https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/hale-urges-more-transparency-in-artemis-commercial-contracts/QuoteHALE URGES MORE TRANSPARENCY IN ARTEMIS COMMERCIAL CONTRACTSBy Marcia Smith | Posted: October 21, 2022 11:47 pm ET | Last Updated: October 22, 2022 12:09 am ETThe chairman of a NASA advisory committee, Wayne Hale, is urging NASA to avoid contracts that prevent release of information to the public because companies claim it as proprietary. That applies particularly to Public-Private Partnerships like the Human Landing Systems being developed for the Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon.
HALE URGES MORE TRANSPARENCY IN ARTEMIS COMMERCIAL CONTRACTSBy Marcia Smith | Posted: October 21, 2022 11:47 pm ET | Last Updated: October 22, 2022 12:09 am ETThe chairman of a NASA advisory committee, Wayne Hale, is urging NASA to avoid contracts that prevent release of information to the public because companies claim it as proprietary. That applies particularly to Public-Private Partnerships like the Human Landing Systems being developed for the Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 10/21/2022 09:19 pmThey are planning on reusing the capsule from Artemis 3 on Artemis 6, 4 on 7, and 5 on 8, that's playing a huge part of that 50% cost reduction.So, given that, then the order that NASA just finalized is really to refurbish the Artemis 3-5 Orions for Artemis 6-8, not to build new vehicles?'*snip*
They are planning on reusing the capsule from Artemis 3 on Artemis 6, 4 on 7, and 5 on 8, that's playing a huge part of that 50% cost reduction.
Hale worked STS for decades and so understands SLS in ways that he will not understand Starship/Superheavy. So some of this is more about Hale’s background than the rights of any public stakeholders and taxpayers. Outside space fans here and a few other places and the random national press article, the “public” does not care/pay attention.That said, it’s stupidly lazy on NASA and Watson-Morgan’s part to use IP as a blanket excuse not to get Hale and the NAC up-to-speed and on their side about HLS/Lunar Starship. There’s real, secret-sauce IP — like combustion chamber alloy materials and mix — and then there’s details that pose no IP threat but that provide warm-fuzzies to oversight folks like Hale that the program and contractor actually know what they’re doing. There’s no reason not to set aside a day or two and work up a briefing package from existing materials. Get the relevant federal lawyer and a SpaceX lawyer in the room so no actual IP gets disclosed. And if they have not been there yet, get Hale et al a tour of Boca Chica. Don’t be a DMV bureaucracy and keep sending Hale to the back of the line. Work the problem.And some of Hale’s questions are very legitimate. Why the heck isn’t Lunar Starship required to demonstrate liftoff from the lunar surface before Artemis III? Will it be validated some other way (e.g., scores of reusable Starship landing/liftoff tests on Earth)? Or is the confidence in those systems really that ridiculously high and why? Or is there some backup operational plan if the engines don’t relight? Etc. None of that is IP. If NASA made a stupid concession during HLS negotiations, then get it fixed and stop hiding behind IP. If not, then stop making the program look bad and explain it to Hale and the NAC.
Hale worked STS for decades and so understands SLS in ways that he will not understand Starship/Superheavy. So some of this is more about Hale’s background than the rights of any public stakeholders and taxpayers. ...That said, it’s stupidly lazy on NASA and Watson-Morgan’s part to use IP as a blanket excuse not to get Hale and the NAC up-to-speed and on their side about HLS/Lunar Starship.
Lisa Watson-Morgan has given a lot of presentations on HLS and I am sure that she will give one to the NAC.
For HLS Option A, an uncrewed demo wasn't a requirement. SpaceX proposed one (and so did Blue and Dynetics) but it wasn't actually a requirement. I think that NASA wanted to leave it up to the provider as to how they wanted to meet the certification requirements for their HLS.
I agree that Wayne's previous life heavily affects his view today, but: In my view, it's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter of deception. Cost is not IP, particularly on the taxpayer's dime.
QuoteFor HLS Option A, an uncrewed demo wasn't a requirement. SpaceX proposed one (and so did Blue and Dynetics) but it wasn't actually a requirement. I think that NASA wanted to leave it up to the provider as to how they wanted to meet the certification requirements for their HLS. All fine and well, but it doesn’t answer Hale’s questions about why certification requirements for Lunar Starship do not include restarting engines in the lunar surface environment and re-attaining orbit and what is substituting for a demonstration of that critical-path capability.
Mark Kirasich from Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) gave a presentation to NAC HEO committee on January 19, 2022, with Lisa Watson-Morgan in attendance. The presentation covered HLS, among other AES programs. None of the issues mentioned above appeared in the public comment or discussion.
The proper time to ask this question is 3 years ago, when HLS program established this requirement for all contestants of the contract, it's strange that this is known for 3 years yet suddenly becomes a problem after SpaceX won the contract.
Also it's inappropriate to frame this as a Starship HLS specific problem, since as yg1968 pointed out, Appendix P requirement doesn't include demonstration of ascend either.
This doesn't sounds like Lisa Watson-Morgan is not telling him things due to IP, instead it seems like he was told how ascend capability will be verified, but he just doesn't trust it, which is a fine position,
but it's also strange that we don't see this level of scrutiny with regard to the fact that Boeing didn't demo in-flight abort for CST-100, or EUS won't have a uncrewed demo either.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 10/23/2022 09:04 pmQuoteFor HLS Option A, an uncrewed demo wasn't a requirement. SpaceX proposed one (and so did Blue and Dynetics) but it wasn't actually a requirement. I think that NASA wanted to leave it up to the provider as to how they wanted to meet the certification requirements for their HLS. All fine and well, but it doesn’t answer Hale’s questions about why certification requirements for Lunar Starship do not include restarting engines in the lunar surface environment and re-attaining orbit and what is substituting for a demonstration of that critical-path capability.The proper time to ask this question is 3 years ago, when HLS program established this requirement for all contestants of the contract, it's strange that this is known for 3 years yet suddenly becomes a problem after SpaceX won the contract.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 10/21/2022 05:35 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 10/21/2022 05:00 pmNASA Orders Three More Orion Spacecraft From Lockheed Martin:https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-10-20-NASA-Orders-Three-More-Orion-Spacecraft-from-Lockheed-MartinFrom that press release:QuoteUnder OPOC, Lockheed Martin and NASA have reduced the costs on Orion by 50% per vehicle on Artemis III through Artemis V, compared to vehicles built during the design and development phase. The vehicles built for Artemis VI, VII and VIII will see an additional 30% cost reduction.These claims don’t match the Orion budget. Artemis IV launches in 2027 under the baseline and content manifests. According to this LockMart press release, Orion’s budget should come down by about half by then, or at least around $700 million from its peak of over $1.4 billion a couple years earlier. But NASA’s FY 2023 budget request shows Orion still consuming $1.1 billion in FY 2027.It’s nice that the Orion Program may finally have its arms around costs and that they may be coming down modestly. And I’m sure a LockMart accountant could show how the Orion for Artemis IV is 50% of the Orion for Artemis I by excluding a lot of costs. But in terms of what NASA and the US taxpayer actually have to cough up for Orions, OPOC and the Orion Program are not coming in anywhere near their cost goals and claims.Yeah, "cost per vehicle" definitely isn't including other Orion program costs. They are planning on reusing the capsule from Artemis 3 on Artemis 6, 4 on 7, and 5 on 8, that's playing a huge part of that 50% cost reduction.
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/21/2022 05:00 pmNASA Orders Three More Orion Spacecraft From Lockheed Martin:https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-10-20-NASA-Orders-Three-More-Orion-Spacecraft-from-Lockheed-MartinFrom that press release:QuoteUnder OPOC, Lockheed Martin and NASA have reduced the costs on Orion by 50% per vehicle on Artemis III through Artemis V, compared to vehicles built during the design and development phase. The vehicles built for Artemis VI, VII and VIII will see an additional 30% cost reduction.These claims don’t match the Orion budget. Artemis IV launches in 2027 under the baseline and content manifests. According to this LockMart press release, Orion’s budget should come down by about half by then, or at least around $700 million from its peak of over $1.4 billion a couple years earlier. But NASA’s FY 2023 budget request shows Orion still consuming $1.1 billion in FY 2027.It’s nice that the Orion Program may finally have its arms around costs and that they may be coming down modestly. And I’m sure a LockMart accountant could show how the Orion for Artemis IV is 50% of the Orion for Artemis I by excluding a lot of costs. But in terms of what NASA and the US taxpayer actually have to cough up for Orions, OPOC and the Orion Program are not coming in anywhere near their cost goals and claims.
NASA Orders Three More Orion Spacecraft From Lockheed Martin:https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-10-20-NASA-Orders-Three-More-Orion-Spacecraft-from-Lockheed-Martin
Under OPOC, Lockheed Martin and NASA have reduced the costs on Orion by 50% per vehicle on Artemis III through Artemis V, compared to vehicles built during the design and development phase. The vehicles built for Artemis VI, VII and VIII will see an additional 30% cost reduction.
This isn’t about cost. HLS award figures are public and known, and there’s more transparency there than Orion/SLS. This is about the technical side. And it doesn’t mean that anything is technically wrong. It just means Hale can’t get what he needs because NASA keeps throwing up an IP curtain.
All fine and well, but it doesn’t answer Hale’s questions about why certification requirements for Lunar Starship do not include restarting engines in the lunar surface environment and re-attaining orbit and what is substituting for a demonstration of that critical-path capability. ... Appendix P requirement doesn't include demonstration of ascend either...
There’s no “proper time” after which questions related to flight safety should no longer be asked. Why is the plan for Artemis III to risk astronaut lives on a lander that has not demonstrated an ability to relight its engines after exposure to the lunar environment, ascend, and achieve orbit? ...(Questions above are rhetorical — not expecting answers here.)
After that, you could let the ascender just crash somewhere downrange.
To my knowledge, there has never been an instance in which a descent engine, on any lunar landing spacecraft has been reignited on the lunar surface in order for the landing spacecraft to get back into orbit. EVERY "return to orbit" flight has been with a completely different - unused - ascent engine.
