Author Topic: Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) RFI and Appendix N BAA  (Read 86809 times)

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2839
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #20 on: 04/30/2021 12:30 am »
<snip>
I’m not saying that LETS won’t work, and I don’t think NASA has much choice to try, anyway.  I just don’t see any contractor besides BO and SX competing for LETS in a serious way.  It would be nice to identify a plausible third.


The only US entity that might have the resources to do LETS that I can think of is Apple after it gobbles up the companies that will do the actual developing.
Dynetics may not have the finance, but their little bubble, was planned for multiple surface roles, as a habitat, and as a rover. Now they don't need to think of boosting it back to orbit, the mass fraction is irrelevant. Maybe down the line, surface refuelling could be used to hop them, but they are still a good proposition when landed once only!

 If they are one-way to the Lunar surface, being small means its easier to place several.
They could be delivered by (near) regular satellite deployment Starship, to the vicinity of the moon, and just need the propulsion to land. This puts them in chosen locations without long overland treks!
No other vehicle is close! Their pressure vessel looks simple. I guess two or three would go on one SS!

This is just opinion - as no maths or mechanics was used to validate it!
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #21 on: 05/01/2021 03:32 am »
Quote from: NASA Artemis
As we take steps toward crewed missions to the Moon, @NASA is now asking U.S. companies to indicate their interest in providing routine transportation services from lunar orbit to the lunar surface for #Artemis astronauts.
 
Responses are due May 6:

https://go.nasa.gov/3eHNRwa

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1388230933791322113
« Last Edit: 05/01/2021 03:33 am by yg1968 »

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1436
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #22 on: 05/01/2021 03:44 am »
Dynetics may not have the finance, but their little bubble, was planned for multiple surface roles, as a habitat, and as a rover. Now they don't need to think of boosting it back to orbit, the mass fraction is irrelevant. Maybe down the line, surface refuelling could be used to hop them, but they are still a good proposition when landed once only!

 If they are one-way to the Lunar surface, being small means its easier to place several.
They could be delivered by (near) regular satellite deployment Starship, to the vicinity of the moon, and just need the propulsion to land. This puts them in chosen locations without long overland treks!
No other vehicle is close! Their pressure vessel looks simple. I guess two or three would go on one SS!

This is just opinion - as no maths or mechanics was used to validate it!
Agree, BO’s system doesn’t look useful for anything other than flags-n-footprints, but the Dynetics system looks useful as a hopper and rover-lander. But as you say, no maths were harmed in the making of this opinion.  :D

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #23 on: 05/03/2021 06:41 pm »
Interestingly Boeing's lunar lander (see the 2019 tweet below) may get a new shot at the Services contract (and at the 1 year BAA before that).

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 06:42 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #24 on: 05/03/2021 07:10 pm »
Slides from today's LETS briefing (3-May-2021) HLS Services Phase Industry Forum.

edit: p.s. few key points...
Quote
Services Contract – Late 2020’s
Includes the DDT&E for sustaining design & transportation services between Gateway and the Lunar surface, supporting recurring missions after cert.
...
• Firm-fixed price, milestone-based contracts; separable CLINs for mission types (TBD)
• Contract Structure Highlights: Mixed R&D and Services IDIQ (may use FAR Part 15)
• At least six (TBR) service missions starting in late 2020’s; minimum of 2 (TBR) services missions awarded to a given
certified contractor
• Period of Performance: 10 (TBR) years total (DDT&E front years; Recurring services starting in late 2020’s)

Oh joy, mixing DDT&E.  Looks kind of like CCtCap.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 08:12 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #25 on: 05/03/2021 07:58 pm »
I like it a lot!

Quote from: page 9
Objective:Develop and certify integrated lunar landing solutions for Sustaining missions, with ability to award recurring service missions in same contract structure

The development funding is for sustainability missions. In my opinion, this means that Option B has essentially been incorporated into the Services contract. Under the prior (now obsolete) Option B, the sustainability missions required a 4 person lander. I am guessing that the same will be the case under the LETS RFP.

This avoids NASA receiving another 6 billion proposal for a difficult to upgrade 2 person lander...

Link to the webpage for NexStep-2 Appendix N:
https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander3
« Last Edit: 05/04/2021 01:04 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #26 on: 05/03/2021 08:11 pm »
...
This avoids NASA receiving another 6 billion proposal for a difficult to upgrade 2 person lander...

Agree. Only indigestion I have is including DDT&E, which does not mix well with services acquisitions. But not much that can be done given post-CCDev SAA restrictions. (Same as CCtCap, but that is water under the bridge so won't belabor it.)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #27 on: 05/03/2021 08:23 pm »
Quote from: page 9 of the Industry Day Slides
• Contract Structure Highlights: Mixed R&D and Services IDIQ (may use FAR Part 15)

– DDT&E for certification – encouraged to have milestone success criteria linked to hardware-based activity completion (tests, delivery, etc.) to include flight demonstration
– Interim certification milestones, with associated DRDs, culminating in completion of the Design Certification Review
– Services (after certification) - IDIQ task orders for mission assignments (includes flight readiness, post-flight review, etc.)
• At least six (TBR) service missions starting in late 2020’s; minimum of 2 (TBR) services missions awarded to a given certified contractor
• Contractor to include Launch Vehicle acquisition and planning
• Cost capped (TBR)
• Government resource (subject matter expertise, facilities, property) availability (Qty TBD)
• Period of Performance: 10 (TBR) years total (DDT&E front years; Recurring services starting in late 2020’s)

Interestingly, the Services contract would have a sustainable demo flight prior to certification. The fact that it doesn't specify whether this is a crewed or uncrewed demo suggest that it could either be a crewed demo mission (e.g., for SpaceX) or an uncrewed demo flight (e.g., for other providers).
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 08:33 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #28 on: 05/03/2021 08:28 pm »
...
This avoids NASA receiving another 6 billion proposal for a difficult to upgrade 2 person lander...

Agree. Only indigestion I have is including DDT&E, which does not mix well with services acquisitions. But not much that can be done given post-CCDev SAA restrictions. (Same as CCtCap, but that is water under the bridge so won't belabor it.)

Yes, I agree. A BAA is supposed to be the middle ground between a SAA and a regular contract. The base period, Option A and the (1 year) Nextstep-2 Appendix N are all BAAs. But the Services contract would not be under a BAA, it would be more like CCtCap as you say (fixed prices with funding for development).
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 08:52 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #29 on: 05/03/2021 08:42 pm »
Quote from: page 8 of the Industry Day slides
Draft NextSTEP-2 Appendix N

•Objectives: 
 –Open competition using draft Sustaining Requirements (to be released with RFP) for risk reduction
 –Mature Sustaining Requirements in advance of Transportation Services
 –Enhance Service contract formulation and solicitation development from market data and feedback

•Severable CLINs within each BAA proposal
•Firm-fixed price, milestone-based contracts; active government collaboration (expertise and testing)
•Schedule–Solicitation in June 2021; ATP in August -October 2021–Must end before Service RFP release
•Appendix N Period of Performance: ~7 to 12 months
•Funding:–final amounts TBD, up to ~$15M/award, multiple awards expected
•Contract Highlights:–Sustaining Lander design specifications and concept development / risk reduction activities–Work towards technical standards, Safety & Mission Assurance, and Health & Medical–Testing to mature components/architecture

Prior to the Services contract, there would be a roughly 1 year BAA, Nextstep Appendix N.

it seems that this BAA would be open to SpaceX. It would be very surprising if SpaceX doesn't win an award under this BAA. Given that the maximum amount is $15M, we should expect several companies to receive awards under this BAA. I would expect more than 3 awards for it (SpaceX, Blue, Dynetics and perhaps 1 or more new entrants).
« Last Edit: 05/17/2021 11:12 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #30 on: 05/03/2021 08:58 pm »
...
Interestingly, the Services contract would have a sustainable demo flight prior to certification. The fact that it doesn't specify whether this is a crewed or uncrewed demo suggest that it could either be a crewed demo mission (e.g., for SpaceX) or an uncrewed demo flight (e.g., for other providers).

Yes, basically same as CCtCap, although whether SpaceX is exempt from much of the "certification" work will depend on whether SpaceX's solution and conops are materially the same. With CCtCap we saw there was a significant gap.

In any case, allows NASA time to marshal additional $ and gives competitors some runway. If Congress does not step up with requisite $, any notion of a long term Lunar presence (much less multiple providers) is likely dead on the vine.


p.s. edit: Success in the short term (HLS option A) would likely help to increase Congressional-$ support for LETS.  Hope protesters of the HLS award and future contenders for LETS consider that.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 09:18 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #31 on: 05/03/2021 09:15 pm »
...
Interestingly, the Services contract would have a sustainable demo flight prior to certification. The fact that it doesn't specify whether this is a crewed or uncrewed demo suggest that it could either be a crewed demo mission (e.g., for SpaceX) or an uncrewed demo flight (e.g., for other providers).

Yes, basically same as CCtCap, although whether SpaceX is exempt from much of the "certification" work will depend on whether SpaceX's solution and conops are materially the same. With CCtCap we saw there was a significant gap.

In any case, allows NASA time to marshal additional $ and gives competitors some runway. If Congress does not step up with requisite $, any notion of a long term Lunar presence (much less multiple providers) is likely dead on the vine.

Option A doesn't include any certification component to it. My guess is that SpaceX will need to do a sustainability crewed (or uncrewed) mission prior to being certified. In any event, this would give them an extra mission, so I am not sure why SpaceX would want to bypass it.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 09:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #32 on: 05/03/2021 09:23 pm »
My understanding is that each provider under the services contract would get a minimum of one (crewed or uncrewed) demo mission plus two certified services missions.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 09:25 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #33 on: 05/03/2021 09:25 pm »
Option A doesn't include any certification component to it. My guess is that SpaceX will need to do a sustainability crewed (or uncrewed mission) prior to being certified. In any event, this would give them an extra mission, so I am not sure why SpaceX would want to bypass it.

Agree. However, current HLS award requires crewed mission, yes? That presumably requires some level of certification by NASA (assuming NASA crew), yes? What we don't know is the gap between what NASA requires for crew certification between HLS and LETS.  I would hope and expect that the gap is small-nil, but we don't know until we see LETS details.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #34 on: 05/03/2021 09:30 pm »
My understanding is that each provider under the services contract would get a minimum of one (crewed or uncrewed) demo mission plus two certified services missions.

Not specified; only that "minimum of 2 (TBR) services missions awarded to a given certified contractor". What does "certified" mean?  Not specified and unclear.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #35 on: 05/03/2021 09:33 pm »
Option A doesn't include any certification component to it. My guess is that SpaceX will need to do a sustainability crewed (or uncrewed mission) prior to being certified. In any event, this would give them an extra mission, so I am not sure why SpaceX would want to bypass it.

Agree. However, current HLS award requires crewed mission, yes? That presumably requires some level of certification by NASA (assuming NASA crew), yes? What we don't know is the gap between what NASA requires for crew certification between HLS and LETS.  I would hope and expect that the gap is small-nil, but we don't know until we see LETS details.

For CCtCap, SpaceX Demo-2 was flown prior to crewed Dragon being certified. Certification happens after the demo flight(s). Option B (had it been exercised) was for a sustainable demo flight, it would also have happened prior to the certification of Starship.

Having said that, you can argue that certification is a gradual process which is done throughout the development phase (including the demo flights) but it ends after the demo missions.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 09:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #36 on: 05/03/2021 09:43 pm »
My understanding is that each provider under the services contract would get a minimum of one (crewed or uncrewed) demo mission plus two certified services missions.

Not specified; only that "minimum of 2 (TBR) services missions awarded to a given certified contractor". What does "certified" mean?  Not specified and unclear.

As you say, this ressembles CCtCap, the demo flight is part of DDT&E for certification (i.e., pre-certification). Post-certification includes a minimum of two services missions. So that is a minimum of three missions, if you are certified by NASA. Certification probably means the same as it does for CCtCap, it means that NASA approves your landing system for post certification (non-demo) missions. 
« Last Edit: 05/03/2021 09:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #37 on: 05/03/2021 10:41 pm »
As you say, this ressembles CCtCap, the demo flight is part of DDT&E for certification (i.e., pre-certification). Post-certification includes a minimum of two services missions. So that is a minimum of three missions, if you are certified by NASA. Certification probably means the same as it does for CCtCap, it means that NASA approves your landing system for post certification (non-demo) missions.

Yes. But as you say, that demo flight would be in the DDT&E part of the contract. Would not consider that part of the "services" contract. Again, same as CCtCap... we will likely see $B awards (assuming Congress provides) for combined DDT&E+Services.


p.s. <rant>What annoys me with these contracting constructs is that mixing DDT&E+Services in one contract provides no insight into the division, same as CCtCap... did we pay them $4B for DDT&E + $1B for services, or $1B for DDT&E and $4B for services?</rant>  Not that it necessarily affects the end $, but the lack of transparency around who is doing what for how much ticks me off--especially given that DDT&E and Services acquisitions are fundamentally different. Apologies, I'll see myself out now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #38 on: 05/03/2021 10:58 pm »
As you say, this ressembles CCtCap, the demo flight is part of DDT&E for certification (i.e., pre-certification). Post-certification includes a minimum of two services missions. So that is a minimum of three missions, if you are certified by NASA. Certification probably means the same as it does for CCtCap, it means that NASA approves your landing system for post certification (non-demo) missions.

Yes. But as you say, that demo flight would be in the DDT&E part of the contract. Would not consider that part of the "services" contract. Again, same as CCtCap... we will likely see $B awards (assuming Congress provides) for combined DDT&E+Services.


p.s. <rant>What annoys me with these contracting constructs is that mixing DDT&E+Services in one contract provides no insight into the division, same as CCtCap... did we pay them $4B for DDT&E + $1B for services, or $1B for DDT&E and $4B for services?</rant>  Not that it necessarily affects the end $, but the lack of transparency around who is doing what for how much ticks me off--especially given that DDT&E and Services acquisitions are fundamentally different. Apologies, I'll see myself out now.

Yes, sorry, I was calling it the services contract (instead of calling it by its LETS acronym) but you are right that it is more of a development and services contract. I agree with your rant, it would be nice if NASA gave the division of the cost of the certified missions and the development costs.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2021 12:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Exastro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • USA
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RFI for Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS)
« Reply #39 on: 05/04/2021 12:27 am »
If Blue does bid on this, I hope they would drop the horrid 3 stage design and Blue Moon too, just use a refueling based lander like ULA's Xeus or LM's single stage lander.
To expand on this:  A Xeus-like "Lunar taxi" vehicle might be competitive for crew transport in a Starship-dominated era, being fully reusable and efficient enough to make the round trip between LEO and Luna without resupply, once filled with perhaps two Starship LEO launches' worth of hyrdolox prop (assuming 4600 m/sec exhaust velocity, 15 tonne dry mass, 5 tonne crew habitat, and no math errors).

This vehicle could take good advantage of the cheap heavy lift Starship offers, without being dependent on it; taxi should be able to get from Earth to LEO on any medium-heavy launcher, its prop could get to LEO on whatever's convenient, and likewise the crews it carries.  It would offer NASA dissimilar redundancy and a way to get Lunar surface crews home in case LSS becomes unavailable.

Refilling on the Lunar surface is an interesting variation on the conops.  A one-way trip takes only 52 tonnes of prop.  If the "one-way" Lunar taxi can be refilled on the Lunar surface, say from a landed LSS, it can then return to LEO.  Unfortunately that eats up a lot of the cargo mass of the LSS.  However, if the O2 can be extracted on the surface, the LSS needs to supply it with only 6 tonnes of H2 to enable its return trip.  Near the poles even the H2 could potentially be locally-produced.

The major downside I see with the Lunar taxi is that it's too small to carry a radiation shield comparable to what an LSS might bring.  Otherwise, it ought to be a fairly safe vehicle, since it's not required to be both a Lunar lander and also capable of EDL.  It offers low IMLEO and works as part of an architecture based on vehicles optimized for their various roles (cargo launch from Earth, manned LEO launch from Earth, manned EDL, heavy cargo to Luna), with most or all being reusable and most being in development or already developed for other purposes.  This should enable it to integrate nicely into and improve the efficiency of an existing Lunar exploration architecture.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2021 12:34 am by Exastro »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0