NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers

[deadman1204]

Berthing has a much larger hatch. Thats one of the advantages that cygnus has over dragon. You can bring much larger things into the iss on a cygnus, because berthing hatches are wider.
As well, its less complicated, so more vehicles can do it.
Think of the 2 versions as different, not one is better than the other.

Dragon Cargo 1 had a Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM), just like Cygnus did. Both had to be captured by the ISS's Canadarm2 and berthed to the station.

Dragon Cargo 2 has an IDSS-compatible docking port, which also allows it to have fully autonomous docking.

I'm not sure there will be the same need for transferring large cargo between vehicles during Artemis missions, certainly not from an HLS to another vehicle. So not sure what the issue is...

I'm confused about why you are implying that a smaller hatch with automated docking is "better".

I'm confused about why you are implying that the smaller hatch with automated docking is "worse"?

Cause you know, smaller means smaller and thus limits options? ISS cannot send alot of stuff on dragon because its hatch is too small, it needs to wait for cygnus.
Tell me, if Cygnus had the smaller hatch, would you still say "there is no need for anything larger"? Or are we back to "its spacex therefore its impossible its not the bestest"

[yg1968]

Berthing has a much larger hatch. Thats one of the advantages that cygnus has over dragon. You can bring much larger things into the iss on a cygnus, because berthing hatches are wider.
As well, its less complicated, so more vehicles can do it.
Think of the 2 versions as different, not one is better than the other.

Dragon Cargo 1 had a Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM), just like Cygnus did. Both had to be captured by the ISS's Canadarm2 and berthed to the station.

Dragon Cargo 2 has an IDSS-compatible docking port, which also allows it to have fully autonomous docking.

I'm not sure there will be the same need for transferring large cargo between vehicles during Artemis missions, certainly not from an HLS to another vehicle. So not sure what the issue is...

I'm confused about why you are implying that a smaller hatch with automated docking is "better".

I'm confused about why you are implying that the smaller hatch with automated docking is "worse"?

Cause you know, smaller means smaller and thus limits options? ISS cannot send alot of stuff on dragon because its hatch is too small, it needs to wait for cygnus.
Tell me, if Cygnus had the smaller hatch, would you still say "there is no need for anything larger"? Or are we back to "its spacex therefore its impossible its not the bestest"

NASA set the requirements for Gateway and it didn't ask for berthing, so it has nothing to do with SpaceX's preferences.  Had NASA asked for berthing, SpaceX would have provided berthing with Dragon XL.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48353.msg1956761#msg1956761

[deadman1204]

Berthing has a much larger hatch. Thats one of the advantages that cygnus has over dragon. You can bring much larger things into the iss on a cygnus, because berthing hatches are wider.
As well, its less complicated, so more vehicles can do it.
Think of the 2 versions as different, not one is better than the other.

Dragon Cargo 1 had a Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM), just like Cygnus did. Both had to be captured by the ISS's Canadarm2 and berthed to the station.

Dragon Cargo 2 has an IDSS-compatible docking port, which also allows it to have fully autonomous docking.

I'm not sure there will be the same need for transferring large cargo between vehicles during Artemis missions, certainly not from an HLS to another vehicle. So not sure what the issue is...

I'm confused about why you are implying that a smaller hatch with automated docking is "better".

I'm confused about why you are implying that the smaller hatch with automated docking is "worse"?

Cause you know, smaller means smaller and thus limits options? ISS cannot send alot of stuff on dragon because its hatch is too small, it needs to wait for cygnus.
Tell me, if Cygnus had the smaller hatch, would you still say "there is no need for anything larger"? Or are we back to "its spacex therefore its impossible its not the bestest"

NASA set the requirements for Gateway and it didn't ask for berthing, so it has nothing to do with SpaceX's preferences.  Had NASA asked for berthing, SpaceX would have provided berthing with Dragon XL.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48353.msg1956761#msg1956761

How is that pertinent? We were talking about how one isn't necissarily better than the other. More that they are different. Yes nasa didn't specify one over the other. that doesn't change that each have advantages that the other does not.

[yg1968]

How is that pertinent? We were talking about how one isn't necissarily better than the other. More that they are different. Yes nasa didn't specify one over the other. that doesn't change that each have advantages that the other does not.

NASA specified docking. You made it sound like it was SpaceX's decision to dock at Gateway but it wasn't, it was actually NASA's decision.

[TheRadicalModerate]

How is that pertinent? We were talking about how one isn't necissarily better than the other. More that they are different. Yes nasa didn't specify one over the other. that doesn't change that each have advantages that the other does not.

NASA specified docking. You made it sound like it was SpaceX's decision to dock at Gateway but it wasn't, it was actually NASA's decision.

Remember that berthing started out as the mechanism by which ISS modules were hooked together.  They wanted the wide openings between modules.  Later, it turned out to be handy to use CBM for big cargo.

For whatever reason, NASA is now comfortable with the diameter of the IDSS docking implementations.  That's a huge advantage for Gateway, because you can guide modules in without having an arm and glue them together.  (Note that this makes a huge amount of sense when Orion is steering co-manifested modules into place.  How that changes if co-manifesting is delayed or eliminated is a good question.)

But none of this has anything to do with refueling, which is how we started down this very well-climbed rabbit-hole.  The question is really what's going to be appropriate for getting two Starships rigid enough that some gizmo can successfully seat on the QD of the non-depot vehicle.  Both CBM and IDSS seem like silly architectures for that, but a grappling interface seems sorta-kinda right.

Note that the animated propaganda for refueling shows the two Starships nestling together with their exterior fill/drain lines touching.  I don't believe that for a second, because it basically means that the two Starships are going to be nearly in skin-to-skin contact along their entire length.  That seems like a recipe for disaster.  You don't want a last-second prop slosh or a sticky RCS thruster to wind up ramming one Starship into the other.

That's another reason why I like grapples:  They're inherently standoff, and allow the ships to be brought arbitrarily close under complete mechanical control, and they can be made arbitrarily rigid to combat any last-second prox ops gotchas.

[Robotbeat]

I mean... there is technically allowance for a refueling interface in the NDS/IDSS/whatever specification.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1800595236416364845

[yg1968]

See below for the House's proposal in its FY25 CJS Appropriations bill (which has not been approved by the Senate):

Some of the highlights from the CJS Report:

Human Landing System.—The recommendation includes no less than $1,864,000,000 for the Human Landing System (HLS).

[Note that the President's FY25 request was for $1,896.1M.]

Human Landing System Program Initiative.—The Committee directs NASA to fund the development and crewed demonstration of a second commercial human landing system through the Sustaining Lunar Development Program initiative in the Human Landing System Program initiative.

Link to the report (NASA starts at page 91):
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20240709/117502/HMKP-118-AP00-20240709-SD002.pdf

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaoig/status/1812925890978062793

As part of the Artemis campaign, NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) Program has awarded over $7 billion to commercial partners—SpaceX and Blue Origin—to transport astronauts to the lunar surface. In this audit, we will examine NASA’s management of the HLS contracts.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpaceBasedFox/status/1816368947970842979

[yg1968]