Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 04/29/2021 04:37 pm<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.
<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.
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:
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!
Services Contract – Late 2020’sIncludes 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)
Objective:Develop and certify integrated lunar landing solutions for Sustaining missions, with ability to award recurring service missions in same contract structure
...This avoids NASA receiving another 6 billion proposal for a difficult to upgrade 2 person lander...
• 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)
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/03/2021 07:58 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.)
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
...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).
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/03/2021 08:23 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.
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/03/2021 09:15 pmOption 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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/03/2021 09:23 pmMy 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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/03/2021 09:43 pmAs 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.
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.