Falcon Heavy will launch the Power and Propulsion Element and Habitation and Logistics outpost for the lunar gateway in 2024 in a single launch.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-contract-to-launch-initial-elements-for-lunar-outpost
NASA has selected Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for the agency’s Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), the foundational elements of the Gateway. As the first long-term orbiting outpost around the Moon, the Gateway is critical to supporting sustainable astronauts missions under the agency’s Artemis program.
After integration on Earth, the PPE and HALO are targeted to launch together no earlier than May 2024 on a Falcon Heavy rocket from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
The PPE is a 60-kilowatt class solar electric propulsion spacecraft that also will provide power, high-speed communications, attitude control, and the capability to move the Gateway to different lunar orbits, providing more access to the Moon’s surface than ever before.
The HALO is the pressurized living quarters where astronauts who visit the Gateway, often on their way to the Moon, will work. It will provide command and control and serve as the docking hub for the outpost. HALO will support science investigations, distribute power, provide communications for visiting vehicles and lunar surface expeditions, and supplement the life support systems aboard Orion, NASA’s spacecraft that will deliver Artemis astronauts to the Gateway.
About one-sixth the size of the International Space Station, the Gateway will function as a way station, located tens of thousands of miles at its farthest distance from the lunar surface, in a near-rectilinear halo orbit. It will serve as a rendezvous point for Artemis astronauts traveling to lunar orbit aboard Orion prior to transit to low-lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon. From this vantage, NASA and its international and commercial partners will conduct unprecedented deep space science and technology investigations.
NASA’s Launch Services Program at Kennedy will manage the SpaceX launch service. The HALO is being designed and built by Northrop Grumman Space Systems of Dulles, Virginia, and the PPE is being built by Maxar Technologies of Westminster, Colorado. NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston manages the Gateway program for the agency. NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland is responsible for management of the PPE.
Learn more about NASA’s Gateway program at:
https://nasa.gov/gateway
Learn more about NASA’s Artemis program at:
https://www.nasa.gov/artemis
Would this be an extended fairing flight? Do they need to vertically integrate this at the pad?
If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.
The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
Would this be an extended fairing flight? Do they need to vertically integrate this at the pad?
Welp.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963076231921938432
Since everyone feels a need to quote 3 year old tweets I'm assuming someone checked whether the numbers were ever updated since then?
Why such a high price?USSF-67 was $316 million for a 2022 launch. PPE/HALO is $333 million for a 2024 launch. Seems like a trend, maybe. Some of it is launch support, the new fairing, the support tower, etc., but Falcon Heavy itself doesn't appear to be getting cheaper.Quote from: the press releaseThe total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
Why such a high price?USSF-67 was $316 million for a 2022 launch. PPE/HALO is $333 million for a 2024 launch. Seems like a trend, maybe. Some of it is launch support, the new fairing, the support tower, etc., but Falcon Heavy itself doesn't appear to be getting cheaper.Quote from: the press releaseThe total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
- Ed Kyle
It seems they charge whatever is competitive. In this case the only other option may have been Delta IV Heavy but I suspect it wouldn't have the lift capacity.
Sure there will be red tape, a longer fairing and that vertical integration tower that is now getting amortized over many launches.
But still that's $183M in extras.....
The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million
If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.
It's still unclear how much more the extended Fairing weighs, plus any extra aero drag.
Also what are the G limits for the combined stack?
What is the total impact on performance?
Using Base FH TLI numbers seems like it's going to be overly optimistic.
It seems they charge whatever is competitive. In this case the only other option may have been Delta IV Heavy but I suspect it wouldn't have the lift capacity.
Sure there will be red tape, a longer fairing and that vertical integration tower that is now getting amortized over many launches.
But still that's $183M in extras.....
Well they did sayQuoteThe total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million
Nobody said it was all going to Space X.
Who know how many parties there are with their hands in the kitty...
Why such a high price?USSF-67 was $316 million for a 2022 launch. PPE/HALO is $333 million for a 2024 launch. Seems like a trend, maybe. Some of it is launch support, the new fairing, the support tower, etc., but Falcon Heavy itself doesn't appear to be getting cheaper.Quote from: the press releaseThe total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
Everyone should already know about this, but it's nice to have confirmation: SpaceX explains why the U.S. Space Force is paying $316 million for a single launch (https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/)QuoteSpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell on Nov. 9 explained that the contract pays for launch services but also covers expenses for infrastructure and other items required for national security launches.
“The launch was not that expensive,” Shotwell said during a panel discussion at the virtual World Satellite Business Week conference hosted by Euroconsult.QuoteBut Shotwell insisted the company’s launch prices are not going up. SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions.
The price “reflects mostly the infrastructure,” Shotwell said.
Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids.
“This one was front loaded because the Space Force wanted this capability deployed quickly,” said Shotwell.
Do we know if this contract was bid as a sole source contract? (For FAR accounting rules) Since I would assume the FH is the only active LV that can meet the requirements of the mission.
Why such a high price?I believe you meant to ask "why such a LOW price?" ...Quote from: the press releaseThe total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
Why such a high price?I believe you meant to ask "why such a LOW price?" ...Quote from: the press releaseThe total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.
ULA didn't bid on the contract but perhaps that Blue did?
SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.
Do we know if this contract was bid as a sole source contract? (For FAR accounting rules) Since I would assume the FH is the only active LV that can meet the requirements of the mission.
ULA didn't bid apparently, so I think that means SpaceX was the sole bid.
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1359385991501541376
SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.
What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.
SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.
What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.
I believe he was just saying that they could still launch their normal payloads on SLC 40 while 39A was busy with integration.
SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.
What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.
I believe he was just saying that they could still launch their normal payloads on SLC 40 while 39A was busy with integration.
SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.
What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.
I believe he was just saying that they could still launch their normal payloads on SLC 40 while 39A was busy with integration.
They are currently fully using both pads. As amazing as it is, that means that 2 months on pad for one mission prevents 3 to 5 other missions.
I'm also wondering: wasn't the DoD mission that paid for the Vertical Integration Tower launching from Vandenberg? They might have had to charge the VI tower to this mission.
Welp.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963076231921938432
They didn't get USAF to pay for new Extended fairing and Vertical Integration Tower?
That's a big chunk of change.
Because the February 2020 requirement change to co-manifest PPE and HALO was NASA’s decision, 10 months into the contract, Maxar was forced to terminate its subcontract with SpaceX for PPE launch services, even though Maxar had already paid SpaceX approximately $27.5 million. Because a portion of this amount was for a milestone NASA paid Maxar for, and Maxar planned to also use the rocket for non-NASA purposes, NASA and Maxar will need to determine what this cancellation will actually cost the government. Ultimately, potential savings from reducing two rocket launches to one will be measured against this cost, along with the cost of the Gateway elements and launch vehicle modifications needed to meet the co-manifested requirements. In addition, since the procurement for the co-manifested rocket will be made using NASA’s Launch Services Program, it is possible that the Agency could award the contract to the same company that Maxar was going to use and in effect pay twice for the same service (partial payment on the scrubbed PPE launch plus full payment on the co-manifested launch).
They launched 11 times from LC-39A last year. 2 months of a pad tie up would maybe displace 2 other flights.I presume they'd happily hold off on Starlink launches for this. Assuming they are still launching Starlink on F9 three years from now, which is far from a given.
SpaceX could still launch from pad 40.
What? 40 doesn’t have capability for Falcon Heavy at all, let alone a VIF. That’s a lot of infrastructure to build if they went that way. They would possibly also have to increase the GSE capacity for a Heavy mission.
I believe he was just saying that they could still launch their normal payloads on SLC 40 while 39A was busy with integration.
It wouldn't surprise me if any flight using the extended fairing also will be required to use vertical integration.
The existing fairing is already heavy compared to other fairings (this was before reuse), and part of the reason for that extra weight appears to be to support horizontal integration loads.
The extended fairing is probably designed for vertical integration. But that is my speculation only.
It wouldn't surprise me if any flight using the extended fairing also will be required to use vertical integration.
The existing fairing is already heavy compared to other fairings (this was before reuse), and part of the reason for that extra weight appears to be to support horizontal integration loads.
The extended fairing is probably designed for vertical integration. But that is my speculation only.
Does that mean the extended fairing might not weigh that much extra? Trade the weight for horizontal support for extra length? They could also dump all the recovery hardware as it may not be cost effective to try and recover the few extended fairings. (And extended fairing customers may not want to deal with it)
If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.
It's still unclear how much more the extended Fairing weighs, plus any extra aero drag.
Also what are the G limits for the combined stack?
What is the total impact on performance?
Using Base FH TLI numbers seems like it's going to be overly optimistic.
Also, Maxar estimated 2.5 x PPE xenon use and 2 x duration for Electric Orbit Raising (EOR) due to the doubled mass of the combined vehicles, and a sub-GTO instead of super-synch GTO insertion. So it seems likely NASA would want the maximum available performance from FH, to minimize the Xe use and EOR duration. Probably cheaper to pay for an expendable FH, than to pay for and manage an early/extra Logistics flight to top up PPE's Xe tanks.
Or, they could take a page from the Russian’s book and make a rig to support the fairing while horizontal. It might require the tower just to retire the rig and allow for normal horizontal processing of the encapsulated fairing.
If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.
It's still unclear how much more the extended Fairing weighs, plus any extra aero drag.
Also what are the G limits for the combined stack?
What is the total impact on performance?
Using Base FH TLI numbers seems like it's going to be overly optimistic.
Also, Maxar estimated 2.5 x PPE xenon use and 2 x duration for Electric Orbit Raising (EOR) due to the doubled mass of the combined vehicles, and a sub-GTO instead of super-synch GTO insertion. So it seems likely NASA would want the maximum available performance from FH, to minimize the Xe use and EOR duration. Probably cheaper to pay for an expendable FH, than to pay for and manage an early/extra Logistics flight to top up PPE's Xe tanks.
If this is a full expendable FH flight, why couldn't the FH payload send this payload to TLI? Is there a reason they would want a sub-GTO insertion instead?
Further, because it will take approximately 10 months for
the co-manifested PPE and HALO to reach Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for the Gateway to support a lunar
landing in 2024, the latest possible launch would need to be February 2024. The gap between the “need
by” launch date of February 2024 and current estimated launch date of May 2024 represents a negative
schedule margin of 3 months (see Figure 6)
As indicated on pages 11 and 12 of the IG Report, Maxar had received a contract of $375M for the PPE (which later increased to $454M) that originally included transportation on a SpaceX rocket (this portion of the contract has now been removed; see page 34 of the IG Report). Prior to yesterday, transportation for HALO had not yet been contracted with any launch services provider.I think both risks AND cost are reduced.Quote from: Page 18 of the NASA IG ReportBecause the February 2020 requirement change to co-manifest PPE and HALO was NASA’s decision, 10 months into the contract, Maxar was forced to terminate its subcontract with SpaceX for PPE launch services, even though Maxar had already paid SpaceX approximately $27.5 million. Because a portion of this amount was for a milestone NASA paid Maxar for, and Maxar planned to also use the rocket for non-NASA purposes, NASA and Maxar will need to determine what this cancellation will actually cost the government. Ultimately, potential savings from reducing two rocket launches to one will be measured against this cost, along with the cost of the Gateway elements and launch vehicle modifications needed to meet the co-manifested requirements. In addition, since the procurement for the co-manifested rocket will be made using NASA’s Launch Services Program, it is possible that the Agency could award the contract to the same company that Maxar was going to use and in effect pay twice for the same service (partial payment on the scrubbed PPE launch plus full payment on the co-manifested launch).
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-004.pdf
Now that we know the price for the co-manifested FH, it seems that NASA's decision to co-manifest the PPE and HALO was mostly done in order to reduce risks (as Loverro had indicated in early 2020), not to reduce costs. In any event, I believe that it makes sense to co-manifest the PPE and HALO on the basis of risks alone.
If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.
It's still unclear how much more the extended Fairing weighs, plus any extra aero drag.
Also what are the G limits for the combined stack?
What is the total impact on performance?
Using Base FH TLI numbers seems like it's going to be overly optimistic.
Also, Maxar estimated 2.5 x PPE xenon use and 2 x duration for Electric Orbit Raising (EOR) due to the doubled mass of the combined vehicles, and a sub-GTO instead of super-synch GTO insertion. So it seems likely NASA would want the maximum available performance from FH, to minimize the Xe use and EOR duration. Probably cheaper to pay for an expendable FH, than to pay for and manage an early/extra Logistics flight to top up PPE's Xe tanks.
If this is a full expendable FH flight, why couldn't the FH payload send this payload to TLI? Is there a reason they would want a sub-GTO insertion instead?
If the stack is only 15t, and FH can do ~20+t to TLI - I'm not sure that this needs to be a fully expendable launch. The center core, yes, but the boosters could perhaps be recovered down-range.
It's still unclear how much more the extended Fairing weighs, plus any extra aero drag.
Also what are the G limits for the combined stack?
What is the total impact on performance?
Using Base FH TLI numbers seems like it's going to be overly optimistic.
Also, Maxar estimated 2.5 x PPE xenon use and 2 x duration for Electric Orbit Raising (EOR) due to the doubled mass of the combined vehicles, and a sub-GTO instead of super-synch GTO insertion. So it seems likely NASA would want the maximum available performance from FH, to minimize the Xe use and EOR duration. Probably cheaper to pay for an expendable FH, than to pay for and manage an early/extra Logistics flight to top up PPE's Xe tanks.
If this is a full expendable FH flight, why couldn't the FH payload send this payload to TLI? Is there a reason they would want a sub-GTO insertion instead?
Good questions.. I found thisQuoteFurther, because it will take approximately 10 months for
the co-manifested PPE and HALO to reach Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit for the Gateway to support a lunar
landing in 2024, the latest possible launch would need to be February 2024. The gap between the “need
by” launch date of February 2024 and current estimated launch date of May 2024 represents a negative
schedule margin of 3 months (see Figure 6)
In here on page 17
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-004.pdf (https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-004.pdf)
It would appear they believe they every ounce of performance from FH they could get to not have even more issue with Schedule Margins. Although it's not clear what assumption they're making here wrt Launch vehicle.
Or, they could take a page from the Russian’s book and make a rig to support the fairing while horizontal. It might require the tower just to retire the rig and allow for normal horizontal processing of the encapsulated fairing.
It's also possible that the payload itself requires vertical integration for its own reasons, regardless of the how the fairing is supported. That's a very long and pretty darn heavy mass to cantilever off the PAF, and it's two nominally-separate masses joined at roughly the center as-is. It's a much easier load case for payload design if you can eliminate the 1-g negative Z loads during integration as well as any bending loads imparted during launch vehicle erection.
I shudder to think what this would have cost on a Delta IV Heavy. Better part of a billion dollars.
I shudder to think what this would have cost on a Delta IV Heavy. Better part of a billion dollars.
Delta IV Heavy is $350M. Ask Tory. Anyway, all its remaining flights are spoken for and ULA is not building any more.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963109303291854848 (https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963109303291854848)
And Falcon Heavy is $150M. Ask Elon. See how helpful these kinds of statements are? (As in; not).I shudder to think what this would have cost on a Delta IV Heavy. Better part of a billion dollars.
Delta IV Heavy is $350M. Ask Tory.
And Falcon Heavy is $150M. Ask Elon. See how helpful these kinds of statements are? (As in; not).I shudder to think what this would have cost on a Delta IV Heavy. Better part of a billion dollars.
Delta IV Heavy is $350M. Ask Tory.
The SPP spacecraft will launch aboard a Delta IV Heavy rocket from Space Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Launch is targeted for July 31, 2018, at the opening of a 20-day launch period. The total contract award amount for launch services is $389.1 million.https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/release-20150318.html
NASA spokesperson says Falcon Heavy will launch the Gateway's PPE & HALO modules into an initial Earth orbit, and PPE thrusters will send it to orbit the moon.
Parking orbit parameters under review & Falcon Heavy capability hinges on whether boosters are recovered or expended.
reference to the EC launch services RFI and upcoming RFP bid.Quote from: Stephen ClarkNASA spokesperson says Falcon Heavy will launch the Gateway's PPE & HALO modules into an initial Earth orbit, and PPE thrusters will send it to orbit the moon.
Parking orbit parameters under review & Falcon Heavy capability hinges on whether boosters are recovered or expended.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1359973708744581123
Quote from: Stephen ClarkNASA spokesperson says Falcon Heavy will launch the Gateway's PPE & HALO modules into an initial Earth orbit, and PPE thrusters will send it to orbit the moon.
Parking orbit parameters under review & Falcon Heavy capability hinges on whether boosters are recovered or expended.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1359973708744581123
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions.
The price “reflects mostly the infrastructure,” Shotwell said.
Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids.
[trimmed]I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
The DoD/NSS have specific requirements that they should pay for. What part of that is not clear to you?
I will be interested to see the cost of the Europa Clipper launch when that’s settled for FH.[snark]I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
It is awfully convenient how every time, that SLS has become more expensive than originally projected, people magic up a reason it's not NASA's fault, with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
(That is: until OIG comes out with a report confirming it actually IS NASA's fault, which has been happening fairly regularly in the last 5 years)
[/snark]
@Jadebenn: don't give me this crap. SLS amazing people are as bad as SpaceX amazing people. I'm neither of those and I just report what sources at SpaceX tell me.
Also, you would be well adviced to do some research into the prices SpaceX announces on its website. Had you done so you would have known that the listed $150 million for fully expendable FH is for a stock (= reference) comsat payload going to a stock (= reference) orbit.
The minute the customer wants a customized launch, the price goes up with every item added or changed from a stock launch.
In case of PPE/HALO the customer (NASA) wants all kinds of new stuff: a (currently) non-existing long fairing, vertical integration of the payload and hiring a SpaceX integration facility (for final payload integration) for six months. Customized data services. Customized quality control. Increased insight into SpaceX activities regarding this launch. Etc, etc, etc. I've seen the list, and it is long. NASA wants a boatload of stuff extra on top of a stock FH launch service.
Do you actually expect SpaceX to charge ZERO for all those extras? Not gonna happen. The customer will be charged fully for all those extras. No different from ULA charging NASA fully for all customer-required extras on top of a stock launch.
Why is NASA planning on payload integration (i.e assembly of sub-components) at a facility operated by the launch service provider? Why isn't this activity taking place somewhere like e.g. the Space Station Processing Facility? Or perhaps more suited for vertical payloads, the VAB?
Isn't it because at these firesale prices for services, having SpaceX do the job ends up being less expensive?
Why is NASA planning on payload integration (i.e assembly of sub-components) at a facility operated by the launch service provider? Why isn't this activity taking place somewhere like e.g. the Space Station Processing Facility? Or perhaps more suited for vertical payloads, the VAB?
Isn't it because at these firesale prices for services, having SpaceX do the job ends up being less expensive?
Did NASA announce where the payload integration would be done?
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
The payload stack wouldn't be assembled in the VIF, that's not what it's for. It will be stacked at one of several payload processing facilities in the area. The SpaceX facility is one of the options. NASA has started using SpaceX payload processing facilities for some missions but not all.Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility. Most satellites arrive nearly ready to go and have a much shorter time (one month?) taking up space in SX's PPF.
Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility.
you underestimate the height of select existing facilities.The payload stack wouldn't be assembled in the VIF, that's not what it's for. It will be stacked at one of several payload processing facilities in the area. The SpaceX facility is one of the options. NASA has started using SpaceX payload processing facilities for some missions but not all.Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility. Most satellites arrive nearly ready to go and have a much shorter time (one month?) taking up space in SX's PPF.
The PPF is a cleanroom.... with all normal facilities... crane, offices, workshop, computing, ... etc
This new PPF I guess will be needed, will likely be used for the DoD contracts... A separate facility would make it easier to manage security clearance / secrecy etc... and customer tweaking/operations. This new facility should be away from the launch pads so work is not interrupted by launches. The lower cadence of FH, works well with customers likely (as in this case) to book it for longer.
IIUC, the new SpaceX extra large fairing is similar in size to the existing Atlas V/Delta IV fairings, so the processing facilities they use should be sufficiently large to process PPE/HALO and the other payloads.you underestimate the height of select existing facilities.The payload stack wouldn't be assembled in the VIF, that's not what it's for. It will be stacked at one of several payload processing facilities in the area. The SpaceX facility is one of the options. NASA has started using SpaceX payload processing facilities for some missions but not all.Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility. Most satellites arrive nearly ready to go and have a much shorter time (one month?) taking up space in SX's PPF.
The PPF is a cleanroom.... with all normal facilities... crane, offices, workshop, computing, ... etc
This new PPF I guess will be needed, will likely be used for the DoD contracts... A separate facility would make it easier to manage security clearance / secrecy etc... and customer tweaking/operations. This new facility should be away from the launch pads so work is not interrupted by launches. The lower cadence of FH, works well with customers likely (as in this case) to book it for longer.
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
On that last paragraph, maybe. However, there already is Psyche, a xenon-propelled mission for launch in 2022. NASA would've already wanted the xenon modifications by Psyche. They're quite similar in propulsion(hall-effect thrusters) so anything they prepare for Psyche's propulsion probably can be used for PPE. Although that could be different with the VIF.IIUC, the new SpaceX extra large fairing is similar in size to the existing Atlas V/Delta IV fairings, so the processing facilities they use should be sufficiently large to process PPE/HALO and the other payloads.you underestimate the height of select existing facilities.The payload stack wouldn't be assembled in the VIF, that's not what it's for. It will be stacked at one of several payload processing facilities in the area. The SpaceX facility is one of the options. NASA has started using SpaceX payload processing facilities for some missions but not all.Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility. Most satellites arrive nearly ready to go and have a much shorter time (one month?) taking up space in SX's PPF.
The PPF is a cleanroom.... with all normal facilities... crane, offices, workshop, computing, ... etc
This new PPF I guess will be needed, will likely be used for the DoD contracts... A separate facility would make it easier to manage security clearance / secrecy etc... and customer tweaking/operations. This new facility should be away from the launch pads so work is not interrupted by launches. The lower cadence of FH, works well with customers likely (as in this case) to book it for longer.
FH has been processed horizontally, move to 39A, static fired, return to the assembly building, had its payload attached, transported back to the pad, erected and launched within the span of a few days. Assuming the existence of a crane and any other required vertical integration equipment, would it take significantly longer to static fire an FH, NOT lower it to horizontal, NOT transport it back to the building, NOT attach a payload, NOT transport it back to the pad, NOT raise it back up, and then to attach a vertically integrated, encapsulated payload (already prepared at one of the payload integration facilities)? It would just take driving it (very carefully) a few miles to the pad, mostly over routes already used for A5/D4, raising it up with the crane and attaching it to the second stage/payload attachment fittings.
I understand NASA may want to run extra post-integration checks and maybe a second (post-static fire) countdown demonstration, especially on the first such flight, but why are people expecting this to take months? Most of the testing should be done in the payload integration facility, not on the pad. The pad checks are just to make sure everything got hooked up correctly and nothing got busted during the drive to the pad or the vertical lift to the top of the rocket. All preparation and fueling, especially hypergolics, is normally done in a hazardous materials processing building, not on the pad.
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)On that last paragraph, maybe. However, there already is Psyche, a xenon-propelled mission for launch in 2022. NASA would've already wanted the xenon modifications by Psyche. They're quite similar in propulsion(hall-effect thrusters) so anything they prepare for Psyche's propulsion probably can be used for PPE. Although that could be different with the VIF.
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)On that last paragraph, maybe. However, there already is Psyche, a xenon-propelled mission for launch in 2022. NASA would've already wanted the xenon modifications by Psyche. They're quite similar in propulsion(hall-effect thrusters) so anything they prepare for Psyche's propulsion probably can be used for PPE. Although that could be different with the VIF.
Why would the Xenon be loaded at the pad?
Next door from my office window, HALO is coming together:
https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1361306970737803274
Indeed. More specifically DoD/NSS, as well as NASA, have specific requirements which don't apply to a stock comsat launch of FH. All the extra things DoD/NSS and NASA require add significant cost for SpaceX and SpaceX will charge the customers (DoD/NSS and NASA) for those costs (plus profit).Correct. Services cost money. Government missions require more services. Did I say differently?
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).This is not the reason the launch contract costs $300M.
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration.
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
I shudder to think what this would have cost on a Delta IV Heavy. Better part of a billion dollars.
What is SSPF used for nowadays ?
The new ISS solar arrays ?
Shamelessly cross-posting from the Gateway thread:Next door from my office window, HALO is coming together:
https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1361306970737803274
Lueders: finalizing a fixed-price contract for the HALO module for Gateway. Would require delivery at the end of 2024 for launch then or early 2025.
NASA is targeting November 2024 to launch the integrated spacecraft on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdfQuote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Not a trivial change, but they could try changing RP-1 to Syntin (http://syntin), which has a higher density and Isp compared to RP-1.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdfQuote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdfQuote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Cutting weight in design and off loading mass before launch seems like the easiest path forward.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdfQuote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Cutting weight in design and off loading mass before launch seems like the easiest path forward.
The easiest thing to offload will be fuel, so they have a delicate balancing act to do there. Best of luck to them.
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Cutting weight in design and off loading mass before launch seems like the easiest path forward.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdfQuote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is the FH currently planned to be fully expended? If not, moving to a fully expendable launch could be one option.
Another possibility is to lower the target orbit, load additional Xenon for the ion engines and extend the duration of orbit raising. Might require some re-design to carry additional propellant, though.
One advantage of using electric propulsion is that there can be some flexibility with the orbit insertion. It should be possible to take advantage of performance reserves by burning the upper stage to depletion, to shorten the orbit raising timeline and save PPE fuel.
Is the FH currently planned to be fully expended? If not, moving to a fully expendable launch could be one option.Usually electric propulsion involves nearly continuous thrusting (which means you don’t get nearly as much of the Oberth Effect as high thrust propulsion), but if you’ve already maximized the Isp (often thrusters have an Isp range they can operate in), a thing you can do without adding more propellant is to avoid thrusting at apogee and only thrust near perigee. That gives you the advantage of the Oberth Effect, but at the expense of much more time and potentially exposure to the Van Allen belts (not a problem for human radiation limits as the Gateway stack will be uncrewed at the time, but might be a problem for electronics or the solar arrays).
Another possibility is to lower the target orbit, load additional Xenon for the ion engines and extend the duration of orbit raising. Might require some re-design to carry additional propellant, though.
One advantage of using electric propulsion is that there can be some flexibility with the orbit insertion. It should be possible to take advantage of performance reserves by burning the upper stage to depletion, to shorten the orbit raising timeline and save PPE fuel.
Is the FH currently planned to be fully expended? If not, moving to a fully expendable launch could be one option.
Another possibility is to lower the target orbit, load additional Xenon for the ion engines and extend the duration of orbit raising. Might require some re-design to carry additional propellant, though.
One advantage of using electric propulsion is that there can be some flexibility with the orbit insertion. It should be possible to take advantage of performance reserves by burning the upper stage to depletion, to shorten the orbit raising timeline and save PPE fuel.
yes
no, can't add more propellant
Is the FH currently planned to be fully expended? If not, moving to a fully expendable launch could be one option.Usually electric propulsion involves nearly continuous thrusting (which means you don’t get nearly as much of the Oberth Effect as high thrust propulsion), but if you’ve already maximized the Isp (often thrusters have an Isp range they can operate in), a thing you can do without adding more propellant is to avoid thrusting at apogee and only thrust near perigee. That gives you the advantage of the Oberth Effect, but at the expense of much more time and potentially exposure to the Van Allen belts (not a problem for human radiation limits as the Gateway stack will be uncrewed at the time, but might be a problem for electronics or the solar arrays).
Another possibility is to lower the target orbit, load additional Xenon for the ion engines and extend the duration of orbit raising. Might require some re-design to carry additional propellant, though.
One advantage of using electric propulsion is that there can be some flexibility with the orbit insertion. It should be possible to take advantage of performance reserves by burning the upper stage to depletion, to shorten the orbit raising timeline and save PPE fuel.
Electric propulsion gives you a lot of flexibility there if you’re willing to trade time.
With C3 -0.6 km2/sec2 I get a little more than 15 t .
Is that about right for a TLI?
With C3 -0.6 km2/sec2 I get a little more than 15 t .
Is that about right for a TLI?
In https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/atlas-v-and-delta-iv-technical-summary.pdf
ULA asserts, "TLI (Trans-lunar Injection) = C3: -2 km 2 /sec 2."
Yes, I also found different values, and had to decide.
Advance apologies for the speculation herein.The PPE (Power and Propulsion Element) IS an additional stage, with two separate types of thruster, and it is designed to be refuelled via connections where it mates to the HALO. In earlier Gateway designs, PPE connected to the ERM, (ESPRIT Refuelling Module) rather than Directly to the HALO. In the current plan ERM will plug into the side of HALO and provide fuel through an interface there and that fuel (both hydrazine and xenon) apparently flow through HALO to PPE.
In the contract awarded to SpaceX, under what fairing is PPE+HALO slated to fly? Standard size, or the extra big one being developed for another customer?
In either case, is there room inside for additional hardware?
Finally, under what circumstances (if any) would addition of a solid motor, sort of like a stage 3, improve the effective performance of FH?
somehow cramming an extra COPV full of xenon into HALO might work
The downside to this type of thruster is that the insulator is eroded during operation [and] the erosion of the propellant channel is the main lifetime limitator of this type of thruster,
But even before the recent overweight problems, the mission was going to use the PPE for a "slow spiral", taking about nine months to get to NRHO. The extra thrust for the excess mass is an increment on this, and PPE was originally designed as a space tug.somehow cramming an extra COPV full of xenon into HALO might work
That's very creative! And yes, it might work. But see:
https://beyondnerva.com/electric-propulsion/hall-effect-thrusters/
and in particular:QuoteThe downside to this type of thruster is that the insulator is eroded during operation [and] the erosion of the propellant channel is the main lifetime limitator of this type of thruster,
So in a slow spiral out to the destination orbit some percentage of the useful life of the thruster is consumed.
somehow cramming an extra COPV full of xenon into HALO might work
That's very creative! And yes, it might work. But see:
https://beyondnerva.com/electric-propulsion/hall-effect-thrusters/
Here's an image GAO says comes from the contractors, showing the co-manifested payload under the fairing. Since PPE is on top, couldn't they squeeze a STAR-48V motor into the upper conical section of the fairing?
NASA (in LSP-PLN-324.01 Revision C) specifically allows, "final stages (exclusively used for orbit circularization or escape)" to be added to a LV, without requiring recertification.
Here's an image GAO says comes from the contractors, showing the co-manifested payload under the fairing. Since PPE is on top, couldn't they squeeze a STAR-48V motor into the upper conical section of the fairing?Just use a different trajectory or refuel the PPE instead of kludging a stage in there.
NASA (in LSP-PLN-324.01 Revision C) specifically allows, "final stages (exclusively used for orbit circularization or escape)" to be added to a LV, without requiring recertification.
Just use a different trajectory
Here's an image GAO says comes from the contractors, showing the co-manifested payload under the fairing. Since PPE is on top, couldn't they squeeze a STAR-48V motor into the upper conical section of the fairing?
NASA (in LSP-PLN-324.01 Revision C) specifically allows, "final stages (exclusively used for orbit circularization or escape)" to be added to a LV, without requiring recertification.
It would be part of the spacecraft and not launch vehicle. [...]
They don't have the mass allowance for it.
So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
Any other suggestions?
Yes, LSP (and the user’s guide to some extent) are conservative and years old. They also may require mods to the payload adapter. Allowing greater performance may require more engineering analysis to prove sufficient margins, etc.
(g) Remove recovery hardware from fairings.
So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
Any other suggestions?
If the payload allows it, they could drop the fairings sooner like they do on Starlink missions. However PPE and HALO most likely cannot be exposed earlier to the high atmosphere so that is likely impossible.
SpaceX may also play with thrust limits a bit, in two ways:
1) Higher nominal thrust (they seem to have done this lately, maybe thrust can be increased even more if the engines only have to be used once
2) Higher G loads near MECO and SECO (less throttling) and tighter max-Q bucket
Interesting chart in NASA budget documents this morning that show Artemis 3 still launching in 2025, but Artemis 4 pushed back to 2028.
NASA LAUNCH SERVICES II - SPACEX MOD 260: Add Mission Unique Service for a Mechanical Ground Support Equipment (MGSE) Stand to the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) + Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) mission.
These two modules, a power and propulsion element and a pressurized habitat for astronauts, are projected to weigh in at about 18 metric tons (nearly 40,000 pounds). That would make this spacecraft the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever launched.
Reading through this thread, I noticed that the generally accepted mass for the PPE/HALO stack was 14-15 tons. However, more recently from Stephen Clark at Ars . . .The article does not mention it, but possibly part of the difference is that PPE will be fully fueled, because it must move itself and HALO from its Earth orbit to NRHO.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/) [Oct 9]QuoteThese two modules, a power and propulsion element and a pressurized habitat for astronauts, are projected to weigh in at about 18 metric tons (nearly 40,000 pounds). That would make this spacecraft the heaviest payload SpaceX has ever launched.
New longer fairing [...]
The article does not mention it, but possibly part of the difference is that PPE will be fully fueled, because it must move itself and HALO from its Earth orbit to NRHO.
The impression I got was that PPE was going to use its ion thruster (xenon) to get PPE+HALO out to NRHO, but I do not have a reference for this. I got that impression because I recall that the article said it was going to take months.The article does not mention it, but possibly part of the difference is that PPE will be fully fueled, because it must move itself and HALO from its Earth orbit to NRHO.
Do you mean hydrazine or xenon propellant?
2.2 Reaction Control System Assumptions
Each RCS thruster is modeled as a hydrazine-fueled 20N thruster with an Isp of 200s
PPE/HALO weighing 18 metric tons (~39,683 pounds) is to be SpaceX’s heaviest payload ever?We don't have a detailed mass of Starlink V2 Mini satellites. We know from the FCC documents that they should weigh around 800 kg, but it may have been published before the design was finalized (especially with SpaceX rapid development) or it could have some margin included.
I thought the heaviest SpaceX payload was 23 Starlink v2 Mini satellites (800 kilograms each), which weigh 18.4 metric tons (~40,565 pounds) all together.
The article does not mention it, but possibly part of the difference is that PPE will be fully fueled, because it must move itself and HALO from its Earth orbit to NRHO.
Do you mean hydrazine or xenon propellant?
Following vibration testing, Dream Chaser will be moved to the propulsion facility for thermal vacuum testing to simulates the environment the spacecraft will encounter during its mission to the @Space_Station
.
For reasons outlined elsewhere I would dearly love to see a plausible rationale supporting the notion that after launch on FH the co-manifested PPE+HALO can promptly (i.e. with chemical propulsion) get itself onto a trajectory outside the Van Allen belts, after which the solar-electric propulsion can begin the climb towards NRHO.
It is using electric first. Chemical is for around the moon.
So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
Is NASA desperate enough to solve PPE/HALO mass growth to consider launching PPE/HALO on Starship? Just Starship may not have enough performance but if you add a kick stage or propellant transfer Starship leaves expendable Falcon Heavy in the dust. For example the Helios kick stage website claims it's compatible with Starship. I don't know official numbers for Starship + Helios but my back of the envelope calculations suggest around 37 tonnes to TLI, which is about twice the needed mass to a harder orbit than needed. With this much performance one could probably skip the planned electric propulsion phase and deliver to NRHO solely chemically, saving about a year of flight time.
So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
Is NASA desperate enough to solve PPE/HALO mass growth to consider launching PPE/HALO on Starship? Just Starship may not have enough performance but if you add a kick stage or propellant transfer Starship leaves expendable Falcon Heavy in the dust. For example the Helios kick stage website claims it's compatible with Starship. I don't know official numbers for Starship + Helios but my back of the envelope calculations suggest around 37 tonnes to TLI, which is about twice the needed mass to a harder orbit than needed. With this much performance one could probably skip the planned electric propulsion phase and deliver to NRHO solely chemically, saving about a year of flight time.
It's hard to see why NASA would balk at using this for PPE/HALO.
From NASA’s perspective, Gateway is like a backup near term destination in case HLS is delayed. Additionally, Starship is NOT a proven and reliable launcher and it might be a few years until large payloads can be deployed from it.So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
Is NASA desperate enough to solve PPE/HALO mass growth to consider launching PPE/HALO on Starship? Just Starship may not have enough performance but if you add a kick stage or propellant transfer Starship leaves expendable Falcon Heavy in the dust. For example the Helios kick stage website claims it's compatible with Starship. I don't know official numbers for Starship + Helios but my back of the envelope calculations suggest around 37 tonnes to TLI, which is about twice the needed mass to a harder orbit than needed. With this much performance one could probably skip the planned electric propulsion phase and deliver to NRHO solely chemically, saving about a year of flight time.
NASA is already committed to using Starship with propellant transfer as part of Artemis, and on the current schedule this occurs at least twice (HLS Demo and Artemis III) prior to the PPE/HALO mission. It's hard to see why NASA would balk at using this for PPE/HALO. Worst case: expendable SS with propellant transfer. Probably still about as cheap as the FH.
This assumes Starship works at all, but Artemis is already assuming this.
OK, if you think an SLS/Orion mission without a landing (after Artemis II) is a good idea, then you have a justification for Gateway. This is to me an admission that Artemis is primarily just a big jobs program. I personally feel that this is a complete waste of resources, but I'm not the decision-maker. I think the only justification for Gateway is to support Orion for HLS missions longer than a week. This is especially true of the minimal PPE+HALO gateway.From NASA’s perspective, Gateway is like a backup near term destination in case HLS is delayed. Additionally, Starship is NOT a proven and reliable launcher and it might be a few years until large payloads can be deployed from it.So what could SpaceX practically do to increase payload, assuming the FH is already fully expendable?
Is NASA desperate enough to solve PPE/HALO mass growth to consider launching PPE/HALO on Starship? Just Starship may not have enough performance but if you add a kick stage or propellant transfer Starship leaves expendable Falcon Heavy in the dust. For example the Helios kick stage website claims it's compatible with Starship. I don't know official numbers for Starship + Helios but my back of the envelope calculations suggest around 37 tonnes to TLI, which is about twice the needed mass to a harder orbit than needed. With this much performance one could probably skip the planned electric propulsion phase and deliver to NRHO solely chemically, saving about a year of flight time.
NASA is already committed to using Starship with propellant transfer as part of Artemis, and on the current schedule this occurs at least twice (HLS Demo and Artemis III) prior to the PPE/HALO mission. It's hard to see why NASA would balk at using this for PPE/HALO. Worst case: expendable SS with propellant transfer. Probably still about as cheap as the FH.
This assumes Starship works at all, but Artemis is already assuming this.
So, no.
From NASA's perspective, the point of Gateway isn't really to support lunar missions (regardless of what the PR says) but instead to act as a sort of subscale demo of a Mars Transfer Vehicle or, more generally, a Deep Space Transport. Think the Obama-era Flexible Path. So even without lunar surface missions at all, there's some value in doing Gateway-only missions to buy down risk and mature operations for MTV/DST-like missions.My Emphasis in bold.
The clock is ticking down.
Realistically, Starship wouldn't be certified for payloads like that for a couple years if it makes orbit soon, and a kick stage flying for the first time in 2026 would probably need a year or two also assuming it's sucessful. So something like that wouldn't be a contracting option until at least 2027-2028. Of course Gateway could eventually slip that far, but changing the launch contract right now isn't going to happen.Many other rockets seem to be qualified for various categories of launches after several MISSIONS. How come then several people are posting that Starship would need a year or two. Similarly Helios, should need a few launches rather than a number of years. Tom Muller (ex SpaceX(2nd employee) legendry designer of the Merlin engine, founder of Impulse space, which is developing the said Helios) in a recent talk explained that he largely continued the SpaceX attitude to speedy development etc. Assuming Starship reaches orbit soon, getting two or three demo flights of Helios before 2026 doesn't seem a tall order! (I am not a space professional!)
From NASA's perspective, the point of Gateway isn't really to support lunar missions (regardless of what the PR says).If I'm not supposed to believe what NASA says, then how should I decide who to believe instead?
Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
Understood. But SpaceX apparently intends to fullfill its NSSL obligations when launching FH from VFSB by upgrading and using SLC-6, and that will include the pad and some kind of spacecraft facilities. Have they said whether they will modify the existing spacecraft facilities or just abandon them and build new ones?Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
Was referring to Vandenberg spacecraft facilities
that doesn't seem an issue ppe/halo launch will slip to 2028-30 due to Artemis delays and no demo modules construction even. Issue is why can't the vandy facilities handle? This saves SpaceX money for additional vif tower. Also tell the delta v needed to reach near equatorial earth orbit of Moon from a Polar or 52 inclination orbit from vandy.Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
that doesn't seem an issue ppe/halo launch will slip to 2028-30 due to Artemis delays and no demo modules construction even.Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
Surely they have already done the simplest mass reductions? The most obvious reduction (as seen from the outside by this uneducated observer) is to replace the PPE-to-HALO docking systems on both spacecraft with a fixed connection. That particular docking connection is one of the most complicated on Gateway. True it has no crew tunnel, but it does support heavy electrical, Xenon, and propellant for the PPE chemical thrusters.<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
PPE has both electrical and chemical thrusters, and both the Xenon and the chemical fuel are refillable PPE was supposed to launch with about 2500 kg of fuel. However, it cannot be refilled until someone builds a spacecraft to carry that fuel. Unfortunately, the various redesigns have shifted the refilling concept around quite a bit, so it's hard to know what the current status is unless you are an insider (not me).<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
I recall that the xenon fuel is refillable. So off loading propellant may also be an option. I believe it was a sizeable load.
Think they already done that.Surely they have already done the simplest mass reductions? The most obvious reduction (as seen from the outside by this uneducated observer) is to replace the PPE-to-HALO docking systems on both spacecraft with a fixed connection. That particular docking connection is one of the most complicated on Gateway. True it has no crew tunnel, but it does support heavy electrical, Xenon, and propellant for the PPE chemical thrusters.<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
Yep. It would probably require a bunch more tanker flights, but this could be added to the HLS demo. One question: can HLS thrust be throttled down far enough? HLS would probably need to dock to HALO axial, so HALO would need to handle the force of itself plus the fully-fuelled PPE.Think they already done that.Surely they have already done the simplest mass reductions? The most obvious reduction (as seen from the outside by this uneducated observer) is to replace the PPE-to-HALO docking systems on both spacecraft with a fixed connection. That particular docking connection is one of the most complicated on Gateway. True it has no crew tunnel, but it does support heavy electrical, Xenon, and propellant for the PPE chemical thrusters.<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
NASA should really consider using the HLS lander as a space tug to get the integrated vehicle stack to a Lunar orbit. Especially since a HLS lander is suppose to be available before the stack is launched.
Surely they have already done the simplest mass reductions? The most obvious reduction (as seen from the outside by this uneducated observer) is to replace the PPE-to-HALO docking systems on both spacecraft with a fixed connection.
Understood. But SpaceX apparently intends to fullfill its NSSL obligations when launching FH from VFSB by upgrading and using SLC-6, and that will include the pad and some kind of spacecraft facilities. Have they said whether they will modify the existing spacecraft facilities or just abandon them and build new ones?
that doesn't seem an issue ppe/halo launch will slip to 2028-30 due to Artemis delays and no demo modules construction even. Issue is why can't the vandy facilities handle? This saves SpaceX money for additional vif tower. Also tell the delta v needed to reach near equatorial earth orbit of Moon from a Polar or 52 inclination orbit from vandy.Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
Alternatively, lay down pad 39a rails till nasa's vab near sls vab that is leased to SpaceX for Starship. And roll Transporter erector vertically that I doubt it can move vertically as it rolls horizontally
<snip>The acceleration for a stack with an integrated vehicle of the combined PPE & HALO modules plus a fully filled HLS lander with just the Raptor Vacs running at 60% should be within structure limitation of the integrated vehicle stack. Said stack must be able take at least 3Gs during the Falcon Heavy launch.
Yep. It would probably require a bunch more tanker flights, but this could be added to the HLS demo. One question: can HLS thrust be throttled down far enough? HLS would probably need to dock to HALO axial, so HALO would need to handle the force of itself plus the fully-fuelled PPE.
<snip>.
The real irony would occur if they did use Artemis III for this. When Orion showed up they would find HLS already docked to Gateway, because HLS had dock to Gateway in LEO.
PPE has both electrical and chemical thrusters, and both the Xenon and the chemical fuel are refillable PPE was supposed to launch with about 2500 kg of fuel. However, it cannot be refilled until someone builds a spacecraft to carry that fuel. Unfortunately, the various redesigns have shifted the refilling concept around quite a bit, so it's hard to know what the current status is unless you are an insider (not me).<snip>True. But if the integrated vehicle stack is overweight. They will need to reduce the mass somehow. Likely with re-working the internal arrangements and offloading mass to the Dragon XL logistics vehicle and/or the SpaceX HLS lander.
According to the Gateway Update Thread, construction on PPE and HALO is fairly far along?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.msg2541132#msg2541132
I recall that the xenon fuel is refillable. So off loading propellant may also be an option. I believe it was a sizeable load.
Apparently, in an early design the PPE was refuelled directly from a refueler. Then PPE was supposed to connect permanently and directly to ESPRIT, and the refueller would connect to ESPRIT. Now, PPE connects to HALO and ESPRIT connects to HALO, and the refueller connects to ESPRIT, and all of this happens in the far future.
To get past this mess in the short(?!) term, NASA could contract for a refueller that can connect directly to HALO using the port that will be used for ESPRIT. They could then launch PPE+HALO (almost) dry, and refuel in LEO, and then refuel again in NRHO.
I do not know enough about the technology, processes, or politics to have a informed opinion, but my guess is that there is no possible way to get this done in time to be useful. It looks like the ESPRIT team would be best suited for this, but ESPRIT is an ESA project.
that doesn't seem an issue ppe/halo launch will slip to 2028-30 due to Artemis delays and no demo modules construction even. Issue is why can't the vandy facilities handle? This saves SpaceX money for additional vif tower. Also tell the delta v needed to reach near equatorial earth orbit of Moon from a Polar or 52 inclination orbit from vandy.Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
Alternatively, lay down pad 39a rails till nasa's vab near sls vab that is leased to SpaceX for Starship. And roll Transporter erector vertically that I doubt it can move vertically as it rolls horizontally
there must be Ida for further add no modules.Surely they have already done the simplest mass reductions? The most obvious reduction (as seen from the outside by this uneducated observer) is to replace the PPE-to-HALO docking systems on both spacecraft with a fixed connection.
There is no docking systems. The decision to fly HALO PPE together was done before PDR of either system.
I mean what ppe/halo can be integrated horizontally. Aiiiiah wait a minutethat doesn't seem an issue ppe/halo launch will slip to 2028-30 due to Artemis delays and no demo modules construction even. Issue is why can't the vandy facilities handle? This saves SpaceX money for additional vif tower. Also tell the delta v needed to reach near equatorial earth orbit of Moon from a Polar or 52 inclination orbit from vandy.Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
Alternatively, lay down pad 39a rails till nasa's vab near sls vab that is leased to SpaceX for Starship. And roll Transporter erector vertically that I doubt it can move vertically as it rolls horizontally
PPE/HALO is planned to integrate horizontally with Falcon Heavy. The processing facilities Jim is referring to are for payload processing - the complete vehicle is too big to transport, so the various pieces are being assembled at the cape.
And launching from VAFB would further cut into the already-tight performance margins, due to the higher inclination.
I mean what ppe/halo can be integrated horizontally. Aiiiiah wait a minutethat doesn't seem an issue ppe/halo launch will slip to 2028-30 due to Artemis delays and no demo modules construction even. Issue is why can't the vandy facilities handle? This saves SpaceX money for additional vif tower. Also tell the delta v needed to reach near equatorial earth orbit of Moon from a Polar or 52 inclination orbit from vandy.Yep. It will take awhile to convert slc-6. From a ref in Wikipedia:Can SpaceX launch ppe/halo from SLC-6?¿‽¿?
The processing facilities can't handle it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Space_Launch_Complex_6#SpaceX_(from_2023)
"SpaceX expects to begin Falcon 9 launches from SLC-6 in 2025 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2026".
Alternatively, lay down pad 39a rails till nasa's vab near sls vab that is leased to SpaceX for Starship. And roll Transporter erector vertically that I doubt it can move vertically as it rolls horizontally
PPE/HALO is planned to integrate horizontally with Falcon Heavy. The processing facilities Jim is referring to are for payload processing - the complete vehicle is too big to transport, so the various pieces are being assembled at the cape.
And launching from VAFB would further cut into the already-tight performance margins, due to the higher inclination.
Ok just remembered that nauka type jumbo module was integrated horizontally. I assumed falsely that long fairing means you need VIF
In the teleconference that was mainly about Artemis crew mission delays, at around 31m 30s, there was a comment that the schedule for PPE+HALO would be updated.
Had previously planned launch for October 2025. Now under review. "We will be updating that schedule here as well." That was January 9. Should we be expecting an update around February 9, or is that unrealistic?
youtube.com/watch?v=ZJVa0z5kZAk
The President's budget request shows the launch in 2026
The President's budget request shows the launch in 2026
In Fiscal Year 2026. So no change from the latest schedules.
The President's budget request shows the launch in 2026
Gateway Initial Capability includes the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), the commercial launch vehicle for initial launch, and a portion of Program Mission Execution (PME).
The proposed funding levels sufficiently allow the program to support development of Gateway's Initial Capability as soon as is technically feasible. While the confirmation baseline launch readiness date is December 2027, NASA is re-assessing the Gateway Initial Capability work-to launch date, which currently is targeted for no earlier than (NET) October 2025.
Milestone: Initial Capability LRD
Confirmation Baseline Date: Dec 2027
FY 2025 PB Request: Dec 2027
The Gateway space station’s HALO (Habitation and Logistics Outpost), one of four modules where astronauts will live, conduct science, and prepare for lunar surface missions, is a step closer to launch following welding completion in Turin, Italy, a milestone highlighted by NASA earlier this year.
Teams at Thales Alenia Space gently guide HALO to a new location in the company’s facility for a series of stress tests to ensure the module’s safety. Upon successful completion, the future home for astronauts will travel to Gilbert, Arizona, where Northrop Grumman will complete final outfitting ahead of launch to lunar orbit with Gateway’s Power and Propulsion Element.
GAO: Assessments of Major Projects (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf)
June 2024
[...]
Cost and Schedule Status
[...]
The HALO project is working with its contractor, the PPE project, NASA, and its international partners to update its internal project schedule. Program officials stated the comanifested vehicle needs to launch at least a year before the September 2028 Artemis IV mission to allow time for the vehicle to transit from Earth to the moon and prepare for docking. Therefore, NASA would need to integrate the HALO and the PPE and launch them by September 2027 to support the mission. Program officials said they plan to work to a more aggressive internal launch date than the baseline launch date but have not yet determined this new date.
[...]