HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P)

[yg1968]

This paragraph is a bit scary, it suggests that Artemis will end after Artemis XV XVI. So much for we are going back to the Moon to stay. Nelson made similar comments recently about exploring the Moon for a decade before going to Mars.

1.3.4 Sustaining Lunar Transportation (SLT) Services

Following successful crewed lunar demonstrations performed pursuant to this contract, NASA intends to separately procure transportation between Gateway and the lunar surface as commercial space transportation services. NASA estimates that it will require such services approximately once per year for a period of ten years.

[TheRadicalModerate]

This paragraph is a bit scary, it suggests that Artemis will end after Artemis XVI. So much for we are going back to the Moon to stay. Nelson made similar comments recently about exploring the Moon for a decade before going to Mars.

1.3.4 Sustaining Lunar Transportation (SLT) Services

Following successful crewed lunar demonstrations performed pursuant to this contract, NASA intends to separately procure transportation between Gateway and the lunar surface as commercial space transportation services. NASA estimates that it will require such services approximately once per year for a period of ten years.

To be fair, if they can't do any better than once per year after ten years, then it probably should end.

The whole SLD process remains constrained to the SLS/Orion Zone (similar to the Twilight Zone, but with much better production values).  But I'm pretty sure that everybody now understands that SLS/Orion is fundamentally untenable.  I think even MSFC understands that there's a singularity in the very near future where everything they've planned stops making sense.  Congress may not understand, but their business model is basically to take as much as they can for their own individual purposes while they still can, so they'll adapt to reality when it lands on them--or is caught in their giant mechanical arms.

Be not afraid.  The probability of things getting better instead of worse exceeds 50% by a fair amount.

[DistantTemple]

This paragraph is a bit scary, it suggests that Artemis will end after Artemis XVI. So much for we are going back to the Moon to stay. Nelson made similar comments recently about exploring the Moon for a decade before going to Mars.

1.3.4 Sustaining Lunar Transportation (SLT) Services

Following successful crewed lunar demonstrations performed pursuant to this contract, NASA intends to separately procure transportation between Gateway and the lunar surface as commercial space transportation services. NASA estimates that it will require such services approximately once per year for a period of ten years.

Just like SX's Dragon services to the ISS, now starting to deliver non-NASA crew, after the development and many initial launches being funded by NASA, so missions to the moon (IMO) will likely go the same way. There are loads of international partners who would like to send people to the moon. However it has been impossible up to now.
Obviously if the journey depends on SLS, this expectation is invalid.

"We" keep discussing how SX could use Dragon for launch and ELD of crew, or in he near future use Starship for the whole trip. I propose that NASA also sees this as imminent (in a few years), and expects SX to be able to profitably provide Lunar HSF, habitation and research facilities. Therefore it is pointless to plan more than annual (SLS) "Artemis" NASA missions. NASA must not commit to too many future expensive SLS launches, when they will be able to pay cheap commercial rates to SX (for a better service) in a handful of years!   

--- and beaten to the post by RadicalModerate...

[yg1968]

This paragraph is a bit scary, it suggests that Artemis will end after Artemis XVI. So much for we are going back to the Moon to stay. Nelson made similar comments recently about exploring the Moon for a decade before going to Mars.

1.3.4 Sustaining Lunar Transportation (SLT) Services

Following successful crewed lunar demonstrations performed pursuant to this contract, NASA intends to separately procure transportation between Gateway and the lunar surface as commercial space transportation services. NASA estimates that it will require such services approximately once per year for a period of ten years.

To be fair, if they can't do any better than once per year after ten years, then it probably should end.

The whole SLD process remains constrained to the SLS/Orion Zone (similar to the Twilight Zone, but with much better production values).  But I'm pretty sure that everybody now understands that SLS/Orion is fundamentally untenable.  I think even MSFC understands that there's a singularity in the very near future where everything they've planned stops making sense.  Congress may not understand, but their business model is basically to take as much as they can for their own individual purposes while they still can, so they'll adapt to reality when it lands on them--or is caught in their giant mechanical arms.

Be not afraid.  The probably of things getting better instead of worse exceeds 50% by a fair amount.

HLS is for services from NRHO to the lunar surface. How you get to NRHO is a separate issue. Artemis shouldn't be another Apollo. Artemis can out live SLS and Orion.

[yg1968]

Once we know what the price of a HLS-Starship mission is, we might get a better sense of whether the HLS program is worth preserving or not. The future of the HLS program doesn't depend on SLS and Orion it depends on how successful HLS-Starship and the second provider are. 

[TheRadicalModerate]

Once we know what the price of a HLS-Starship mission is, we might get a better sense of whether the HLS program is worth preserving or not. The future of the HLS program doesn't depend on SLS and Orion it depends on how successful HLS-Starship and the second provider are.

I agree that's a key datum.  But for now, the polite fiction that SLS/Orion is an immutable piece of the architecture must be maintained, and the solicitations will be written accordingly.

It's tempting to assume that the highest level of the Artemis transportation architecture consists of three chunks, one called "launch, transit to/from NRHO, and EDL", one called "HLS, which shuttles between NRHO and the lunar surface", and one called "Gateway, where the other two chunks move the spam from one can to another".  And from a procurement standpoint, that's even more tempting, because it's sufficiently plug-n-play that each chunk can be managed cleanly, even if there are multiple providers for some of the chunks.

But it's blindingly obvious that LSS will stage crews from LEO all the way to lunar surface and back just fine, given a little bit of risk reduction on refueling in whatever cislunar orbit you choose, and doing so will save billions of dollars.  That doesn't necessarily break the three-chunk architecture, but it does kinda cry out for an alternative where the three chunks get reduced to two chunks in some cases, and even eventually to one chunk.  I expect all of those variants to be called "Artemis", but I also expect that the procurement and management will have to become more... flexible.

[Paul451]

I expect all of those variants to be called "Artemis"

Or perhaps very pointedly not called Artemis...

For example, if SpaceX starts flying tourists on lunar flybys (a la DearMoon), but not landings (to avoid embarrassing their best customer), NASA might be able to wrangle funding to buy a couple of seats for NASA astronauts, to be delivered to and returned from Gateway. Especially if SpaceX wants to kill DXL and move its payloads to Starship.

And then to not "just give everything to SpaceX", it might allow NASA to convince Congress to buy similar commercial-crew + HDL (2nd lander) as ferries from LEO to Gateway to "better utilise the science platform" and "increase participation of international partners". But very deliberately not "Artemis missions", which remain SLS/Orion only and the only surface missions.

Fill up some of those embarrassing gaps with at least Gateway missions, demonstrate a post-SLS ongoing lunar architecture (and thus a reason to fund permanent surface assets), increase the perceived value of Gateway, but without openly threatening the expected, say, fifteen or so SLS launches until Congress itself is comfortable doing so.

Not a screaming "HUMILIATE AND KILL SLS" that many of us want, but a gentler "augment SLS" to make Congress comfortable with the idea that SLS/Orion is "important", but isn't sacrosanct.

[yg1968]

And then to not "just give everything to SpaceX", it might allow NASA to convince Congress to buy similar commercial-crew + HDL (2nd lander) as ferries from LEO to Gateway to "better utilise the science platform" and "increase participation of international partners". But very deliberately not "Artemis missions", which remain SLS/Orion only and the only surface missions.

HDL is the cargo lander, the second lander is called HLS.

[yg1968]

In the cover letter, NASA gives a message to Blue:
 

NASA intends to issue the final solicitation with a final model contract and award without conducting post-selection negotiations.

There will be an Industry Day on April 4th.

Virtual Industry Forum – April 4, 2022:

NASA will host an HLS virtual industry forum on Monday, April 4, 2022, at 1 p.m. CT, to provide an overview of the Appendix P solicitation, timeline and goals.

[DanClemmensen]

"We" keep discussing how SX could use Dragon for launch and ELD of crew, or in he near future use Starship for the whole trip. I propose that NASA also sees this as imminent (in a few years), and expects SX to be able to profitably provide Lunar HSF, habitation and research facilities. Therefore it is pointless to plan more than annual (SLS) "Artemis" NASA missions. NASA must not commit to too many future expensive SLS launches, when they will be able to pay cheap commercial rates to SX (for a better service) in a handful of years!   

NASA appears to already be committed to the production of eight additional SLSs. If they can maintain an average of one year per launch, that takes us to about 2031. IMO we are pretty much stuck with actually launching these white elephants, but I hope we don't have to pay for any further SLSs after that.  In the mean time I hope NASA can start using cheaper alternatives a lot sooner than 2031. If so the alternatives will fly concurrently with SLS.

If NASA is more or less committed to eight more uncancellable SLS flights, then what is the best use of these flights?

[TheRadicalModerate]

"We" keep discussing how SX could use Dragon for launch and ELD of crew, or in he near future use Starship for the whole trip. I propose that NASA also sees this as imminent (in a few years), and expects SX to be able to profitably provide Lunar HSF, habitation and research facilities. Therefore it is pointless to plan more than annual (SLS) "Artemis" NASA missions. NASA must not commit to too many future expensive SLS launches, when they will be able to pay cheap commercial rates to SX (for a better service) in a handful of years!   

NASA appears to already be committed to the production of eight additional SLSs. If they can maintain an average of one year per launch, that takes us to about 2031. IMO we are pretty much stuck with actually launching these white elephants, but I hope we don't have to pay for any further SLSs after that.  In the mean time I hope NASA can start using cheaper alternatives a lot sooner than 2031. If so the alternatives will fly concurrently with SLS.

If NASA is more or less committed to eight more uncancellable SLS flights, then what is the best use of these flights?

They're not committed to eight additional SLS flights.  In late 2019, they started negotiations with Boeing for up to ten cores.  I'm not sure if those negotiations ever concluded.  They may have been superseded when NASA decided to issue the EPOC (Exploration Production and Operations Contract) RFI.  EPOC is supposed to be awarded in late 2023.

This isn't inconsistent with the idea that NASA is hedging their bets but still planning on everything coming crashing down if Starship is successful.

[VSECOTSPE]

This isn't inconsistent with the idea that NASA is hedging their bets but still planning on everything coming crashing down if Starship is successful.

From the EPOC RFI:

NASA is seeking industry input to maximize the long-term efficiency of the ESD programs to ensure an affordable and sustainable SLS, EGS, and CSI including Orion/payload integration, which will be referred to as the Exploration Transportation System (ETS)...

The vision for the ETS is to establish it as a long-term (30 years or more) national capability that is a sustainable and affordable system for moving humans and large cargo payloads to cis-lunar and deep- space destinations for NASA and to these and other orbits for other government and non-government users...

The vision assumes that NASA is the anchor tenant of the system by purchasing from the industry supplier one crewed flight per year for the next 10 or more years following contract formulation while providing appropriate supporting infrastructure and personnel for production and operations, even as the industry owner offers the service to non-NASA users...

In the past couple years, NASA has also signed a $3B contract for at least 6 and up to 12 Orions thru 2030, a $4B contract for more RS-25s thru 2030, and another $3B contract for SLS BOLE development and production thru 2031.

FWIW...

[yg1968]

In the past couple years, NASA has also signed a $3B contract for at least 6 and up to 12 Orions thru 2030, a $4B contract for more RS-25s thru 2030, and another $3B contract for SLS BOLE development and production thru 2031.

FWIW...

From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

[Coastal Ron]

In the past couple years, NASA has also signed a $3B contract for at least 6 and up to 12 Orions thru 2030, a $4B contract for more RS-25s thru 2030, and another $3B contract for SLS BOLE development and production thru 2031.

FWIW...

From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

If you read the press release, the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.

No new contracts for the first 12 Orion need to be negotiated, assuming no major changes are made.

The press release also said:

With this award, NASA is ordering three Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions III through V for $2.7 billion. The agency plans to order three additional Orion capsules in fiscal year 2022 for Artemis missions VI through VIII, at a total of $1.9 billion. Ordering the spacecraft in groups of three allows NASA to benefit from efficiencies that become available in the supply chain over time – efficiencies that optimize production and lower costs.

This is called "batch" production, where the "batch" for Orion is a minimum quantity of three. And while LM has identified a reduction in price for batch #2 from batch #1, that doesn't mean future batch production prices will go down - and they could go up. Ordering in batches of three is certainly better than ordering one unit at a time, but not much...

[TheRadicalModerate]

The press release also said:

With this award, NASA is ordering three Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions III through V for $2.7 billion. The agency plans to order three additional Orion capsules in fiscal year 2022 for Artemis missions VI through VIII, at a total of $1.9 billion. Ordering the spacecraft in groups of three allows NASA to benefit from efficiencies that become available in the supply chain over time – efficiencies that optimize production and lower costs.

This is called "batch" production, where the "batch" for Orion is a minimum quantity of three. And while LM has identified a reduction in price for batch #2 from batch #1, that doesn't mean future batch production prices will go down - and they could go up. Ordering in batches of three is certainly better than ordering one unit at a time, but not much...

So, so far they've ordered Orions up through Arty 6.

Does anybody know the story on the relationship between the "up to ten SLSes" announcement made in 2019 and EPOC?  Did the latter subsume the former?

[yg1968]

In the past couple years, NASA has also signed a $3B contract for at least 6 and up to 12 Orions thru 2030, a $4B contract for more RS-25s thru 2030, and another $3B contract for SLS BOLE development and production thru 2031.

FWIW...

From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

If you read the press release, the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.

No new contracts for the first 12 Orion need to be negotiated, assuming no major changes are made.

That doesn't contradict anything that I said. The press release also says this: "Furthermore, the cost incentives on the cost-plus-incentive-fee orders are designed to motivate favorable cost performance during early OPOC production and drive substantially lower prices for any subsequent firm-fixed-price orders issued under this contract."

But Space News added this: "The contract includes the option for up to six additional Orion spacecraft ordered through September 2030. Those will be ordered under firm-fixed-price contracts, with the price set based on cost data from the previous six Orion spacecraft."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-long-term-orion-production-contract-to-lockheed-martin/

The FY23 Budget says this (on page 235): "The first six spacecraft (Artemis III through VIII) will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive fee orders. NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases."

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_full_opt.pdf

[sdsds]

This is called "batch" production, where the "batch" for Orion is a minimum quantity of three.

This is batch procurement. There's not much to indicate production will be anything other than serial, i.e. there's a production line and Orion's move through it individually. Or do you see something to indicate there might be a time when two Orions are in the same state of production?

[DanClemmensen]

(I'm taking my procurement/disposition question over to SLS general):
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54967.0

[punder]

Good to remember that NASA bought more Saturn Vs than it used for Apollo. Some of them are lawn ornaments now.

[yg1968]

The press release also said:

With this award, NASA is ordering three Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions III through V for $2.7 billion. The agency plans to order three additional Orion capsules in fiscal year 2022 for Artemis missions VI through VIII, at a total of $1.9 billion. Ordering the spacecraft in groups of three allows NASA to benefit from efficiencies that become available in the supply chain over time – efficiencies that optimize production and lower costs.

This is called "batch" production, where the "batch" for Orion is a minimum quantity of three. And while LM has identified a reduction in price for batch #2 from batch #1, that doesn't mean future batch production prices will go down - and they could go up. Ordering in batches of three is certainly better than ordering one unit at a time, but not much...

So, so far they've ordered Orions up through Arty 6.

Does anybody know the story on the relationship between the "up to ten SLSes" announcement made in 2019 and EPOC?  Did the latter subsume the former?

It's not clear that they have ordered the second batch of Orion or not. They are supposed to do so in FY22 (which ends on September 30th) but I am not sure if they have already. But this is indeed kind of off topic in this thread. A better thread would be the SLS General thread (or the Artemis update and discussion thread).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54967.msg2356048#msg2356048