MSFC to Manage Artemis Lander

[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.