The National Team (Blue Origin etc) lunar lander for HLS SLD (App P)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New thread for the lunar lander proposed by the Blue Origin lead ‘National Team’ for HLS Option B contract:

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232

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 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.

[butters]

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?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/lockheedmartin/status/1600235077279313920

#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.

https://twitter.com/draperlab/status/1600235783469744128

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.

twitter.com/boeingspace/status/1600236707281915906

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.

https://twitter.com/astrobotic/status/1600237902729924608

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

[TheRadicalModerate]

This sounds a bit like somebody has stealth-cancelled the BE-7, or at least back-burnered it.

[jadebenn]

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?

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?

[deadman1204]

This 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

[aperh1988]

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?

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?

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1600236438846640128

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.

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...

[TrevorMonty]

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?

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

[lrk]

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?

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

That would be interesting, but if it were the case I would expect ULA to be a subcontractor in the team, since they own Centaur.  Boeing and LM own ULA but have no special technical insight or ownership of ULA tech. 

Edit: Also Dynetics was previously partnered with ULA for their Centaur-based refueling tanker, which I would expect to continue in this round.  Also partnering with the National Team would be a potential conflict of interest. 

[jadebenn]

Yeah if this was Centaur I would expect to see ULA. Boeing and Lockheed still own certain rights and IP from what I've heard, but it's really a paperwork thing at this point: They don't actually have any people who are familiar with them.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

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...

Yes, as we saw with the first HLS award to SpaceX, it’s NASA that makes the choice. So they need to address the weaknesses in their original proposal.

However, political expediency may well help to ensure funding. May be Blue is worried that such funding is at risk and are looking to bolster the program.

[Eric Hedman]

What are the odds that they have gotten creative with more of a clean sheet design for a fully reusable lander from the beginning?

[Eric Hedman]

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?

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?

I wonder if it might be based on Blue's reusable upper stage for New Glenn.

[Welsh Dragon]

The very prominent map of suppliers spread across the whole of the US tells us what their main selling point is going to be....

[kevinof]

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 was front and center.

One of the reasons why it's hard to like Blue management.

The very prominent map of suppliers spread across the whole of the US tells us what their main selling point is going to be....

[woods170]

The 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.

Your cynicism is entirely justified. Last time, Blue lost out to SpaceX for two reasons:
- The National Team propopal was sub-optimal
- NASA was not appropriated enough funding to select TWO contractors for HLS option A.

The SLD solicitation exists because US Congress was not happy with Option A going to SpaceX only. So, additional funding was found to select a second contractor for HLS.
That second HLS contractor/provider is therefore mainly a political creation, much like SLS is. Naturally the providers vying for those Congressionally provided taxpayer's dollars will focus their attention primarily on pleasing the politicians. Which means just one thing: showing how much bacon they can bring home to the USA (translation: "Look Ma! Jobs in all 50 States!").

Blue et al. know very well that NASA selecting the "wrong" contractor would not sit well with certain people in US Congress. Because that is exactly what happened last time, and it got Blue et al. exactly what they wanted: another chance at winning a contract.

If for example NASA would select Northrop-Grumman for the SLD award, than 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!")

[tbellman]

New thread for the lunar lander proposed by the Blue Origin lead ‘National Team’ for HLS Option B contract:

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1600233901833695232

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/

This is not Option B.  Option B (of Appendix H) has already been awarded, to SpaceX Starship, and SpaceX Starship only.  This is Appendix P.

Can we get a thread rename?  As the thread starter, I guess you can make that change.

(Edit: fix quoting.)

[clongton]

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.

The very prominent map of suppliers spread across the whole of the US tells us what their main selling point is going to be....

Agree. Look at the map. Their core support is not the excellence of their design, but how many senators and congressional representatives will actually be "on their team". Call me old fashoned but just for that reason alone I hope they get nothing. Politics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive. Lots of reelection campaign contributions to fund (with our taxpayer dollars). I hate this crap. Why can't they just try to do a good job and deliver a superior product at a reasonable price? Let THAT be their submission.

Look at the map. Ask yourself why that footprint is so important. It's as if they are saying; "Look how politically powerful we will be. Lander? Oh, that. Don't worry. We'll figure that out later.". They appear to be prouder of their footprint than they are of their product submission. It's the 1st thing they made public. Poor North Dakota, and Arkansas. They're the only ones that don't get a piece of the pie.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

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!")

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?