MSFC to Manage Artemis Lander

[Proponent]

According to Eric Berger, Administrator Bridenstine will announce on Friday that MSFC will manage the lander.

I did not this coming.

I wonder if, from Sen. Shelby's point of view, this is a hedge, in that it keeps the money flowing to Alabama even if SLS goes away.

[Targeteer]

August 13, 2019
MEDIA ADVISORY M19-083
NASA Administrator to Discuss Human Lander Update for Artemis Program

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, joined by U.S. Representatives Mo Brooks, Robert Aderholt, Scott DesJarlais and Brian Babin, will discuss updates on the agency’s plans for landing humans on the Moon by 2024 through the Artemis program at 3:10 p.m. EDT Friday, Aug. 16. The remarks will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.

From the agency’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, Bridenstine will discuss the center’s role in launching astronauts to the Moon and landing them safely on the lunar surface. Brooks, Aderholt, DesJarlais and Babin also will deliver remarks, then join the administrator to take questions from the media.

In addition to making this announcement, Bridenstine will view progress on SLS and other efforts key to landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon in five years.

U.S. media who would like to attend the event should contact Tracy McMahan at 256-682-5326 or [email protected] no later than 5 p.m. CDT Thursday, Aug. 15, and plan to arrive at the Gate 9 Visitor’s Center on Rideout Road for the event by 1 p.m. CDT Friday, Aug. 16. Photo identification is required, and all media attendees must wear long pants and flat, closed-toe shoes.

For more on NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/marshall

[GWH]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

[b0objunior]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

What center manages the ascent stage?

[envy887]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

What center manages the ascent stage?

JSC, but Marshall has overall control of the project.

[JohnFornaro]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

[Proponent]

In principle, there's no difference between practice and principle.  In practice, there is.  There's a little thing called politics.

[GWH]

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

There are also departments dedicated to document control which may or may not have separate standards for each center, their own expectations on what and how often things are to be communicated, how they are, and many many hurdles to that simple communication process.

Much more complicated is the potential for all these "mom said dad said" situations where any potential decision point may by conflicted by both centers, infighting and rivalries between the two, and much worse overriding of standards resulting in costly and time consuming rework.

At the worst both centers will obviously need to agree on decisions, a more time consuming process when  it's two parties rather than one, meaning the primary contractor sees more delays.

Agile and/or development processes like those in use at SpaceX will be highly constrained if just one center expects milestones to be met resembling a waterfall development process (which happens to be especially susceptible to delays when accommodating a broad user base).

Despite the best new technologies to manage virtual work teams, "too many chefs in the kitchen" is a very real barrier to engineering.

[butters]

I really can't see what good will come from one center managing the ascent stage while another manages the transfer/descent stage.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

What center manages the ascent stage?

JSC, but Marshall has overall control of the project.

Along with the ascent stage, JSC will also manage the Gateway side of the architecture, including the Minimal Habitation Module and the lander refueling element. Unless Marshall really asserts itself as program manager, JSC will probably end up driving many of the key architectural decisions.

This is how I imagine this working: Marshall will have a relatively unfettered choice of descent stage proposals, and because that's the heaviest piece, the performance of the chosen descent stage (hydrolox vs. hypergolics etc.) will fix the mass budget for JSC's ascent stage. JSC will have much more control over the ascent stage design than Marshall will have over the design of its fixed-cost elements, and the propulsion system they choose for the ascent stage will determine what kind of refueling element they select for the Gateway. Marshall will then need to select a transfer stage which uses the same propellants.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Jody Singer and Mark Geyer will be exchanging pleasantries in their Christmas cards this year, but there is potential for considerable friction built into this division of labor.

[GWH]

This is how I imagine this working: Marshall will have a relatively unfettered choice of descent stage proposals, and because that's the heaviest piece, the performance of the chosen descent stage (hydrolox vs. hypergolics etc.) will fix the mass budget for JSC's ascent stage. JSC will have much more control over the ascent stage design than Marshall will have over the design of its fixed-cost elements, and the propulsion system they choose for the ascent stage will determine what kind of refueling element they select for the Gateway. Marshall will then need to select a transfer stage which uses the same propellants.

Didn't the latest solicitation specify that bidders are to submit integrated landers - eg. ascent + descent & optional transfer stages?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f&_cview=0

The decision on propellants, sizing etc would all be dictated by what the primary contractor selects as their bid, then it would be up to JSC and MSFC to argue over which total package they prefer.

A logical split in my opinion would be to have MSFC provide guidance/review on all propulsion, GNC, landing gear etc, while JSC overviews strictly ECLSS, docking elements, and maybe propellant transfer.
While not a given, its plausible that contractors would want to use many common elements in both the ascent and descent stages, propulsion in particular. If said contractor has to get clearance from each center individually that could get messy.

I know from listening to Main Engine Cutoff, Intuitive Machines plans to partner with Boeing on a lander, the likely split there is Intuitive looks after the propulsion and GNC, while Boeing handles everything to do with docking and keeping meat bags alive. If the oversight between JFC and MSFC was split similarly that would make the most sense.

[Jim]

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

There are also departments dedicated to document control which may or may not have separate standards for each center, their own expectations on what and how often things are to be communicated, how they are, and many many hurdles to that simple communication process.

Much more complicated is the potential for all these "mom said dad said" situations where any potential decision point may by conflicted by both centers, infighting and rivalries between the two, and much worse overriding of standards resulting in costly and time consuming rework.

At the worst both centers will obviously need to agree on decisions, a more time consuming process when  it's two parties rather than one, meaning the primary contractor sees more delays.

Agile and/or development processes like those in use at SpaceX will be highly constrained if just one center expects milestones to be met resembling a waterfall development process (which happens to be especially susceptible to delays when accommodating a broad user base).

Despite the best new technologies to manage virtual work teams, "too many chefs in the kitchen" is a very real barrier to engineering.

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

[JohnFornaro]

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

Easy Peesy.  They made sure not to use the internet.

[Lar]

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

Easy Peesy.  They made sure not to use the internet.

While a facetious comment (stop it John!) there's a grain of truth there. The project required a LOT of coordination and it was done via telephone and paper memos and some onsite meetings. This of course took money, and lots of it... but the motto was waste anything but time....

[jadebenn]

Huh. I thought it was known that MSFC was going to have control over the HLS for a while now.

Anyways, I have it on good authority that MSFC is pushing for a hydrolox descent stage for reasons of future ISRU compatibility, which dovetails nicely with Blue Origin's plans. I'd be very surprised if they're not among the bids chosen.

[A_M_Swallow]

When an interface document is used to control the connecting of two pieces of equipment together the owner of the document needs the rank to order the two project managers to his office so he kick their asses.

The owner of the interface and the author of the document may be different people. The author is likely to be a young engineer who calls both sides sir. He may chair the meetings but acts as a sports referee not the team manager.

The high level design of the system needs thinking through and drives the design of the interface document. The high level design of each module reveals what it needs to supply and what it must receive. A good interface makes everyone's job easier.

Having taken part in it a few times interface design tends to be an iterative process but 75%-85% can be done pretty quickly.

Since both sides change there is no such thing as a cheap interface change but there is skiving off and getting the other team to do the work. Something the interface owner has to watch out for.

[Proponent]

No "disaster" in principle, at least.   There's this thing called the telephone, and this other thing called the internet, and these documents called CAD files, all of which allow for detailed coordination between the centers.

There are also departments dedicated to document control which may or may not have separate standards for each center, their own expectations on what and how often things are to be communicated, how they are, and many many hurdles to that simple communication process.

Much more complicated is the potential for all these "mom said dad said" situations where any potential decision point may by conflicted by both centers, infighting and rivalries between the two, and much worse overriding of standards resulting in costly and time consuming rework.

At the worst both centers will obviously need to agree on decisions, a more time consuming process when  it's two parties rather than one, meaning the primary contractor sees more delays.

Agile and/or development processes like those in use at SpaceX will be highly constrained if just one center expects milestones to be met resembling a waterfall development process (which happens to be especially susceptible to delays when accommodating a broad user base).

Despite the best new technologies to manage virtual work teams, "too many chefs in the kitchen" is a very real barrier to engineering.

So how did the Saturn V work when Boeing made the first stage; NAA, the second; and MDD, the third?  Not to mention two spacecraft built by another two contractors.

All three Saturn V contractors were managed by a single NASA center, as were the two spacecraft.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/1161412028956913664

Yep, doesn't look good at all for HLS, seems like a disaster in the making...

Didn't the latest solicitation specify that bidders are to submit integrated landers - eg. ascent + descent & optional transfer stages?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f&_cview=0

Also, how can NASA divide the lander into descend/ascend stage when the latest solicitation clearly states the 3 elements lander design is "non-prescriptive, shown for reference only"? What happens if company doesn't bid a 3-elements lander?

[GWH]

As far as I can tell its 2 or 3 stage only. 3 stage is the reference but a 2 stage system is allowable, with abort to orbit capabilities being the driving requirement.

EDIT to minimize posts:

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

[Proponent]

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

This is Bridenstine's second run-in with Congress, the first being when he suggested flying EM-1 without SLS. At least the first battle was over something significant. I thought working with Congress was supposed to be Mr. B's forte.

EDIT:  Added link to GWH's post to provide context.

[A_M_Swallow]

As far as I can tell its 2 or 3 stage only. 3 stage is the reference but a 2 stage system is allowable, with abort to orbit capabilities being the driving requirement.

EDIT to minimize posts:

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

I do not know what the Johnson Space Center is complaining about since they have got the Ascent Element and crew cabin. The descent elements are basically rockets so they can be built by full time rocket engineers. The Ascent Element project manager will find managing life support development much easier when his boss is hundreds of miles away.

The overall chief engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center will have to worry about the Ascent Element's effects on other rest of the lander. That is the Elements total mass, total budget, mechanical connection to the main lander element, electrical controls to the 2 descent stages, telemetry back to the cabin and the ladder. Someone will have to decide which element will house the landing lidar.

[speedevil]

As far as I can tell its 2 or 3 stage only. 3 stage is the reference but a 2 stage system is allowable, with abort to orbit capabilities being the driving requirement.

I do not see anything in the contract language precluding a 1 stage offering - as you are permitted to have other elements (that do not dock or interact with gateway) supporting your bid in near orbits.

There are reasonable questions about TRL.

[Proponent]

I do not see anything in the contract language precluding a 1 stage offering - as you are permitted to have other elements (that do not dock or interact with gateway) supporting your bid in near orbits.

Not in the contract, but split responsibility between MSFC and JSC would seem to rule out single-stage designs.  Politics constraining engineering once again, though not as severely as in the case of SLS, since a single-stage lander is unlikely for technical reasons anyway.

[Warren Platts]

a single-stage lander is unlikely for technical reasons anyway.

Why would you say that? The total delta v for a round trip from LLO to surface and back is <4 km/sec. Plus, to keep things sustainable--i.e., affordable--don't we want the landers to be fully reusable?

(Also, from an environmental ethics viewpoint, leaving crashed stages scattered all over the Moon isn't the best idea and arguably a violation of OST--"Leave no trace" should be the guiding principle tbqh.)

[A_M_Swallow]

a single-stage lander is unlikely for technical reasons anyway.

Why would you say that? The total delta v for a round trip from LLO to surface and back is <4 km/sec. Plus, to keep things sustainable--i.e., affordable--don't we want the landers to be fully reusable?

(Also, from an environmental ethics viewpoint, leaving crashed stages scattered all over the Moon isn't the best idea and arguably a violation of OST--"Leave no trace" should be the guiding principle tbqh.)

NASA would have to get the lander to LLO and resupply it will propellant. Each refuelling may require more than one launch. This is doable but will probably take more than 5 years.

[speedevil]

a single-stage lander is unlikely for technical reasons anyway.

Why would you say that? The total delta v for a round trip from LLO to surface and back is <4 km/sec. Plus, to keep things sustainable--i.e., affordable--don't we want the landers to be fully reusable?

NHRO is slightly more delta-v.
~5.5km/s from memory.

There are some claiming to be developing 9km/s solutions...

The proposed division would make managment of a one stage solution interesting - but isn't that very much not the offerors problem if they offer a suitable one-stage system?

[Lar]

a single-stage lander is unlikely for technical reasons anyway.

Why would you say that? The total delta v for a round trip from LLO to surface and back is <4 km/sec. Plus, to keep things sustainable--i.e., affordable--don't we want the landers to be fully reusable?

(Also, from an environmental ethics viewpoint, leaving crashed stages scattered all over the Moon isn't the best idea and arguably a violation of OST--"Leave no trace" should be the guiding principle tbqh.)

NASA would have to get the lander to LLO and resupply it will propellant. Each refuelling may require more than one launch. This is doable but will probably take more than 5 years.

Agreed. If NASA does it. But Musk has said it might be faster to just land Starship on the moon than to get NASA to participate/approve. Musk is quite the unreasonable man.

That was offtopic, the 5 year comment is reasonable.

[Warren Platts]

Why not just dust off the old DC-X design?

[Rocket Science]

Why not just dust off the old DC-X design?

Because NASA seems to find the need to always re-invent the wheel...

[whitelancer64]

Why not just dust off the old DC-X design?

Because the DC-X was A. a subscale prototype for an SSTO rocket, and B. not designed for landing on the Moon.

[su27k]

Just for the record, this happened exactly like Eric Berger predicted: Marshall selected to lead NASA human lunar lander program

[libra]

Just for the record, this happened exactly like Eric Berger predicted: Marshall selected to lead NASA human lunar lander program

This is an appaling read, really.
Geez, NASA did not changed by an inch since 1972. I felt I was reading a NASA history series document about the early Shuttle days, when JSC and Marshall fought bitterly over which would build what. Or 1984 with Freedom (disastrous) "work packages" worked out against any logic (except NASA centers logic !)  that doomed the project for the next decade.

I should not be surprised... inter-center rivalries fueled by pork barrel politics = NASA usual business and plague, unfortunately.

However, several members of Congress from Texas, in an Aug. 15 letter to Bridenstine, objected to those plans, first reported Aug. 13 by Ars Technica. They argued that, given its history in managing human spaceflight programs, Johnson, and not Marshall, should lead lander development.

“We are deeply concerned that NASA is not only disregarding this history but that splitting up the work on the lander between two different geographic locations is an unnecessary and a counterproductive departure from the unquestionable success of the previous lunar lander program,” stated the letter, signed by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas).

The three members asked that NASA “hold off on any formal announcements until we receive a briefing on this matter that includes the timeline, projected cost, and rationale for this decision.” Babin, who was previously scheduled to be at the event, did not attend.

In the late 70's JSC and Marshall got similar arguments. It happened the following way.

By 1970 Marshall got Skylab at a time when JSC had their hands full with Apollo and later, the Shuttle. Marshall snatched that victory thanks to the "dry workshop" making a Saturn stage into a space station. Later they got Spacelab, consolidating their stronghold on space stations.
And guess what happened in the late 70's ? during the early stages of what become Freedom ?
Marshall argued that their Skylab and Spacelab experience shall be continued by making them the future space station "lead center".
JSC blew a fuse and got the "Space Operation Center" studies, claming they had to the "lead center".

The end result was this

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/evolution-vs-revolution-1970s-battle.html

And later this (Jorge post, part 1)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23503.0

Unbelievable.

[MaestroDavros]

Out of curiosity how will this affect Mission Control? I’ve read that JSC will be keeping the crew cabin so I assume that Houston will still be the ones in contact with the crew, but/or will this be like the ISS Soyuz situation where during docking parts of it are (or maybe were, I’m not totally up to date in that regard) handed over to the Russian Mission Control in Korolyov?

[Proponent]

NASA did not changed by an inch since 1972. I felt I was reading a NASA history series document about the early Shuttle days, when JSC and Marshall fought bitterly over which would build what. Or 1984 with Freedom (disastrous) "work packages" worked out against any logic (except NASA centers logic !)  that doomed the project for the next decade....

For that matter, it wasn't any better in 1962, either.  From Michael Neufeld's paper "Von Braun and the Lunar-orbit Rendezvous Decision: Finding a Way to Go to the Moon" (attached to this post):

Manned spaceflight chief Brainerd Holmes had hired a brilliant, 35-year-old Irish-American engineer from New York City, Dr. Joseph Shea, to be his deputy for systems engineering.  He was to pull together the mode decision. Touring the centers early in the year, he found that NASA was still more an agglomeration of organizations than an integrated agency. In particular, “you almost can’t imagine the animosity” between MSC and MSFC, Shea later said, especially from Gilruth’s side.  Holmes organized dinners to accompany the Management Council meetings and Shea found himself sitting at “some of the most strained tables I’ve ever been at.” Moreover, EOR concepts at the two centers were fundamentally incompatible. “It was all booster oriented when Marshall presented it; and it was all spacecraft oriented when Houston did.”  He tried to get each side to analyze parts of the other. He also asked for assistance and found Huntsville markedly more cooperative than MSC (then in the middle of its move to Texas). Von Braun, always the gentleman and good soldier, volunteered the services of Arthur Rudolph, recently transferred from the Army, and 10–15 other engineers to help Shea’s systems analysis, if they could remain at MSFC. Faget, on the other hand, told Shea to get lost and Gilruth backed him up.

[Steven Pietrobon]

One of the reasons why MSFC got the lander lead is because JSC is going to be busy handling ISS, Orion, Commercial Crew and the Gateway.

[Rocket Science]

Out of curiosity how will this affect Mission Control? I’ve read that JSC will be keeping the crew cabin so I assume that Houston will still be the ones in contact with the crew, but/or will this be like the ISS Soyuz situation where during docking parts of it are (or maybe were, I’m not totally up to date in that regard) handed over to the Russian Mission Control in Korolyov?

Welcome to the forum!

[Hog]

"A Human Landing System that will take the next man and the first woman to the South pole of the moon within 5 years." Bridenstine

"Working with U.S. industry Marshal will lead the rapid development, integration and crewed demonstration to carry astronauts to and from the surface of the Moon and the Lunar Gateway."-NASA

[MaestroDavros]

Out of curiosity how will this affect Mission Control? I’ve read that JSC will be keeping the crew cabin so I assume that Houston will still be the ones in contact with the crew, but/or will this be like the ISS Soyuz situation where during docking parts of it are (or maybe were, I’m not totally up to date in that regard) handed over to the Russian Mission Control in Korolyov?

Welcome to the forum!

Thank you!!

[rcoppola]

One of the reasons why MSFC got the lander lead is because JSC is going to be busy handling ISS, Orion, Commercial Crew and the Gateway.

That was my feeling as well. Additionally, if all this comes to pass and the ISS is decommissioned heading into the late 2020s, it could set up JSC as the program lead for Lunar Surface Habitations.

[JEF_300]

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

This is Bridenstine's second run-in with Congress, the first being when he suggested flying EM-1 without SLS. At least the first battle was over something significant. I thought working with Congress was supposed to be Mr. B's forte.

EDIT:  Added link to GWH's post to provide context.

This is working with congress. By giving the lander to Marshall, he has gained the support of Senator that decides whether or not funding for Artemis will even get voted on in the Senate. He may have annoyed the Texas delegation in the process, but it's probably just bark. There is a lot of Texas that isn't Houston, and most Texans care abut 300 new jobs not being created in Houston about as much as they would care about 300 new jobs not being created in Alabama. I suspect that at least the Senators from Texas will still vote pro-Artemis.

... hopefully that wasn't too political. Apologies if it was.

[A_M_Swallow]

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

This is Bridenstine's second run-in with Congress, the first being when he suggested flying EM-1 without SLS. At least the first battle was over something significant. I thought working with Congress was supposed to be Mr. B's forte.

EDIT:  Added link to GWH's post to provide context.

This is working with congress. By giving the lander to Marshall, he has gained the support of Senator that decides whether or not funding for Artemis will even get voted on in the Senate. He may have annoyed the Texas delegation in the process, but it's probably just bark. There is a lot of Texas that isn't Houston, and most Texans care abut 300 new jobs not being created in Houston about as much as they would care about 300 new jobs not being created in Alabama. I suspect that at least the Senators from Texas will still vote pro-Artemis.

... hopefully that wasn't too political. Apologies if it was.

Texas actually won - it got the lander's ascent stage, cabin and life support. Lots of engineering jobs there.

If the project manager of the ascent stage cannot reduce Marshall's oversight to a one page monthly progress report and a visit every 3 months he is not trying.

[Proponent]

Looks like things are proceeding swimmingly already: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4627

This is Bridenstine's second run-in with Congress, the first being when he suggested flying EM-1 without SLS. At least the first battle was over something significant. I thought working with Congress was supposed to be Mr. B's forte.

EDIT:  Added link to GWH's post to provide context.

This is working with congress. By giving the lander to Marshall, he has gained the support of Senator that decides whether or not funding for Artemis will even get voted on in the Senate. He may have annoyed the Texas delegation in the process, but it's probably just bark. There is a lot of Texas that isn't Houston, and most Texans care abut 300 new jobs not being created in Houston about as much as they would care about 300 new jobs not being created in Alabama. I suspect that at least the Senators from Texas will still vote pro-Artemis.

... hopefully that wasn't too political. Apologies if it was.

I would think that working with Congress would involve building a compromise quietly, before the Texas delegation went public.

[jadebenn]

I'm not sure if this was posted earlier or not, but Jim Bridenstine was apparently not very happy with the article in the OP.

Twitter Link

If you see this as a political move to please Shelby (I'm on the fence), then you could see it as a calculated risk on Jim's part. JSC is already managing many aspects of the Artemis program. Any possible retaliation would hurt JSC just as much as it'd hurt MSFC. Thus, while the legislators might complain, he knows they won't do anything drastic.