quite lucrative if Artemis is successful, and even more lucrative if the other SLT winner can make a go of its own private tourist biz. In addition, staging NASA interplanetary missions from such a depot would be quite handy, with the reduced prop costs more than covering the extra 400ish m/s needed to get the probe into an HEEO departure orbit.
Theoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 12/08/2022 08:18 pmTheoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.I tend to agree. But Dynetics would be more than happy to share. And they could clean BO/NT's clock with a descent-ascent system with a liberal prop budget.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 08:59 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/08/2022 08:18 pmTheoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.I tend to agree. But Dynetics would be more than happy to share. And they could clean BO/NT's clock with a descent-ascent system with a liberal prop budget.NASA is looking redundant lander systems so would expect alternative LV to SS for supply of Dynetic's landers fuel. Vulcan was LV of choice as it can deliver fuel directly to lunar orbit.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/08/2022 02:17 pmNASA always said that they had a preference for 2. They said so verbally on a number of occasions. One was a possibility but it wasn't their preference. The BAA reflects that too (see below). The base period could have up to 4 providers but Options A and B had a maximum of 2. It's possible that Appendix P will have no awards if the bids are too high or if Congress doesn't provide enough funding for HLS. Incidentally, Option B and Appendix P have a lot of optional CLINs which makes it possible for NASA to drop a provider if they are unhappy with their performance. HLS wasn't even a commercial fixed-cost program at first. It seemed obvious that NASA was going to select one HLS provider, presumably an integrated lander system to launch on SLS, until they surprisingly announced that this was going to be a commercial contract. Only then did it become plausible to select two providers.There's a ton of revisionist history on this topic.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/08/2022 10:45 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 08:59 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/08/2022 08:18 pmTheoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.I tend to agree. But Dynetics would be more than happy to share. And they could clean BO/NT's clock with a descent-ascent system with a liberal prop budget.NASA is looking redundant lander systems so would expect alternative LV to SS for supply of Dynetic's landers fuel. Vulcan was LV of choice as it can deliver fuel directly to lunar orbit.Yup, and I had a solution to that problem up-thread: SpaceX bids prop on a $/t basis, not on a per-launch basis. If Starship's down for whatever reason, they have to use FH and eat the cost difference. Setting the price includes the risk that they might have to do that.
The primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/09/2022 04:32 pmThe primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.The latest version of the BAA says that the anticipated date for the award is June 6, 2023. The BAA has a bunch of optional milestones in case that NASA doesn't receive the requested funding. So no renegotiation should be necessary. As of now, both the House and Senate proposed FY23 Appropriations bills fully fund HLS.
As is FH can't delivery propellant to lunar orbit . Upperstage can't survive 4 day without extensive modification. Might be able to build tanker based on Dragon XL bus but why would they if SS is their future. Most US only have life of few hours, Centuar and SS are about only stages capable of multiday missions. Photon is more of kick stage/OTV than US.
[...] being the sole provider of methalox in cislunar is a pretty big deal, likely with [...] extremely good profit margins
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/09/2022 08:52 pm[...] being the sole provider of methalox in cislunar is a pretty big deal, likely with [...] extremely good profit marginsBeing the customer of a monopoly provider involves some pretty extreme tolerance to price distortions. The "market price" of a commodity tends to be just above the cost level of the second most efficient provider....
Quote from: sdsds on 12/09/2022 08:59 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/09/2022 08:52 pm[...] being the sole provider of methalox in cislunar is a pretty big deal, likely with [...] extremely good profit marginsBeing the customer of a monopoly provider involves some pretty extreme tolerance to price distortions. The "market price" of a commodity tends to be just above the cost level of the second most efficient provider....If the monopoly provider can gouge pretty hard and still be 5-10x cheaper than any other alternative, that's still a pretty good deal.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/09/2022 05:04 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/09/2022 04:32 pmThe primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.The latest version of the BAA says that the anticipated date for the award is June 6, 2023. The BAA has a bunch of optional milestones in case that NASA doesn't receive the requested funding. So no renegotiation should be necessary. As of now, both the House and Senate proposed FY23 Appropriations bills fully fund HLS.How likely is this congress to pass a budget before it ends? Cause I have zero faith in one passing next year with divided chambers.
If there are two providers, it's not a monopoly. It's a market with a dominant provider. It's not gouging to charge just barely less than the second provider, it's market economics. A monopoly picks a price that maximizes net revenue. If the market is elastic, lower prices result in higher sales but lower profit per sale, and there is a point on this curve that maximizes total profit. The existence of a second provider puts a cap on the price the first provider can charge.
Quote from: clongton on 12/07/2022 12:22 pmPolitics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive. I hold out a little hope that National Team has developed something innovative this round, maybe leveraging New Glenn work, that has some promise of being operationally competitive with Lunar Starship. But the National Team’s pork map strongly indicates otherwise.
Rumors and information tidbits pointed to Blue using a refueable and reusable tanker to ferry propellant to a transfer stage and single stage lander in NHRO. A simplified version of National Teams architecture. New Glenn upper stage = tanker. Transfer stage is lander without legs and a crew cab. The simplest solution is to use all common Blue Origin hardware. With this many chefs in the kitchen I have a REAL hard time seeing a simple and innovative solution come about. Far more likely that the proposal be constructed of 3 unique vehicles, just like the last proposal, with each of the big contractors looking to carve out the largest peice of the pie for themselves. Lockheed "Orion derived" ascent stage, Blue moon derived descent stage, Boeing using what hardware they can to build a transfer stage.I can't see any other breakdown where the 3 major contractors would be content with having a smaller role for the sake of offering a less complex solution.
Quote from: GWH on 12/10/2022 05:23 amRumors and information tidbits pointed to Blue using a refueable and reusable tanker to ferry propellant to a transfer stage and single stage lander in NHRO. A simplified version of National Teams architecture. New Glenn upper stage = tanker. Transfer stage is lander without legs and a crew cab. The simplest solution is to use all common Blue Origin hardware. With this many chefs in the kitchen I have a REAL hard time seeing a simple and innovative solution come about. Far more likely that the proposal be constructed of 3 unique vehicles, just like the last proposal, with each of the big contractors looking to carve out the largest peice of the pie for themselves. Lockheed "Orion derived" ascent stage, Blue moon derived descent stage, Boeing using what hardware they can to build a transfer stage.I can't see any other breakdown where the 3 major contractors would be content with having a smaller role for the sake of offering a less complex solution.The use of New Glenn for prop transport and the AE/DE/TE triumvirate can both be true. But it requires betting the farm on New Glenn. Maybe that's a good reason for Blue to be the prime; if things go pear-shaped, they're on the hook to pay their subs.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 12/08/2022 03:04 pmQuote from: clongton on 12/07/2022 12:22 pmPolitics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive. I hold out a little hope that National Team has developed something innovative this round, maybe leveraging New Glenn work, that has some promise of being operationally competitive with Lunar Starship. But the National Team’s pork map strongly indicates otherwise.Rumors and information tidbits pointed to Blue using a refueable and reusable tanker to ferry propellant to a transfer stage and single stage lander in NHRO. A simplified version of National Teams architecture. New Glenn upper stage = tanker. Transfer stage is lander without legs and a crew cab. The simplest solution is to use all common Blue Origin hardware. With this many chefs in the kitchen I have a REAL hard time seeing a simple and innovative solution come about. Far more likely that the proposal be constructed of 3 unique vehicles, just like the last proposal, with each of the big contractors looking to carve out the largest peice of the pie for themselves. Lockheed "Orion derived" ascent stage, Blue moon derived descent stage, Boeing using what hardware they can to build a transfer stage.I can't see any other breakdown where the 3 major contractors would be content with having a smaller role for the sake of offering a less complex solution.
My personal observation having worked on more than one large (>$1B) successful aerospace program and large failures: The bigger your "team" of companies when tackling a contract, the more likely you are to fail to achieve the technical objectives of the program.A system where the customer (NASA) owns the requirements and are the sole arbiters of whether/how they can be modified, just doesn't lend itself well (in our times) to multiple partners and subcontractors. It fosters an unworkable bureaucracy and culture of infighting.Overcoming these forces requires near "limitless" money and focused national will. Minimizing subcontracts and interface requirement documents between companies maximizes your chance for technical success. Key metric: How many weeks does it take to modify a requirement
The use of New Glenn for prop transport and the AE/DE/TE triumvirate can both be true. But it requires betting the farm on New Glenn. Maybe that's a good reason for Blue to be the prime; if things go pear-shaped, they're on the hook to pay their subs.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/10/2022 09:15 pmThe use of New Glenn for prop transport and the AE/DE/TE triumvirate can both be true. But it requires betting the farm on New Glenn. Maybe that's a good reason for Blue to be the prime; if things go pear-shaped, they're on the hook to pay their subs.Betting the farm on New Glenn? No disrespect but if they cant execute on New Glenn by 2028+ then BO has no business bidding on any kind of contract like this.They should be betting the farm, they seem to need the motivation.
[Replying to methalox delivery discussions upthread - couldn't seem to quote on mobile]Alternatively, if Dynetics wins, their architecture (as of Humans to Mars summit 2022) already includes starship as a refuelling option alongside Vulcan. That eliminates monopoly; provides redundancy; and increases commonality: both landers use methalox, and if ALPACA can be refilled from either SS or Centaur, then there is (probably) a standardised refuelling interface on each of them - allowing vastly increased flexibility for both ALPACA and Starship (and anyone else).
[Replying to methalox delivery discussions upthread - couldn't seem to quote on mobile]Alternatively, if Dynetics wins, their architecture (as of Humans to Mars summit 2022) already includes starship as a refuelling option alongside Vulcan.
Quote from: jdon759 on 12/11/2022 08:13 pm[Replying to methalox delivery discussions upthread - couldn't seem to quote on mobile]Alternatively, if Dynetics wins, their architecture (as of Humans to Mars summit 2022) already includes starship as a refuelling option alongside Vulcan. That potentially mis-characterizes what Andy Crocker (Dynetics Human Landing Systems Program Manager) said and showed at the H2M presentation. He said Vulcan or Starship could launch the Dynetics propellant tankers. He did not say A Dynetics vehicle could transfer propellant from (or to) a SpaceX vehicle.
However, there's still a remaining question: Because the likely crop of medium-to-heavy, non-refuelable launchers will give you 12-15t of prop to NRHO, and a Starship tanker might give you as much as 530t with full refueling, do you bias your design for higher performance and assume a large prop load, or do you design for the lowest common denominator? If you bet big and win, you clean up. But if you bet big and Starship has a problem or is more expensive than you thought, the extra launch costs may kill you.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/12/2022 02:02 amHowever, there's still a remaining question: Because the likely crop of medium-to-heavy, non-refuelable launchers will give you 12-15t of prop to NRHO, and a Starship tanker might give you as much as 530t with full refueling, do you bias your design for higher performance and assume a large prop load, or do you design for the lowest common denominator? If you bet big and win, you clean up. But if you bet big and Starship has a problem or is more expensive than you thought, the extra launch costs may kill you.What I'd do is attach some very large tanks to Gateway, and then have NASA pay anyone who can to deliver fuel to those tanks. If they do it for cheap/kg, they get more profit, otherwise, they get less profit. Landers can refuel at Gateway (logical, but NASA would have to sell them fuel), and the amount of fuel delivered per tanker is no longer a relevant part of the lander's design nor operations. It also makes it easier to evntually *siphon* lunar or other extraterrestrial fuel into the system.
What the hell is Boeing doing on National Team Mark II?
larger tanks using a new manufacturing technique
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/05/2023 08:58 pmWhat the hell is Boeing doing on National Team Mark II?Quotelarger tanks using a new manufacturing technique...Now large hydrolox composite tanks is something Boeing has a fair bit of experience with and is something Blue presumably needs...
OK, but why are they are singled out as being part of the "team", and not just being a contractor?
Above quote is from Option A source selection and while the design there is probably a fair bit different from they have now, the principle of needing lighter tanks remains. Now large hydrolox composite tanks is something Boeing has a fair bit of experience with and is something Blue presumably needs. So in the best world I imagine that's what they're doing. Maybe a couple extra systems associated with that as well. Please don't give them an element Blue.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/03/boeing-all-composite-cryo-tank/I'm still hoping my architecture prediction is close to accurate.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/05/2023 08:58 pmWhat the hell is Boeing doing on National Team Mark II?Quotelarger tanks using a new manufacturing techniqueAbove quote is from Option A source selection and while the design there is probably a fair bit different from they have now, the principle of needing lighter tanks remains. Now large hydrolox composite tanks is something Boeing has a fair bit of experience with and is something Blue presumably needs. So in the best world I imagine that's what they're doing. Maybe a couple extra systems associated with that as well. Please don't give them an element Blue.https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/03/boeing-all-composite-cryo-tank/I'm still hoping my architecture prediction is close to accurate.
I believe you made an error in the ΔV values for the DAE LLO to LS and LS to LLO. 2,855 and 2,810 I think are your values for NRHO to LS and LS to NRHO, whereas it should be 2,060 and 2,015 because TE does NRHO to LLO. Although when I did it I got roughly similar propellant mass to NRHO (40 tons), but that was with 6 tons of propulsion stage masses instead of 0.88 and 2.97 tons. If you want to see my math and be baffled check out (and hopefully not find errors) . (please ignore the fact that it's a graphing software)This brings up the question of subLLO trajectory vs docking in LLO, because if you don't do either (like in the diagram); TE uses like 1/3 of the propellant the DAE does. SubLLO means that if DAE has issues starting engines you only have maybe an hour to solve before the rapid breaking manoeuvre occurs. Docking introduces LLO mission critical docking. I naturally lean towards subLLO because that's the first one I thought of, but docking could easily be safer (and better mass wise). alt mathIt is certainly more mass to NRHO. But if you have a fully reusable launch solution; more dumb propellant mass to NRHO is probably cheaper than the expendable hardware. The ultimate question here is how much do Blue believe in themselves? Because that's what dictates what's acceptable. This is the most mentally simulated I've been for a while so cheers for replying
"That architecture looks immensely complicated and high risk."It does, and frankly the SpaceX version is also troublingly complex and high risk, it seems to me. How it makes one long for Apollo's one-shot approach. What Apollo couldn't (or rather didn't) do was to pre-land equipment and supplies, which could be done now with the larger CLPS landers. It would be really good to see a plan using one of our big sparkly new launchers to fly a one-shot mission augmented with pre-landed payloads.
Quote from: Hug on 03/05/2023 11:17 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/05/2023 08:58 pmWhat the hell is Boeing doing on National Team Mark II?Quotelarger tanks using a new manufacturing technique...Now large hydrolox composite tanks is something Boeing has a fair bit of experience with and is something Blue presumably needs...OK, but why are they are singled out as being part of the "team", and not just being a contractor?I would imagine that everyone on the team is sharing the risk of the program (and any reward), but if you are a contractor then you get paid for whatever you do, regardless if the end result is successful or not.Not sure we still understand...
Quote from: Phil Stooke on 03/06/2023 05:49 pm"That architecture looks immensely complicated and high risk."It does, and frankly the SpaceX version is also troublingly complex and high risk, it seems to me. How it makes one long for Apollo's one-shot approach. What Apollo couldn't (or rather didn't) do was to pre-land equipment and supplies, which could be done now with the larger CLPS landers. It would be really good to see a plan using one of our big sparkly new launchers to fly a one-shot mission augmented with pre-landed payloads.By definition, any HLS architecture with even one reusable component requires refueling in NRHO. That's an irreducible minimum of complexity.The real question is whether there's something that has to happen in LEO that can cause the whole mission to fail. As a practical matter, the NRHO refueling tanker has to be loaded via one or more refuelings in LEO.Note that SpaceX is not an exception here. In sustaining operations, lift tankers will refuel a depot in LEO, and then either one lift tanker or the depot itself will fly to NRHO to refuel the LSS.Tankers have cheap payloads--propellant. So the real risk is losing one during launch or during RPOD with the depot or the tanker that's going on to NRHO. If you have cheap launch and high cadence, that risk in LEO is minimal. If you lose one, you just launch another. On the other hand, if launchers are expensive or have low cadence, loss of a tanker is a big deal.I worry more about low cadence for any non-Starship CLV than I do about cost. The risk of a failed launch is easy to actuarially average into the bid for the SLD/SLT service. But if low cadence following a failure makes the prop already in LEO boil away, that's a problem.
Dynetics will use Vulcan to deliver fuel directly to NRHO so no LEO operations required. Long term storage of fuel at NRHO is requirements as they need multiple fuel launches. The delays from losing one shouldn't be problem.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2023 07:45 pmDynetics will use Vulcan to deliver fuel directly to NRHO so no LEO operations required. Long term storage of fuel at NRHO is requirements as they need multiple fuel launches. The delays from losing one shouldn't be problem.But that means that you have to risk your expensive reusable vehicle doing multiple risky RPODs in NRHO, where any mishap is a loss of mission, as opposed to doing one risky RPOD in NRHO and multiple low-stakes ones in LEO.I think Dynetics has decided that this trade is worth it, because they're probably going to be using drop tanks. But they've also decided on a single DAE architecture that does NRHO-LS-NRHO all by itself (albeit losing the drop tanks a bit before landing). Even with the drop tanks, though, the crew module that can be landed and returned to NRHO is extremely small for a crew of 4 for 5 days--much smaller than Nat Team could deliver for the same number of VC6 launches.This is why I still think that Dynetics' best bet is to plan to use Starship to deliver prop, but size all of the delivery tanks so multiple tanks can be stacked in the Starship payload bay, or individual ones can be launched on a VC6. If Starship works, they're golden. If Starship fails completely, they're toast. But they're also toast if their crew module is so small that NASA doubts it can fulfill the requirements.
If Dynetics aren't designing to meet NASA requirements then they are in wrong business.
But that means that you have to risk your expensive reusable vehicle doing multiple risky RPODs in NRHO, where any mishap is a loss of mission, as opposed to doing one risky RPOD in NRHO and multiple low-stakes ones in LEO.I think Dynetics has decided that this trade is worth it, because they're probably going to be using drop tanks
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/07/2023 11:54 pmBut that means that you have to risk your expensive reusable vehicle doing multiple risky RPODs in NRHO, where any mishap is a loss of mission, as opposed to doing one risky RPOD in NRHO and multiple low-stakes ones in LEO.I think Dynetics has decided that this trade is worth it, because they're probably going to be using drop tanksOk so at a baseline, it's 4 or 5 (youtu.be/RUchpnV2Uq0?t=1424) launches of Vulcan + the associated propellant spacecraft to deliver the 40 tons (youtu.be/RUchpnV2Uq0?t=1817) of methane liquid oxygen propellant. Droptanks got dropped in August 2020 (which is why they had issues with the mass margins; they didn't have time to mature the design). The whole 4/5 RPOD with Alpaca is presumably part of the reason why Dynetics want the NRHO depot (+presumably reducing boiloff to help with launch timeframes). Starship gets ~4 launches to do same. That's because you have to move all that Starship dry mass; it's better at scale, delivering 200 tons only requires 8 launches (so it would like a depot as well).
Quote from: Hug on 03/08/2023 05:15 amQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/07/2023 11:54 pmBut that means that you have to risk your expensive reusable vehicle doing multiple risky RPODs in NRHO, where any mishap is a loss of mission, as opposed to doing one risky RPOD in NRHO and multiple low-stakes ones in LEO.I think Dynetics has decided that this trade is worth it, because they're probably going to be using drop tanksOk so at a baseline, it's 4 or 5 (youtu.be/RUchpnV2Uq0?t=1424) launches of Vulcan + the associated propellant spacecraft to deliver the 40 tons (youtu.be/RUchpnV2Uq0?t=1817) of methane liquid oxygen propellant. Droptanks got dropped in August 2020 (which is why they had issues with the mass margins; they didn't have time to mature the design). The whole 4/5 RPOD with Alpaca is presumably part of the reason why Dynetics want the NRHO depot (+presumably reducing boiloff to help with launch timeframes). Starship gets ~4 launches to do same. That's because you have to move all that Starship dry mass; it's better at scale, delivering 200 tons only requires 8 launches (so it would like a depot as well).I didn't know they'd lost the drop tanks. Kinda too bad, but it does indeed lower complexity.With no drop tanks, and 4 VC6 tanker launches, the crew module gets really small. I get something like 4.4t, which will be pretty cozy for a crew of 4 and a mission duration of 5 days. (I'm doing the mission duration from memory; is that right for the SLD specs?)
I thought 4 crew capacity was more for ferrying them back fore to habitat.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/08/2023 11:31 pmI thought 4 crew capacity was more for ferrying them back fore to habitat.You're looking for Attachment A01 from Appendix P.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/09/2023 04:37 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/08/2023 11:31 pmI thought 4 crew capacity was more for ferrying them back fore to habitat.You're looking for Attachment A01 from Appendix P. Still ferrying crew just allows few days for it. Is that 5days the typical time in lander or worst case scenerio.
