Author Topic: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)  (Read 36795 times)

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« on: 04/28/2018 12:06 am »
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=46b23a8f2c06da6ac08e1d1d2ae97d35&tab=documents&tabmode=list

This is just a draft RFP with very little details but pretty interesting. Firstly, I like the acronym ~ “clips”.

Appears to be aimed at Astrobotics, Moon Express and BO Blue Moon. Anyone else?

The timing of this draft RFP and cancellation of Resource Prospector may hint at a change in strategy to achieve the same goals.

Mods, please move to appropriate section if this isn’t the right place for it. Thanks!
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 01:59 am by Markstark »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #1 on: 04/28/2018 10:59 am »
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=46b23a8f2c06da6ac08e1d1d2ae97d35&tab=documents&tabmode=list

This is just a draft RFP with very little details but pretty interesting. Firstly, I like the acronym ~ “clips”.

Appears to be aimed at Astrobotics, Moon Express and BO Blue Moon. Anyone else?

The timing of this draft RFP and cancellation of Resource Prospector may hint at a change in strategy to achieve the same goals.

Mods, please move to appropriate section if this isn’t the right place for it. Thanks!

I suspect that Nanoracks could submit a bid by acting as a space travel agent.

Masten Space Systems are developing several lunar landers under Lunar CATALYST. Since the CLIPS contract can last 10 years they may on ramp in 2 or 3 years time.

The launch vehicle supplies SpaceX and ULA may apply but they will probably subcontract to the lander companies. SpaceX's may bid its BFR upper stage as a cargo lander.

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #2 on: 04/28/2018 12:15 pm »
You’re right. I hadn’t realized this RFP was that expansive. There will likely be team-ups between companies to address the various capabilities required to get a payload to the surface of the moon

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #3 on: 04/28/2018 12:37 pm »
Skimming it - contract value between $25K and $2.5B. That's a range!  (p9)
They can make orders under this contract for 10 years following the contract signature.

This is _extraordinarily_ broad.
Page 78 is where the meat starts.
'At least 10kg of intact landed payload before Dec 31 2021'

That is almost the sum total of actual requirements, other than 'tell us how you're going to do this'.

This can cover anything from '10kg of ...' to thousand ton moonbases (if you think you can get them in at $2.5B).

Dec 31 2021 is in the range where BFS will hopefully be flying and fully debugged if it's to make Mars 2022.
It might even be in the range BFR is testing.

NA hopefully will be online, as will vulcan.

BFS doesn't even need to land to do a compelling mission under this contract, kick fifteen tons out of the airlock at 50m and airbag it down.

Or even tiny landers based around the rocketlabs electron.

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #4 on: 04/28/2018 12:46 pm »
Skimming it - contract value between $25K and $2.5B. That's a range!  (p9)
They can make orders under this contract for 10 years following the contract signature.

This is _extraordinarily_ broad.
Page 78 is where the meat starts.
'At least 10kg of intact landed payload before Dec 31 2021'

That is almost the sum total of actual requirements, other than 'tell us how you're going to do this'.

This can cover anything from '10kg of ...' to thousand ton moonbases (if you think you can get them in at $2.5B).

Dec 31 2021 is in the range where BFS will hopefully be flying and fully debugged if it's to make Mars 2022.
It might even be in the range BFR is testing.

NA hopefully will be online, as will vulcan.

BFS doesn't even need to land to do a compelling mission under this contract, kick fifteen tons out of the airlock at 50m and airbag it down.

Or even tiny landers based around the rocketlabs electron.

I was struggling to find the meat in that large document. Good job! I think the broadness helps NASA avoid standing up various programs for different aspects of getting payloads to the surface. This is a catch all and I think companies can take a big bite and address the end to end scope or take a little bite and just pitch a lander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 12:48 pm by Markstark »

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1384
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #5 on: 04/29/2018 08:43 am »




Dec 31 2021 is in the range where BFS will hopefully be flying and fully debugged if it's to make Mars 2022.
It might even be in the range BFR is testing.

NA hopefully will be online, as will vulcan.


No way that NA will fly by that date. This is when Blue wants to start regular NG missions.

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1170
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #6 on: 04/29/2018 11:30 am »
Here's my reading of the current commercial lunar plan based on FY19 budget document, it seems there will be two commercial tracks:
1. The first one is CLPS, this is run by SMD, it's like CRS and just buys the capability, and mainly aimed at small landers.
2. The 2nd one is run by HEOMD under the title Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities (ACSC), it would be similar to COTS or CCDev and it would part of NextSTEP. This would be aimed at mid and large landers.

If this reading is correct, I think SpaceX and Blue Origin may be joining the 2nd track instead of this one.


Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #7 on: 04/29/2018 12:31 pm »
1. The first one is CLPS, this is run by SMD, it's like CRS and just buys the capability, and mainly aimed at small landers.
2. The 2nd one is run by HEOMD under the title Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities (ACSC), it would be similar to COTS or CCDev and it would part of NextSTEP. This would be aimed at mid and large landers.

If this reading is correct, I think SpaceX and Blue Origin may be joining the 2nd track instead of this one.

There seems to be no mass cap on the first track, and 2.5bn maximum contract value does offer interesting possibilities that are clearly not meant to (one hopes) be awarded with only a 10kg payload.

At that price, SpaceX can bid for a hundred tons to lunar surface, with a BFS that can only barely make orbit and has no heatshield,  fuelled by falcon heavy and probably more than break even. (BFS remains on moon). (there are clearly better architectures if you go into customising things).

Of course, if BFR is fully working by that date, capabilities go up rather.
Both contracts are interesting.



Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2594
  • Liked: 477
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #8 on: 04/29/2018 01:58 pm »
Quote
1. The first one is CLPS, this is run by SMD, it's like CRS and just buys the capability, and mainly aimed at small landers.
2. The 2nd one is run by HEOMD under the title Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities (ACSC), it would be similar to COTS or CCDev and it would part of NextSTEP. This would be aimed at mid and large landers.

We have accronyms overload here.  :o 
...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #9 on: 05/02/2018 06:39 am »
More information, from the eLibrary page.

Final RFP ~7/19/18
Proposals due ~8/20/18
Contract award ~12/31/18

CLPS Industry Day schedule (May 8th, NASA Headquarters):

8:30am Welcome
8:45am Lunar Payload Services Concept
9:15am Lunar Payload Development
9:45am Lunar Lander Development
10:15am Lunar Strategy Wrap-up
10:30am CLPS DRFP Overview
11:15am CLPS Open Q/A (to be written up and posted back the the eLibrary page)
12:00pm Lunch
1-4pm CLPS 1-on-1 meetings with industry (~15m each)

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #10 on: 05/02/2018 10:37 am »
11:15am CLPS Open Q/A (to be written up and posted back the the eLibrary page)
I note the 'submit a question' link on that page, if you're feeling cheeky.
The meeting being in an auditorium suggests it's going to be open to the public, is this usual?
Eyewitnesses or even a recording (perhaps a question to ask) would be very interesting.

It is perhaps unfortunate that BFS hops are unlikely to be demonstrated before contract award.

On the other hand, perhaps someone will make a stab at a proposal using in-flight fuel transfer, which would help to slay the TRL beast if successful.

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 2639
  • Likes Given: 2828
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #11 on: 05/04/2018 07:31 am »
woot, there was apparently a lot of interest in the Industry Day, so WebEx access will be provided for anyone who can't attend in person. Bridenstine will also be giving a plenary talk at 2:30pm.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #12 on: 05/04/2018 03:45 pm »
woot, there was apparently a lot of interest in the Industry Day, so WebEx access will be provided for anyone who can't attend in person. Bridenstine will also be giving a plenary talk at 2:30pm.

Note also that they've doubled the amount of slots available for interested party meetings, from 12 up to 24.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #13 on: 05/04/2018 07:48 pm »
spacenews.com/nasa-argues-resource-prospector-no-longer-fit-into-agencys-lunar-exploration-plans/

Below is a couple of extracts/quotes from article. Good news for Moon Express, Astrobotic and Masten as all these companies are offering landers in 30kg payload range. The article says the odd failure is acceptable even expected. Moon Express quoted $10m for MX1E on Electron, but it would need LauncherOne to deliver 30kg at $15-20m (I guessed this price).


“He wants to have two ‘shots on goal’ every year starting in 2019,” Jurczyk said of Zurbuchen. “We want to challenge industry to develop the first landers to deliver some amount of kilograms of science instruments and exploration instruments to the surface of the moon in ’19, in ’20, in ’21, in ’22.”

That expectation, as well as the limited payload accommodations on initial commercial landers — tens, rather than hundreds, of kilograms, he said — will put restrictions on the types of payloads NASA will fly on those landers. “The instrumentation needs to be appropriate for the tool that we’re using,” he said. “We’re not going to invest $100 million in an instrument, even if it fits into 10 kilograms. Not at the beginning.”
« Last Edit: 05/04/2018 07:53 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 2639
  • Likes Given: 2828
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #14 on: 05/04/2018 08:36 pm »
Perhaps related to CLPS, a NASA official and Kilopower PI stated that their goal was to flight-test a reactor on a lunar lander in the mid-2020s. IMHO, the likelihood of that ever happening would be magnified several times over if it was flown on a commercial lander only partly funded by NASA. I'll have to ask a question about that on the Industry Day.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-flight-test-of-space-nuclear-reactor-technology/

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #15 on: 05/04/2018 08:47 pm »
This is an IDIQ contract, known in the industry as “an empty bag”.  You bid on it and win and there is no guarantee that the customer will fund any of it.  Without a clear path forward to return to the Moon that would not surprise me.  I wouldn’t get too excited about this yet.  Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: 05/08/2018 02:40 pm by testguy »

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
  • USA
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #16 on: 05/05/2018 12:01 am »
woot, there was apparently a lot of interest in the Industry Day, so WebEx access will be provided for anyone who can't attend in person. Bridenstine will also be giving a plenary talk at 2:30pm.

Never used WebEx before, does this mean the general public can watch? Theres a username and password listed in that document

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 2639
  • Likes Given: 2828
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #17 on: 05/05/2018 12:09 am »
woot, there was apparently a lot of interest in the Industry Day, so WebEx access will be provided for anyone who can't attend in person. Bridenstine will also be giving a plenary talk at 2:30pm.

Never used WebEx before, does this mean the general public can watch? Theres a username and password listed in that document

It does! It's mainly meant for interested applicants that can't come in person, but journalists or interested forum-goers are probably welcome, within reason. I wouldn't share it on a large forum, as it's notoriously unreliable and might get DDoSed if too many people try to use it lol :o

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #18 on: 05/08/2018 09:35 am »
Perhaps related to CLPS, a NASA official and Kilopower PI stated that their goal was to flight-test a reactor on a lunar lander in the mid-2020s. IMHO, the likelihood of that ever happening would be magnified several times over if it was flown on a commercial lander only partly funded by NASA. I'll have to ask a question about that on the Industry Day.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-flight-test-of-space-nuclear-reactor-technology/
I'd have said the opposite: the Kilopower design relies on HEU (I'm not sure if the percentage is public knowledge, but I've seen anywhere from "above 20%" to "90%" enrichment quoted). That adds a whole pile of proliferation-related  headaches onto anything you want to do with that reactor and anything associated with it.

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 2639
  • Likes Given: 2828
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #19 on: 05/08/2018 10:24 am »
Perhaps related to CLPS, a NASA official and Kilopower PI stated that their goal was to flight-test a reactor on a lunar lander in the mid-2020s. IMHO, the likelihood of that ever happening would be magnified several times over if it was flown on a commercial lander only partly funded by NASA. I'll have to ask a question about that on the Industry Day.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-flight-test-of-space-nuclear-reactor-technology/
I'd have said the opposite: the Kilopower design relies on HEU (I'm not sure if the percentage is public knowledge, but I've seen anywhere from "above 20%" to "90%" enrichment quoted). That adds a whole pile of proliferation-related  headaches onto anything you want to do with that reactor and anything associated with it.

It's undoubtedly a large hurdle, but far from insurmountable. NASA is clearly at least moderately interested in Kilopower (they pretty much have to be if they want to look like they care about human exploration), and CLPS offers the possibility of billion-dollar public-private cost-sharing contracts, and the cost associated with getting past the bureaucratic hurdles of nuclear power in space is really the biggest fundamental show-stopper. Call me an optimist-out-of-necessity...

More importantly, Kilopower can be modified to work with LEU. Cuts margins for error, kills the elegance, and adds mass, but it's a viable alternative to HEU if political barriers prove impenetrable. PI discusses that briefly in an email quoted here.
https://beyondnerva.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/krusty-we-have-fission-kilopower-part-iii/

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #20 on: 05/08/2018 01:41 pm »
Industry Day is ongoing. I recommend checking out Marcia Smith’s twitter timeline for real-time updates if you can’t listen to the webex call.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #21 on: 05/10/2018 12:01 pm »
More importantly, Kilopower can be modified to work with LEU. Cuts margins for error, kills the elegance, and adds mass, but it's a viable alternative to HEU if political barriers prove impenetrable. PI discusses that briefly in an email quoted here.
https://beyondnerva.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/krusty-we-have-fission-kilopower-part-iii/
Thanks for the link, that's a very interesting website.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #22 on: 05/10/2018 03:13 pm »
Industry Day is ongoing. I recommend checking out Marcia Smith’s twitter timeline for real-time updates if you can’t listen to the webex call.

And here's her full write-up:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/bridenstine-promises-this-wont-be-lucy-and-the-football-again/

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #23 on: 05/10/2018 08:16 pm »

And here's her full write-up:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/bridenstine-promises-this-wont-be-lucy-and-the-football-again/

The simplest way to ensure the football does not get taken away is to get to the Moon before Trump's second term is up.

The next president will want a new name for the Moon base and lunar exploration project. A draft version of the policy can be waiting for him.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #24 on: 05/10/2018 08:34 pm »
The simplest way to ensure the football does not get taken away is to
convince the usual aerospace suspects that there is money to be made this way, and they should lobby for it.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #25 on: 05/14/2018 01:37 am »
Here are the slides for Industry Day.

They're in an imgur album as I had trouble uploading the pdf. Even if you already the pdf, you may want these instead, as I've rotated them correctly.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #26 on: 05/14/2018 06:56 am »
Things that stood out:

* Only American launch vehicles can launch the landers (as one might expect, but this has now been spelled out).

* The way CLPS works: vendors will answer the RFP and maybe win, NASA will then over the next ten years issue tasks for the winning vendors to compete over, with the chance to add new vendors every two years at NASA's discretion.  Each task will usually only be won by one vendor.

* Initial 2019 payloads will be whatever we've got lying around. Retro-reflectors, engineering models/spares, student built hardware, or off-the-shelf hardware.  This is solicited under SALMON-3 (Standalone Mission of Opportunity Notice). 15kg limit per instrument. Expect to select 8-12 instruments by Summer 2019. No guarantee that all instruments will fly.

* Early landers expected to last one lunar day. Workshop on surviving lunar night to be held this fall.

* Solicitation for lunar smallsat ridealongs via SIMPLEx-2 (Small Innovative Mission for Planetary Exploration).

* January lander payload/science workshop video available at: https://lunar-landing.arc.nasa.gov/program

* The payload development program is called DALI: Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation. Payload goals are exploration, ISRU, lunar science.  First deadline was in April, flight opportunities start in 2021.

* 71 proposals received for DALI: Spectrometers (UV/Vis/IR/Thermal/Mass/Raman/Neutron/Gamma/), Dust/plasma/solar, seismic, heat flow, laser ranging, magnetometers, radar, lidar, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, x-ray diffraction/fluorescence, volatile detection, radiation detection.

* STMD plans to use landers for tech demonstrators. Potential payloads include demonstrators on: precision landing/hazard avoidance, power generation (solar and fission), ISRU, cryogenic fluid management, autonomous ops/sensing, and advanced avionics/mobility/mechanisms/materials.

* Mid-sized (500kg-1000kg) lander program: Advanced Cis-Lunar and Surface Capabilities (ACSC). Received RFI responses about this at the end of April. Solicitation for development toward first lander for a 2022 mission will come after analysis of responses.  Next lander looks to be in 2024.

* Plan to grow that capability towards human-class (5000kg) landers.  Selecting towards reusability: Engines with multiple restarts and deep throttling, propellant combinations ("LOX at least for descent"), precision landing, reliability.

* ~150-300M a year for mid-sized lander dev (ACSC).  ~500M a year for LOP-G for reference.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 8728
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #27 on: 05/14/2018 07:05 am »
Here are the slides for Industry Day.

They're in an imgur album as I had trouble uploading the pdf. Even if you already the pdf, you may want these instead, as I've rotated them correctly.
Interesting. There seems to be an actual sense of urgency here to do something. Lunar-Transport-as-a-Service

So which US providers can soft land at least 10Kg on the Moons surface by Dec 31 2021?
Could RocketLab handle the additional issues of getting a payload into Lunar orbit, then onto the surface?

It seems NASA is starting to realize that only effective competition can lower their costs and speed up their schedules and you do that by setting clear goals for what you're looking for.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5895
  • Likes Given: 1991
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #28 on: 05/14/2018 07:09 am »
Couple of take-aways:

Quote from: NASA
Statement of Work (SOW) at contract level provides top level functional requirements.
The SOW at the Task Order Level provides specific requirements for each Task Order.
IMO this is exactly the kind of RFI/RFP language that will turn CLPS in yet another CCP-like bureaucratic mess of too many highly detailed requirements and the overly intrusive NASA insight that comes with it.


Quote from: NASA
The prime contractor shall provide in performance in performance of this contract (or any task orders awarded thereunder) only launch vehicles that are domestic end products.
This allows Atlas V to compete, despite having Russian engines, because Atlas V, as an end product, is a US domestic product.
Same goes for Antares, which is over 50 percent foreign built.
In fact, this allows a launch vehicle to be entirely of foreign origin, as long as final assembly is done in the USA.


Quote from: NASA
The Technical Acceptability Standards are as follows:
- The offeror's ability to provide an intact lunar landed mission that delivers at least 10 kg of NASA payload before December 31, 2021.
Nice to see NASA adhere to metric units.
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.
However, this RFI/RFP should be very interesting to several of the former Google Lunar X-prize competitors.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2018 07:10 am by woods170 »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #29 on: 05/14/2018 09:28 am »
Here are the slides for Industry Day.

They're in an imgur album as I had trouble uploading the pdf. Even if you already the pdf, you may want these instead, as I've rotated them correctly.

The Master contracts will be issued in January of next year (2019) - information of interest to the contractor's bank managers.

The $25k task each firm gets is to write a User Guide - the one development document that people actually use since they define the customer's interfaces.

Scope Of Work (SOW) are actually useful documents since it is a list of the things the contractor's project manager has to make. This assumes the the document is no longer than 2 to 3 pages.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #30 on: 05/14/2018 09:52 am »
* Initial 2019 payloads will be whatever we've got lying around. Retro-reflectors, engineering models/spares, student built hardware, or off-the-shelf hardware.  This is solicited under SALMON-3 (Standalone Mission of Opportunity Notice). 15kg limit per instrument. Expect to select 8-12 instruments by Summer 2019. No guarantee that all instruments will fly.
This could in some senses be the most interesting part.
Very low barrier to entry and ramp up that TRL.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3075
  • Likes Given: 1549
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #31 on: 05/14/2018 01:41 pm »
Quote from: NASA
The Technical Acceptability Standards are as follows:
- The offeror's ability to provide an intact lunar landed mission that delivers at least 10 kg of NASA payload before December 31, 2021.
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.

It's possible (though unlikely) that SpaceX could hit that date. SpaceX still appears to be working to the 2022 Mars window, which is only a few months after that deadline. They are tentatively planning suborbital launches (early) in 2019, and orbital launches in 2020. A BFR/BFS launched without any recovery hardware and fully expended could land several tonnes on the lunar surface in a single launch without orbital refueling.


Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #32 on: 05/14/2018 02:51 pm »
IMHO this is not the vision to drive young talented students to want to study science and engineering in order to make humanity space fairing.  I understand that may not be an objective.  However, our nation is long, long, long over do for a vision that would do just that.  Sorry, I'm just expressing my frustration and NOT trying to blow up this tread.  This is just one opinion.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2018 02:52 pm by testguy »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 8728
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #33 on: 05/14/2018 03:08 pm »
Nice to see NASA adhere to metric units.
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.
However, this RFI/RFP should be very interesting to several of the former Google Lunar X-prize competitors.
Not entirely.

There are "on ramps" at 2 yearly intervals up until year 8 of the 10 year programme.

So while I agree it's unlikely SX will make the limit with BFS it could certainly through F9 in the ring and (at a stretch) FH, assuming it picks up more successful flights before the closing date, which seems possible as well.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3075
  • Likes Given: 1549
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #34 on: 05/14/2018 03:25 pm »
Nice to see NASA adhere to metric units.
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.
However, this RFI/RFP should be very interesting to several of the former Google Lunar X-prize competitors.
Not entirely.

There are "on ramps" at 2 yearly intervals up until year 8 of the 10 year programme.

So while I agree it's unlikely SX will make the limit with BFS it could certainly through F9 in the ring and (at a stretch) FH, assuming it picks up more successful flights before the closing date, which seems possible as well.

CLPS is for a lander. F9 and FH are not landers. They would be appropriate LV's for someone else's lander, but that's not the same thing.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #35 on: 05/14/2018 03:36 pm »
Nice to see NASA adhere to metric units.
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.
However, this RFI/RFP should be very interesting to several of the former Google Lunar X-prize competitors.
Not entirely.

There are "on ramps" at 2 yearly intervals up until year 8 of the 10 year programme.

So while I agree it's unlikely SX will make the limit with BFS it could certainly through F9 in the ring and (at a stretch) FH, assuming it picks up more successful flights before the closing date, which seems possible as well.

CLPS work orders cover the entire journey. The landers will need a way of getting from the Earth's surface to Trans-Luna Injection (TLI). The Electron launch vehicle used by Moon Express is small so there are possible subcontracts for the Falcon 9 and Atlas V. Larger cargoes could be lifted by the Falcon Heavy. Some cargoes may stage at a space station in lunar orbit.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #36 on: 05/15/2018 02:15 am »
Quote from: NASA
Statement of Work (SOW) at contract level provides top level functional requirements.
The SOW at the Task Order Level provides specific requirements for each Task Order.
IMO this is exactly the kind of RFI/RFP language that will turn CLPS in yet another CCP-like bureaucratic mess of too many highly detailed requirements and the overly intrusive NASA insight that comes with it.

From the contract SOW, it doesn't look like this is a bring N kg to X location situation, where you set N and X in stone and do it over and over again. They're leaving it open for each mission to be quite different.

I think it'll take seeing a few of these task SOW to know if they're the result of reasonable payload/mission differences, an attempt to take advantage of an array of varied lander capabilities by creating different levels of task and requirement, a misguided breaking of the "bus line to the moon" idea with too many differences between missions to allow for high cadence, or what.

Edit: grammar
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 02:23 am by theinternetftw »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7792
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1296
  • Likes Given: 8728
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #37 on: 05/16/2018 06:42 am »
Nice to see NASA adhere to metric units.
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.
However, this RFI/RFP should be very interesting to several of the former Google Lunar X-prize competitors.
Not entirely.

There are "on ramps" at 2 yearly intervals up until year 8 of the 10 year programme.

So while I agree it's unlikely SX will make the limit with BFS it could certainly through F9 in the ring and (at a stretch) FH, assuming it picks up more successful flights before the closing date, which seems possible as well.

CLPS is for a lander. F9 and FH are not landers. They would be appropriate LV's for someone else's lander, but that's not the same thing.
Then this will be a very interesting exercise in seeing who reckons they have the skills to front end a lander onto an F9 or FH launch.

The obvious candidates for this are of course Boeing, LM and NG. It would be interesting if they can swallow their corporate pride and specify SX for the LV component.

Of course it would be very exciting if there are some mammals running around beneath the feet of the dinosaurs.....
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 1445
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #38 on: 05/16/2018 05:30 pm »
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.

In theory they could offer a Dragon2 based lander. If it weren't such a dud.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #39 on: 05/16/2018 07:40 pm »
And this deadline rules out the use of BFR/BFS by SpaceX to compete for this contract.

In theory they could offer a Dragon2 based lander. If it weren't such a dud.

Are there any hardware readiness requirements other than 'we don't believe you will hit that, so we will not accept your bid'?

Is there a possible route to bidding two architectures - for example, SpaceX could 'trivially' develop a D2 based lander, but in 2020, it's going to become clear if they can develop a much cheaper route.

So, for example 'In 2021, we commit to either landing 1 ton on the lunar surface in Dragon 2, or 20 tons with BFS'.


Offline Joffan

  • NSF Irregular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Liked: 452
  • Likes Given: 1323
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #40 on: 05/30/2018 05:20 pm »
So the due date on bids was 29 May, yesterday - any word on how many bids and from whom?

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=46b23a8f2c06da6ac08e1d1d2ae97d35&tab=documents&tabmode=list
« Last Edit: 05/30/2018 08:34 pm by Joffan »
Max Q for humanity becoming spacefaring

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #41 on: 05/31/2018 12:04 am »
So the due date on bids was 29 May, yesterday - any word on how many bids and from whom?

I don't think that's right.  That may have just been for comments on the draft RFP?  Or a placeholder date?  But yeah, it was a draft RFP, and the real RFP isn't going to be released until July, with proposals due currently slated for August 20 (the official date will be in the real RFP).


Offline Joffan

  • NSF Irregular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Liked: 452
  • Likes Given: 1323
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #42 on: 06/04/2018 11:56 pm »
So the due date on bids was 29 May, yesterday - any word on how many bids and from whom?

I don't think that's right.  That may have just been for comments on the draft RFP?  Or a placeholder date?  But yeah, it was a draft RFP, and the real RFP isn't going to be released until July, with proposals due currently slated for August 20 (the official date will be in the real RFP).


Thanks; reading through the "Final_CLP_Cover_Letter" I found:
Quote
NASA anticipates that the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released in mid-July 2018 with proposals being due 30 calendar days later.
which aligns well enough with your diagram.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2018 11:56 pm by Joffan »
Max Q for humanity becoming spacefaring

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #43 on: 06/05/2018 06:45 am »
Thanks; reading through the "Final_CLP_Cover_Letter" I found:
Quote
NASA anticipates that the Final Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released in mid-July 2018 with proposals being due 30 calendar days later.
which aligns well enough with your diagram.

The above was also in the Industry Day slides, which were posted up-thread but look like they could use another mention.

In a tiny bit of almost-news (or at least some quotes to do Kremlinology on), I got a chance to watch a bit of the MSFC LOP-G Roadshow Spectacular, and in what I did see, CLPS and friends is portrayed thus:

* The 2019 CLPS date is couched as, "Flights as early as the end of 2019... but we'll see if Industry is ready to go fly those..."

* It's clear they view CLPS as a follow on to the work done by the Lunar CATALYST folks: Astrobotics, Masten, and Moon Express.

* The mid-sized lander project (ACSC, which is not CLPS) is "NASA's effort to build the capability to go do a human landing again. So we have budget and a direction to start making progress towards building landers."

The plan for ACSC still hasn't totally resolved for me. I can't tell if it's supposed to be Big Boy CLPS or a more traditional development process. The slides say "in partnership with industry" a lot but, while encouraging, that isn't enough for me to make heads or tails of it just yet. We'll have to wait for the promised solicitation to know exactly what the plan is, I think. That's supposed to come after analyzing the RFI responses, which came in back at the end of April. From the Industry Day slides, ACSC is slated to get about $1B over the course of five years, with the first mid-sized lander in 2022. A Roadshow slide implied the first large lander in 2026.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #44 on: 06/05/2018 12:31 pm »
I hope the final Request for Proposal is run through a spelling checker. It is unprofessional to have spelling mistakes on the Federal Business Opportunities website twice.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #45 on: 06/05/2018 07:45 pm »
Finally finished the MSFC video.  I was expecting only LOP-G info in the rest of the video, but luckily I was wrong.  More takeaways:

* CLPS is about "spinning off" the work that they've done with Lunar CATALYST.
(which can be seen as: expect Lunar CATALYST partners for initial CLPS contracts)

* ACSC is about "leveraging work that was done towards Resource Prospector [...] Instead, what we've done is taken that Resource Prospector lander and evolved it into the Lunar Pallet Lander."

Lunar Pallet Lander presentation from 2015:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150016539.pdf

So ACSC may just be LPL to start. (Edit: Actually, looking at the slides below, it might be the case that the LPL is the 2022 mid-sized landing, and a cryogenic mid-sized lander is the 2024 landing.)

* The Astrobiotics Peregrine Lander was cited to use, and the Pallet Lander was cited to potentially use, the Deep Space Engine, which looks to be a new name for ISE-100 (though I'm not positive).  There's a presentation PDF on ISE-100 in this post (the attachment you want is 16-Alexander):

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39263.msg1617881#msg1617881

* Future ACSC work:

Quote
You might see a precursor for a human-rated system in 2026. Cryogenic Fluid Management is going to be a key part of that. Once the landed mass goes above a certain amount, several thousand kilograms, it becomes much more beneficial to use cryogenics rather than hypergolics. And Marshall plays a role in that. We have a fairly active Cryogenic Fluid Management program, and a lot of that technology development work is going on in support of those future lander activities.

To the right there, you're seeing a lunar sample return. Marshall is leading the development of a Mars Ascent Vehicle, which is part of a Mars sample return. So this is also an area that we're contributing in, and technology will flow back and forth.

* There was also a 5000kg Mars lander tucked away in the corner of a slide with all the Lunar projects.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2018 08:03 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #46 on: 06/06/2018 04:30 am »
Lunar Pallet lander would be good fit with ULA ACES. ACES can deliver pallet to few 1000ft from surface then separate, no need for addidtional propulsion module. Lander only needs to worry about finally landing stage. ACES would provide all comms, navigation and power up till separation. Given Vulcan performance should be good for few tons.


Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #47 on: 06/07/2018 04:00 am »
Lunar Pallet lander would be good fit with ULA ACES. ACES can deliver pallet to few 1000ft from surface then separate, no need for addidtional propulsion module. Lander only needs to worry about finally landing stage. ACES would provide all comms, navigation and power up till separation. Given Vulcan performance should be good for few tons.



Masten Space are expecting to attach 4 of their 1,000 lbf Machete engines to the sides of Centaurs (ACES) to produce a lander. An alternative is to attach say a 4,000 lbf Katana (LOX/IPA) to a Lunar Pallet.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #48 on: 06/07/2018 10:45 pm »
* The Astrobiotics Peregrine Lander was cited to use, and the Pallet Lander was cited to potentially use, the Deep Space Engine, which looks to be a new name for ISE-100 (though I'm not positive).  There's a presentation PDF on ISE-100 in this post (the attachment you want is 16-Alexander):
Judging from the picture of the Deep Space Engine, it appears to be made by Frontier Aerospace and not Aerojet Rocketdyne: http://www.frontier.us/projects.html
I tried it at home

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #49 on: 06/08/2018 03:57 am »
Judging from the picture of the Deep Space Engine, it appears to be made by Frontier Aerospace and not Aerojet Rocketdyne: http://www.frontier.us/projects.html

Yes. That caught my eye. A little more digging revealed this:

Quote
April 2017:

AR has been unable to close the fault tree from the anomalies discovered during hot fire. AR’s solution was to redesign the thruster and go back into “workhorse” testing. There was never any dollars in the project to go through a redesign. The subsequent estimate to go back into “workhorse” testing and then into qual to estimates to complete were well above the amount that GCD provided.

Once we received an updated estimate from AR we informed GCD of the problems and attempted to negotiate with AR. Subsequent conversations with AR to reduce their estimate have been unsuccessful.

Mitigation Steps:

Coordinate financial partnering between HEOMD and STMD in order to award a contract using an MDA Phase III SBIR

Thus Frontier?



Edit: and add to that, this:

Quote
Frontier Aerospace completed risk reduction testing of the 100-lbf thrust Deep Space Engine (DSE-100) under a Phase III SBIR contract.

Also, if you re-read the DSE slide above, it looks like one bullet point in particular is in response to woes discovered by AR in their test regime: Frontier announces "Stable combustion demonstrated - no signs of acoustic instability!"

That exclamation mark sounds well-earned.

It looks like on July 14th 2017, Frontier took an engine AR was ready give up and go back to the drawing board on (as long as sufficient cash was provided), and got it running smooth in less than 2 months (slide in my last post says test regime was complete September 6th 2017).  And they did it for $500,000 and with a staff of five (if govtribe can be believed).  They've since been given $250,000 in what looks like a milestone payment for successfully completing the test regime, and another $700,000 to keep working on development.

Interesting little details in that govtribe listing, too.  Like how they were given one cent in funding before (I assume) completing a milestone three weeks later, at which point they got the $500,000.

I'd love to hear the story of how Frontier ended up getting this engine going so quickly. The above slide mentions two injector designs.

Interestingly, months after Frontier's accomplishment, it looks like AR then went on to complete ISE-100 testing themselves, with, it seems, none of that NASA cash they claimed they needed to continue, just in May 2018 instead of Sept 2017. Their press release doesn't mention NASA except as a potential customer.

And NASA doesn't mention ISE-100 in their presentations anymore. Instead the DSE.

Fascinating stuff.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2018 12:01 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #50 on: 06/08/2018 11:02 pm »
A first round of answers to submitted CLPS questions was just posted.  They are attached.

A few things:

* NASA may on-ramp new providers faster than every two years if they see a benefit.
* The initial ACSC mid-sized lander demo is planned for 2022 followed by another demo of increased capability in 2024.
* Whoever develops a mid-sized lander under ACSC can then propose it to service CLPS tasks.
* No traditional NASA level of engagement with the launch process is needed. (e.g. no NASA-level pricing of F9)
* No on-site representatives from NASA needed at the provider.
* Revised statement of work expected next week.
* Another thing to look forward to is an example of a Provider User Guide, which should be coming at some point.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 2500
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #51 on: 06/12/2018 03:44 pm »
I find the part I've highlighted in red interesting:

Quote
Request For Information: Potential Lunar Payloads

NASA REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON THE AVAILABILITY OF POTENTIAL LUNAR PAYLOADS

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate has released a Request for Information (RFI) to assess availability of potential lunar payloads. NASA has recently released a draft RFP for Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) to provide end-to-end services for payloads to the lunar surface; this RFI is seeking information about potential payloads for these landers. Responses to this RFI are sought broadly from U.S. industry, universities, non-profit organizations, NASA centers, and other U.S. government agencies, and will be used by NASA to further inform planning and acquisition strategy development.

To be ready for launches as early as 2019, NASA is requesting information as to the availability of existing hardware that can be used for flight with little to no payload development necessary. Existing hardware that respondents should consider in responding to this RFI include, but are not limited to: engineering models, flight spares, modified off-the-shelf instruments, etc.

Given the scope and the technical goals of the proposed activity, NASA is considering a much more risk tolerant approach to flight hardware development and integration than is normally adopted by other segments of NASA’s planetary exploration program (e.g., Discovery, New Frontiers), and is willing to accept risk consistent with Class D or Small-Sat payloads. As such, offerors are requested to provide information for those class of payloads and to briefly describe the risks associated with delivering and integrating this hardware.

This information will be used to help formulate a strategy for payload acquisition. NASA anticipates releasing a Program Element Appendix (PEA) to the Stand Alone Missions of Opportunity Notice (SALMON) Announcement of Opportunity (AO) later this summer for lunar payloads. Additionally, responses to this RFI from NASA Centers will be used to assess the availability of potential payloads within NASA and NASA may choose to move forward with these payloads directly.

Responses to this RFI are due via NSPIRES by June 27, 2018. Full text of the RFI, including instructions for submitting a response, can be accessed by following this link or by searching on NNH18ZDA012L at http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/open.

Questions regarding this RFI may be addressed to Dr. Sarah Noble, [email protected]

Posted by: Soderman/SSERVI Staff
Source: NASA

https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/request-for-information-potential-lunar-payloads/

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #52 on: 06/12/2018 06:01 pm »
I find the part I've highlighted in red interesting:

 NASA is considering a much more risk tolerant approach to flight hardware development and integration than is normally adopted

{snip}

So they want the first payloads cheap and fast. Possibly the only way of getting payloads for next year.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #53 on: 06/27/2018 08:29 pm »
From the FBO site, more detail on the ACSC mid-to-large lander project, now called FLEx and organized under NextSTEP-2.

Takeaways emphasized.

Quote
NextSTEP-2 Appendix E: Flexible Lunar Explorer (FLEx) Landers

NASA intends to release a solicitation under the second Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in the near future to seek proposals from industry in support of design analysis, technology maturation, system development and integration, and space flight demonstrations for Flexible Lunar Explorer (FLEX) Landers. The primary objective of this Appendix to the NextSTEP-2 BAA is to enable rapid development and flight demonstrations of medium- to large-scale lunar landers by supporting critical technology advancement and leveraging component- or system-level industry investments. Each flight demonstration will validate lander evolutions of increasing capability and design extensibility to ensure a viable path toward reusable, human-class lunar landers.
 
An important part of NASA's strategy is to stimulate the U.S. space industry while leveraging those same commercial capabilities through partnerships and future contracts to deliver mission capabilities. A key component of the NextSTEP-2 partnership model is that it provides an opportunity for NASA and industry to partner in the development of capabilities that meet NASA human space exploration objectives while also supporting industry commercialization plans for expanding the frontiers of future economic opportunities in space.

This BAA Appendix addresses the development of medium- to large-scale lunar lander capabilities that have extensibility to reusable, human-class landers to a wide range of destinations on the lunar surface. NASA is planning two demonstration missions; one in 2022 and a second in 2024. The objective of these missions is to demonstrate progressive and evolutionary steps toward a reusable, human-class lander, with future missions informed by the outcomes of these initial missions. The first mission will serve as a National Lander Demonstration Mission with NASA serving as the overall system architect and integrator with significant industry participation from multiple sources.

This NextSTEP-2 Appendix E, targeted for release in the early July 2018 timeframe, will include a NASA reference lander configuration to serve as the basis of the Lander for a first flight demonstration by the end of calendar year (CY) 2022. NASA will support critical technology advancement by leveraging industry investments in the design and development of this first medium-size Lander. Contracts awarded under Appendix E will have multiple phases. The first will be for brief studies to refine the reference design lander; these are anticipated to be brief with succinct products to assist in the development of the lander mission for flight in 2022. Appendix E will also seek identification of enabling, currently available (or nearly available), critical technologies (such as precision landing) to be integrated into the reference lander design. Following any awards under the initial study phase, NASA anticipates exercising options that will include mission risk reduction, technology maturation activities, system integration and test, and culminating in launch and landing operations.

This NextSTEP Appendix will also include studies to identify technologies that could enable future larger scale landers and for the analysis of future mission design options to be considered for the 2024 and beyond missions. NASA will use the information gained through these initial studies to inform the performance requirements for the 2024 lander and will work with industry to continue to mature the approach for these future missions. Opportunities for industry to further support technology advancement for the 2024 demonstration landing, to include evolvable propulsion systems and other advanced capabilities, will be identified in a future NextSTEP-2 BAA appendix.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1170
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #54 on: 06/28/2018 03:28 am »
From the FBO site, more detail on the ACSC mid-to-large lander project, now called FLEx and organized under NextSTEP-2.

Takeaways emphasized.

Quote
The first mission will serve as a National Lander Demonstration Mission with NASA serving as the overall system architect and integrator with significant industry participation from multiple sources.

This is alarming and disappointing, it looks like NASA is determined to throw away the public private partnership model that makes COTS so successful and is going back to its cost-plus model for mid/large lunar lander. I wonder if this is why Bezos is courting foreign space agencies and making announcements on IAC 18, he may have realized NASA has no interest in letting industry designing the lander.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #55 on: 06/28/2018 06:41 am »
This is alarming and disappointing, it looks like NASA is determined to throw away the public private partnership model that makes COTS so successful and is going back to its cost-plus model for mid/large lunar lander.

There was already talk that the new lander would be based on the Lunar Pallet Lander, a design that had been under work for Resource Prospector, so NASA being "overall system architect" fits right in.  If CLPS is trying to refine the COTS methodology, then FLEx is... the other one.

I'm holding out hope that what's going on here is NASA is trying to find a way for it to still be an engineering house in an age of modern, sane contracting.

That means FLEx might not be cost-plus.  It could be that NASA makes a base design, then lets multiple sane, limited, competed contracts to industry for design refinement and iteration, technology demonstration, and so on.

The Appendix should reveal more, come July.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5895
  • Likes Given: 1991
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #56 on: 06/28/2018 07:25 am »
From the FBO site, more detail on the ACSC mid-to-large lander project, now called FLEx and organized under NextSTEP-2.

Takeaways emphasized.

Quote
The first mission will serve as a National Lander Demonstration Mission with NASA serving as the overall system architect and integrator with significant industry participation from multiple sources.

This is alarming and disappointing, it looks like NASA is determined to throw away the public private partnership model that makes COTS so successful and is going back to its cost-plus model for mid/large lunar lander. I wonder if this is why Bezos is courting foreign space agencies and making announcements on IAC 18, he may have realized NASA has no interest in letting industry designing the lander.

If it is as you fear than that is just plain stupid IMO.

NASA should restrict itself to just setting high-level requirements and then let industry come up with a lander designed to fulfill those high-level requirements.

And with high-level requirements I really mean high-level requirement. Not detailed ones like chewing out what types of material to use for MLI or detailing that screws and bolts should be made from stainless steel.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8785
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3788
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #57 on: 06/28/2018 08:23 am »
NASA should restrict itself to just setting high-level requirements and then let industry come up with a lander designed to fulfill those high-level requirements.

Well, you could see 'em doing that for cargo delivery. The oversight would be minimal - don't crash into the base - but T-shirts and tang delivered by partners, great stuff.

Crew? Well, the astronauts have to be wrapped in cotton wool. See CCDev.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #58 on: 06/28/2018 09:26 am »
NASA should restrict itself to just setting high-level requirements and then let industry come up with a lander designed to fulfill those high-level requirements.

Well, you could see 'em doing that for cargo delivery. The oversight would be minimal - don't crash into the base - but T-shirts and tang delivered by partners, great stuff.

Crew? Well, the astronauts have to be wrapped in cotton wool. See CCDev.


There are a few extra requirements because lunar landers need legs that work in the extreme cold but with about 1 weeks work it should be possible to produce viable draft lunar standards from CCDev, Lunar CATALYST/CLPS and LOP-G standards and requirements documents.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #59 on: 07/05/2018 04:05 am »
CLPS Q&A 2 has been posted.  It's more inside-baseball than the first.  Mostly a lot of attempts to get rid of various clauses in the DRFP.

What did stand out:

* On-ramping will start in 2020 (A potential provider wanted it started in 2019)

* Another potential provider wanted the deadline for delivering 10kg to the moon to be changed from 2021 to 2024. Not happening.

* NASA will not require on-site representatives.

* NASA is not willing to say they'll give up rights to inventions made with government funds to service the contracts.  Small businesses (< 1500 employees) can get out of it by patenting the invention.  Large businesses have to get NASA to issue waivers (which they'll do at their discretion).

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #60 on: 07/05/2018 08:58 pm »
CLPS Q&A 2 has been posted.  It's more inside-baseball than the first.  Mostly a lot of attempts to get rid of various clauses in the DRFP.

What did stand out:

* On-ramping will start in 2020 (A potential provider wanted it started in 2019)

* Another potential provider wanted the deadline for delivering 10kg to the moon to be changed from 2021 to 2024. Not happening.

* NASA will not require on-site representatives.

* NASA is not willing to say they'll give up rights to inventions made with government funds to service the contracts.  Small businesses (< 1500 employees) can get out of it by patenting the invention.  Large businesses have to get NASA to issue waivers (which they'll do at their discretion).

Are NASA and the contractor using different definitions of on-ramping? The contractor meaning the initial batch of landers and NASA having a clause allowing for companies that apply several years late.

I assume the 10kg payload is a quality inspection by NASA. A payload possibly containing accelerometers to ensure the lander landed rather than crashed. With radio, GPS, inertial measurement unit and star trackers to verify the payload actually arrived on the Moon.

It is clause 52 that worried me.
"Govt Response: The clause will not be changed.  NASA does not intend to issue task orders that cannot be completed within one year of the end of the contract’s effective ordering period."
Does this mean that NASA will not allow a contractor to be more than 1 year late? Or contractors have only 1 year to build the lander and buy launch vehicles?

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #61 on: 07/05/2018 09:34 pm »
Are NASA and the contractor using different definitions of on-ramping? The contractor meaning the initial batch of landers and NASA having a clause allowing for companies that apply several years late.

I think it's all NASA's definition. It's just that a potential contractor doesn't think they can get accepted into the cohort by 2018, but do think they can by 2019. And they don't want to have to wait for 2020.

I assume the 10kg payload is a quality inspection by NASA. A payload possibly containing accelerometers to ensure the lander landed rather than crashed. With radio, GPS, inertial measurement unit and star trackers to verify the payload actually arrived on the Moon.

First, it can be more than 10kg.  That's just the baseline you have to be able to provide to get into the program.  I think NASA sees such a capability as the potential 2019 landers (with two years of wiggle room to still accept those who are close to ready but can't do it by 2019). These will take the "whatever we have on hand" payloads (see the attached RFI on that post). Think cubesat instruments, but sitting on the moon.

It is clause 52 that worried me.
"Govt Response: The clause will not be changed.  NASA does not intend to issue task orders that cannot be completed within one year of the end of the contract’s effective ordering period."
Does this mean that NASA will not allow a contractor to be more than 1 year late? Or contractors have only 1 year to build the lander and buy launch vehicles?

The "contract's effective ordering period" here is not for the individual task orders (moon landings and such) that will make up the contract, but for the contract as a whole. NASA is saying that they don't intend to spring anything crazy on the contractors in the last year of the contract, but there are some missions they think *will* be able to be done a year after being issued (remember this is many years in the future, like 2028 or so), so they're reserving the right to be able to request one.  If such a request is *still* crazy, even in 2028, then it's just one task order ten years from now that all the contractors will ignore.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2018 09:35 pm by theinternetftw »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #62 on: 07/06/2018 01:01 am »
{snip}
It is clause 52 that worried me.
"Govt Response: The clause will not be changed.  NASA does not intend to issue task orders that cannot be completed within one year of the end of the contract’s effective ordering period."
Does this mean that NASA will not allow a contractor to be more than 1 year late? Or contractors have only 1 year to build the lander and buy launch vehicles?

The "contract's effective ordering period" here is not for the individual task orders (moon landings and such) that will make up the contract, but for the contract as a whole. NASA is saying that they don't intend to spring anything crazy on the contractors in the last year of the contract, but there are some missions they think *will* be able to be done a year after being issued (remember this is many years in the future, like 2028 or so), so they're reserving the right to be able to request one.  If such a request is *still* crazy, even in 2028, then it's just one task order ten years from now that all the contractors will ignore.

In which case NASA will probably be bidding the CLPS-2 contracts in 10 years time. Any thing difficult would be attached to the new contract. NASA may change the name.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #64 on: 07/17/2018 12:30 am »
And here's that same list, organized:

Lunar CATALYST:
Astrobotic
Masten Space Systems
Moon Express

International Former Lunar XPrize competitors:
iSpace (Tokyo-based)
Team Indus (Bangalore-based)
PTScientists (Berlin-based)

Big Names:
Aerojet Rocketdyne
Blue Origin
Dynetics
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Orbital ATK (Was listed again as Orbital Sciences with different POC)
Sierra Nevada Corporation
SpaceX
Space Systems Loral / Maxar
ULA

Likely interested in incidental roles:
Bryce Space Technology (Former Tauri Group subsidiary, analytics firm)
DRAPER (Draper Labs, of MIT fame - maybe it'll be a full proposal from them, what do I know?)
Spaceflight Industries

Known contractors with revenue >50M:
Fibertek, Inc
MEI Technologies, Inc.

Known contractors with revenue >1M:
Gloyer-Taylor Laboratories, LLC
Special Aerospace Services

Unknowns:
Advanced Space (has done software contracting for NASA)
Lunar Experiences
Lunar Express (same guy as Lunar Experiences)
MERC (Miller Engineering & Research Corporation)
Noosphere
VALT Enterprises

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #65 on: 07/17/2018 02:17 am »
Is it a comprehensive list? Notably absent is Boeing but I guess since ULA is putting together a proposal then it kinda makes sense. But then again, LM is listed as an interested party

It's the official list but more could be added.

Boeing seems like it would have already been on there if they were interested.  That's not 100% certain, but likely.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #66 on: 08/03/2018 05:00 am »
The official list of companies declaring interest in CLPS has been updated after giving more time for folks to request to be on it. The only change from the list as originally released is the addition of a small contractor in Arizona, Crow Industries.

No other companies were added (e.g. Boeing is not on the list).

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #67 on: 08/10/2018 07:49 am »
Some news:

The RFP date has been moved to 8/28.
The Proposal due date has been moved to 9/28.
Contract award date has remained at 12/31.

Another Q&A has been posted (and is attached).  Some highlights:

* The Govt makes it clear that Launch Vehicle and Lander must be domestic (note the foreign XPrize competitors registering interest above).

* Still a lot of fighting over government having usage rights for any IP invented during the contract, for the contract.

* No exclusions on co-manifesting "non-American commercial and government payloads" alongside NASA's payloads.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #68 on: 08/10/2018 11:27 pm »
NASA bringing down the hammer on this domestic-only thing:

Quote
NASA has determined that creating or maintaining required domestic capabilities for production of critical space transportation services and vehicles to perform those services by limiting competition to capabilities manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas by domestically-owned and controlled entities is consistent with and necessary to implement United States space policy. [...]

CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors, as well as all firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor's performance of CLPS must qualify as domestically owned and controlled as defined by the CLPS solicitation. Additionally, all CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors shall provide a CLPS that utilizes domestic end products for all space transportation vehicles required for performance of this contract, inclusive of any launch vehicle and any other space transportation vehicle used to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. [...]

NASA's intent is to limit sources for the CLPS procurement for the purposes of industrial mobilization.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2018 11:27 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline PhotoEngineer

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • SoCal
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #69 on: 08/12/2018 04:53 am »
NASA bringing down the hammer on this domestic-only thing:

Quote
NASA has determined that creating or maintaining required domestic capabilities for production of critical space transportation services and vehicles to perform those services by limiting competition to capabilities manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas by domestically-owned and controlled entities is consistent with and necessary to implement United States space policy. [...]

CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors, as well as all firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor's performance of CLPS must qualify as domestically owned and controlled as defined by the CLPS solicitation. Additionally, all CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractors shall provide a CLPS that utilizes domestic end products for all space transportation vehicles required for performance of this contract, inclusive of any launch vehicle and any other space transportation vehicle used to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. [...]

NASA's intent is to limit sources for the CLPS procurement for the purposes of industrial mobilization.

They basically called out iSpace by name in one of the last ones too.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #70 on: 08/12/2018 05:55 pm »
They basically called out iSpace by name in one of the last ones too.

Well the question they were answering from iSpace was pretty much (in slightly broken English) "Hey, we're Japanese and own a US company, are we cool to run a CLPS contract, or do we just sell our vehicles to other prime contractors?"

I think when they got that question was when they realized they needed to be more explicit than usual.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2018 05:58 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #71 on: 08/12/2018 06:29 pm »
One thing that'd be nice to do in the future is start linking up all the companies in the interested parties list to show which ones are working together.

An obvious one would be ULA+Masten.  Though if it's just Masten (as ACES is far off), ULA could be on the list to offer rides.

One that's less obvious but does have a little weight behind it is SNC+AJR, as they are apparently working together for their PPE study, and that means they already have a relationship, so maybe they've decided to buddy up for all things moon?  Like I said, just a guess at this point.

Draper Lab is probably doing flight software for somebody.  Might be SNC, as Draper's doing the FSW for Dream Chaser.  So that would be SNC+AJR+Draper, if everything above is the case.

Any other connections are more opaque.

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #72 on: 08/13/2018 03:24 am »
One thing that'd be nice to do in the future is start linking up all the companies in the interested parties list to show which ones are working together.

An obvious one would be ULA+Masten.  Though if it's just Masten (as ACES is far off), ULA could be on the list to offer rides.

One that's less obvious but does have a little weight behind it is SNC+AJR, as they are apparently working together for their PPE study, and that means they already have a relationship, so maybe they've decided to buddy up for all things moon?  Like I said, just a guess at this point.

Draper Lab is probably doing flight software for somebody.  Might be SNC, as Draper's doing the FSW for Dream Chaser.  So that would be SNC+AJR+Draper, if everything above is the case.

Any other connections are more opaque.

Here is another pair: https://www.astrobotic.com/2018/7/17/astrobotic-selects-dynetics-as-propulsion-provider-for-the-peregrine-lunar-lander
I tried it at home

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #73 on: 08/16/2018 03:58 am »
NASA bringing down the hammer on this domestic-only thing

The hammerfall continues and is probably concluded with this latest release (the full text of which is attached).

Quote
The Commercial Lunar Payload Services RFP will contain the following clause and certification provision. [...]

I.21 DOMESTIC SOURCE CRITERIA AND COMPLIANCE [...]

The Commercial Lunar Payload Service (CLPS) is by definition a space transportation service, and as such, requires the construction of a space transportation vehicle (or vehicles) in order to perform this service. As such, both the CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractor, as well as all firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor’s performance of CLPS, must be United States commercial providers as defined above. Additionally, throughout its performance of the contract (including any and all task orders awarded thereunder), the CLPS space transportation service provider prime contractor shall provide a CLPS that utilizes domestic end products for all space transportation vehicles required for performance of this contract, inclusive of any launch vehicle and any other space transportation vehicle used to deliver payloads to the lunar surface. CLPS space transportation vehicles will be considered domestic end products only if the cost of their components, mined, produced or manufactured in the United States exceed fifty (50) percent of the cost of all their components. The cost of each component includes transportation costs to the place of incorporation into the CLPS and any applicable duty (whether or not a duty - free entry certificate is issued).
« Last Edit: 08/16/2018 04:03 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #74 on: 09/05/2018 05:31 am »
Once again the Final RFP date has moved forward, this time to September 7th. Good news is that's close enough that it should finally actually be right.

The interested parties list has been updated again, adding only Starliner Engineering, Inc.

How are the international Lunar XPrize teams going to try to get in on a domestically sourced contract, you ask? Well, here's one way: Starliner Engineering, Inc. was created two and a half weeks ago in the great state of Delaware. Its point of contact is a member of TeamIndus.

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
  • USA
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #75 on: 09/05/2018 08:23 pm »
Found http://www.starlinerinc.com/ Logo is similar-ish to Starliner (the Boeing spacecraft), especially the A, but still distinct. Ripoff attempt?

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #76 on: 09/05/2018 10:59 pm »
"Maybe they'll think we're Boeing." Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 382
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #77 on: 09/06/2018 06:21 am »
"Maybe they'll think we're Boeing." Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.
Either it is Boeing, approved or they are about to get sued.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18642
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6668
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #78 on: 09/06/2018 10:40 am »
A whois on that gives an address in Scottsdale, Arizona, of a company called Blue Razor, which is owned by GoDaddy, who is the registrar. The actual owner is hidden from us.

https://www.bluerazor.com/about-us
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #79 on: 09/06/2018 10:16 pm »
Surprise! The final RFP came out a day early.

Proposals are due 2018-10-09.
Selections ostensibly still made by 2018-12-31.

Edit: RFP files are now attached.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2018 10:57 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #80 on: 09/06/2018 10:43 pm »
Surprise! The final RFP came out a day early.

Proposals are due 2018-10-09.
Selections ostensibly still made by 2018-12-31.

Evaluation and Selection:

* Thomas Zurbuchen, head honcho. Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate.
* Chris Culbert, Chief Technologist for JSC
* Theresa Stevens, Sr. Contracting Officer
* Nantel Suzuki, Program Executive for Lunar CATALYST
* Mary Faller, Sr. Mission Manager for LSP
* Sarah Noble, Program Scientist for Psyche (was Program Scientist for LADEE)
* Rob Landis, Program Executive for Planetary Defense
* Greg Chavers, test lead at MSFC for the 2012 Mighty Eagle lunar lander prototype

Edit: Added the quote to help avoid folks missing the announcement post due to pagination.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2018 10:45 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #81 on: 09/08/2018 05:05 am »
Surprise! The final RFP came out a day early.

Proposals are due 2018-10-09.
Selections ostensibly still made by 2018-12-31.

Edit: RFP files are now attached.

I didn't have time to read this in detail.  After skimming it quickly it indicates a capability to deliver at least 10kg to the lunar surface intact (I guess that would be an important clause!) by Dec 31, 2021. 

I didn't see a maximum payload mentioned, I'm sure I missed it.  Anyone find the details of that?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #82 on: 09/08/2018 10:12 am »
I didn't have time to read this in detail.  After skimming it quickly it indicates a capability to deliver at least 10kg to the lunar surface intact (I guess that would be an important clause!) by Dec 31, 2021. 

I didn't see a maximum payload mentioned, I'm sure I missed it.  Anyone find the details of that?

It historically hasn't listed a maximum payload, if I recall correctly.
The maximum payload is touched on by 'The contractor is not obligated to honor' ... 'any item or series of items over $500M'.
The government may order up to $2.6B of stuff in this contract total from all vendors.

During the contract, new entrants, or companies not doing a specific part of the contract may be added.


« Last Edit: 09/08/2018 10:23 am by speedevil »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #83 on: 09/10/2018 08:18 pm »
It looks like it would be useful to have a quick summary of the current state of lunar landing plans now that the full RFP for CLPS has been posted.  This is basically a consolidation made from all the previous informational posts, overriding old information with new, plus a few new bits I found while compiling everything together.



CLPS: Commerical Lunar Payload Services

* Up to $2.6B over ten years for multiple providers bringing cargo to the surface.

* The RFP doesn't describe any one mission, instead you show that you can bring 10kg to the surface by 2021.  That gets you in the club.

* The club can be expanded with new members every two years.

* The club will bid for Task Orders after induction.  The first Task Order will be $25,000 for a Provider User Guide. Around this time NASA will release an example User Guide.

* Selection by end of 2018.  First missions in 2019.  The idea is to send more than one at a time to increase chances of success (from different providers, it sounds like). 

* There's a parallel payload development program called DALI: Development and Advancement of Lunar Instrumentation.  The maximum time allowed for a DALI program to mature is four years (to 2022), with three years encouraged, because the first flight opportunities for DALI payloads are in 2021.

* Flights before 2021 will carry whatever NASA has lying around: retroreflectors, engineering models/spares, student-built hardware, off the shelf hardware.

* 71 proposals received for DALI: Spectrometers (UV/Vis/IR/Thermal/Mass/Raman/Neutron/Gamma/), Dust/plasma/solar, seismic, heat flow, laser ranging, magnetometers, radar, lidar, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, x-ray diffraction/fluorescence, volatile detection, radiation detection.

* Five of those DALI proposals are expected to be selected.  Each will get ~$1M a year for 3-4 years.

* STMD plans to use landers for tech demonstrators. Potential payloads include demonstrators on: precision landing/hazard avoidance, power generation (solar and fission), ISRU, cryogenic fluid management, autonomous ops/sensing, and advanced avionics/mobility/mechanisms/materials.

* Landers are expected to last one lunar day (14 earth days).  Workshops being held on surviving the lunar night.

* Offering Radioisotope Heating Units is being discussed.

* Smallsats as ridealongs for CLPS missions are being funded under SIMPLEx. Emphasizing science that will aid prep for human missions.

* Here are the interested parties, quite a few of which are probably working together.



FLEx: Flexible Lunar Explorer

* This is under NextSTEP.

* Its earlier name (or parent program?): Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities. Folks started mentioning FLEx this summer and use of ACSC plummeted.

* A big lander program: 500kg to 1000kg.  Evolving towards human-class.  Much more NASA control than CLPS.

* One lander in 2022, another in 2024. Two different designs.

* It's now intimated that the 2022 rover will be a modified version of the Lunar Pallet Lander that was originally going to land Resource Prospector.

* Selecting towards reusability: Engines with multiple restarts and deep throttling, propellant combinations ("LOX at least for descent"), precision landing, reliability.  With the Lunar Pallet Lander now the basis of the 2022 mission, all of this development will most likely have to be reserved for the 2024 lander and later.

* The program is being funded at ~$120M a year, increasing each year, and gets up to $320M a year by 2023.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2018 08:52 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #84 on: 09/19/2018 09:06 am »
Could find suitable Astrobotic thread placed this here.


http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/09/18/astrobotic-ris4e-demonstrate-technologies-explore-extreme-lunar-environments/

Under a research contract with NASA, Astrobotic has developed a custom navigation software product, known as AstroNav, to give small free-flying spacecraft the ability to autonomously explore lunar lava tubes. Meanwhile, SSERVI researchers have been working to analyze the capabilities of compact and deployable instruments needed to collect and characterize geologic samples in the field. Advances in both areas are paving the way for future missions that are far more dynamic and autonomous than those possible today.


They are using drones to test this on earth, there also potential earth markets for this technology especially with drones.
For moon missions I can see case for small hopper to be used for cave exploration. Have it return to lander for refuelling.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #85 on: 09/28/2018 08:24 pm »
Small update post-RFP release.

The RFP was amended to delete the "Drug-Free Workplace" clause.

A new Q&A was released, which is attached.

Proposals still due Oct 9.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2018 08:34 pm by theinternetftw »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #86 on: 09/29/2018 06:57 am »
Small update post-RFP release.

The RFP was amended to delete the "Drug-Free Workplace" clause.

A new Q&A was released, which is attached.

Proposals still due Oct 9.

IMHO That is one way to around Musk smoking cannabis.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1170
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #87 on: 09/30/2018 07:50 pm »
Small update post-RFP release.

The RFP was amended to delete the "Drug-Free Workplace" clause.

A new Q&A was released, which is attached.

Proposals still due Oct 9.

IMHO That is one way to around Musk smoking cannabis.

I assume this is a joke, because the "Drug-Free Workplace" clause has no impact on Musk "smoking" cannabis because: a. his action is in the past; b. it didn't occur in the workplace; c. he's not convicted of a drug offense, d. it's not clear he can be considered an "Employee" under the clause.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11356
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8398
  • Likes Given: 6728
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #88 on: 09/30/2018 11:00 pm »
K, lets not have this argument here...  or anywhere on NSF, thanks. We squashed it last time and will again.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
« Last Edit: 10/10/2018 11:23 pm by Markstark »

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
« Last Edit: 10/10/2018 11:23 pm by Markstark »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #91 on: 10/10/2018 11:29 pm »
All "firms that construct, produce, manufacture or otherwise provide space transportation vehicles for the purpose of the prime contractor’s performance of CLPS" must be domestic-controlled entities.

Surely the design of the vehicle itself would be included in "otherwise provide?"  Regardless, accepting this bid would completely violate the spirit of "creating or maintaining required domestic capabilities for production of critical space transportation services."

Unless they're head and shoulders above everyone else and NASA sees no other option to get multiple viable providers at all, I don't see NASA bending their own rules to accept this bid.  For instance, even if they went into the process wanting three providers, I think they'd accept only having two rather than accept this bid.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2018 11:30 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Canada
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #92 on: 10/11/2018 12:04 am »
https://ispace-inc.com/aboutus/


They have an office in the US (at NASA Ames).  That's not enough to be US-controlled, but it's a start - set up a US subsidiary and off you go.   Rather like that well-known US rocket company Rocket Lab:

"Rocket Lab is an American aerospace manufacturer with a wholly owned New Zealand subsidiary."

Nothing a good corporate lawyer couldn't manage.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #93 on: 10/11/2018 12:23 am »
They have an office in the US (at NASA Ames).  That's not enough to be US-controlled, but it's a start - set up a US subsidiary and off you go.

US subsidiaries of foreign entities are specifically disqualified from consideration.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #94 on: 10/11/2018 01:09 am »
<snipped twitter embed down to just the thing it links to>
https://spacenews.com/draper-bids-on-nasa-commercial-lunar-lander-competition/

Note in that SpaceNews story that NASA officials are now intimating that the first landing will most likely be NET 2020, not 2019:

Quote from: article
Those missions could launch as soon as 2019, although agency officials said it’s more likely the first CLPS missions would not fly until at least 2020 based on the status of the companies anticipated to compete for the competition.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2018 01:10 am by theinternetftw »

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Canada
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #95 on: 10/11/2018 03:08 am »
"    They have an office in the US (at NASA Ames).  That's not enough to be US-controlled, but it's a start - set up a US subsidiary and off you go.


US subsidiaries of foreign entities are specifically disqualified from consideration."

Right, but the point is that other structures are possible, which is what Rocket Lab has done.  It's not the obstacle suggested earler, it's just something that needs a bit of a work-around.  Set up that subsidiary, and do the paperwork so the subsidiary becomes an independent entity.  You do what it takes. 

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #96 on: 10/15/2018 12:14 am »
Draper/Spaceflight/ispace/General Atomics are so far the only team that has talked about their bid.

They also say they're prepared to move forward even if not selected:

Quote
“If we don’t get awarded, then we’re going to continue working with ispace on their commercial missions,” says Campbell. “And we’re still looking to work with NASA and our commercial partners.”

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #97 on: 10/31/2018 05:10 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1057635691570454530

This would be for FLEx.  FLEx is currently expected to be funded at 120M-320M a year.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #98 on: 11/15/2018 02:41 am »
The LEAG annual meeting is happening right now.

CLPS selection is still on track for before the end of the year.

On ACSC/FLEx, NASA is thinking about a three stage lander, all to make sure commercial launch can be an option:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1062711376907526144

There's a desire to support the development of mid-sized landers (unclear if this is CLPS):

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1062721966631804928

Tomorrow, there'll be a panel called "Working with Commercial Partners to Explore the Moon"  There'll be a scientists panel first at 8:30 AM EST, and then at 9:15 AM EST a "providers" panel, featuring Astrobotic, Moon Express, Masten, SpaceX and iSpace.  A third panel called "customers" with NASA officials is at 10:30 AM EST.

It will be streamed.  You can use the LEAG meeting link to get to that stream and listen in.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2018 02:54 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #99 on: 11/16/2018 05:14 am »
From the Users Advisory Group meeting that just happened, this slide.  NASA's lunar roadmap for the next decade.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #100 on: 11/16/2018 06:13 am »
From the Users Advisory Group meeting that just happened, this slide.  NASA's lunar roadmap for the next decade.

So within 15 years NASA aims to have men back on the Moon.

(The slide says 10 but these things are always late.)

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #101 on: 11/16/2018 06:51 am »
Busy day.  From the "providers" session of LEAG:

Moon Express
  - Based on his responses in the Q&A, Bob Richards seems like the real deal and has real insights.
  - But their presentation shows another side: it was nothing but mockups, photoshop, and a reminder that they've paid to take over a pad.
  - This quote pull is for Lar: "The MX-1 is sized and constrained to go under the shroud of Electron, that is true, but as we put these lego pieces together into different configurations, they are aligned with other existing and emerging launch companies.  The MX-2 system (two MX-1s stacked vertically) is sized to go into the Virgin Orbit LauncherOne. [...] The MX-5 module (five MX-1s stuck into a pentaweb) is designed to go into the back of a Dragon and can become a tug..."  It goes up to MX-9 with a payload capability of 500kg in a "return configuration."
  - The 500kg MX-9 payload capacity was the only number in the presentation.
  - In Q&A, says they have 10 non-NASA customers for first mission, and that their second mission has a non-NASA anchor customer, the International Lunar Observatory Association, who want to put an observatory on the lunar south pole. They're also partnered with NanoRacks for payload integration.

Astrobotic
  - Peregrine lander.  $1.2M / kg to the lunar surface.
  - Different lander configs: core lander; a config for high latitudes; a config that lets a heavy thing take up the entire top of the lander (like a rover that would then roll off); a polar config with the solar panel on the side.  Core lander config will land first.
  - In the "heavy-thing-on-top" config, could take 265kg to the moon.
  - first mission:
    - 35kg of "non-NASA payload", holding an undisclosed amount of kg for NASA should they win CLPS
    - Surface life of 8 days
    - Comms: 20 kbps per kg (will be 10 kbps per kg in future, "core lander config" is light so more b/w available)
    - Power: 0.5 W per kg
    - Area: 0.5 m^2 per deck surface (4 decks, but can use top and bottom of deck)
    - Ideal payload mass: 1kg-15kg per payload to lunar orbit or surface
    - Typical payloads: Cubesats (3U to 6U), small rovers, resource instruments, seismometers, retroreflectors , telescopes
    - Launches as a secondary payload on an Atlas V
    - 12 signed payload deals for first mission.
  - Partnered with Airbus for systems, DHL (shrug), ULA for launch, Dynetics for propulsion integration
  - Contracted to deliver payloads for Mexico, Ecuador, Columbia
  - Show a shot of Frontier Aerospace hot-firing their engine in vacuum; how they ended up getting this gig is a story worth reading.
  - Currently in the middle of the test campaign for their upcoming system-level CDR.
  - Just finished their flight CPU and power management electronics, currently being tested
  - Selected for a Tipping Point award for Terrain Relative Navigation. Should enable 100m landing accuracy. 
    - Will have that TRN hardware onboard their first flight as a demonstration payload.
  - Peregrine's User's Guide v3.0 released: https://www.astrobotic.com/payload-user-guide [pdf]

Masten
  - Gives a long parable about moon dreams
    - We're farmers and winter is ending. Need to plant now before winter comes again (and it will).
    - These are some beaten down moon folks.
  - Masten have been spending the winter getting good at propulsion, payload integration, and contracting.
  - XL-1 lander
    - Total mass capacity: 100kg - two 50kg "saddlebag" cargo bays
    - Volume for a single bay: 31.5" x 24.6" x 19.7"
    - 50W power per bay, 28 VDC
    - Structural interface: "Fastened to regularly spaced grid pattern"
    - Power interface: Up to 4.5A @ 28 VDC (AIAA S-133-5-2013)
    - Thermal Control: Passive (Conductive, Radiative), Optional Heater Service
    - Data: RS-422 (EIA-422-B), SpaceWire (ECSS-E-ST-50-12C), Optional 1553B Service
  - Throws out a sentence about plans for larger landers, a space tug
  - Focused on "the core thing": being able to do a controlled landing. "That's what we're going to deliver. And we're going to work with you and other folks in the community to put together a total solution that meets the needs of the customer."

SpaceX
  - Standard generic Wooster talk.  Which means it's a BFR talk.  He's clearly there for offline networking.

iSpace
  - Gives Google Lunar X Prize history
  - Raised $94.5M Series A, the largest Series A in Japan
  - That constitutes financing for development and missions 1 and 2
  - Mission 1, Q2 2020 (only company to give any kind of launch date)
    - Orbiter-only mission
    - Will do a lunar impact
    - Had a successful Misison 1 PDR in July 2018
    - Launch mass: ~550kg / 285kg (dry?)
    - Payload: 10kg
    - Height: 2.1m
    - Rocket: F9 to GTO, takes itself to lunar orbit
  - Mission 2 will be the landing, Q2 2021
    - Launch mass: ~1400kg / 350kg (dry?)
    - Payload: 30kg
    - Height: 2.4m
    - Landing site: Lacus Mortis
  - Reminder that they've partnered with Draper Labs, General Atomics, Spaceflight Inc, to try to get in on CLPS.
  - Has a metric ton of Japanese partners.

Q&A
  - About halfway through, everyone takes a second to pour one out for Planetary Resources.
    - This was in response to a former PR employee coming up and asking how they plan to be resilient to the whims of investors.

« Last Edit: 11/16/2018 07:47 am by theinternetftw »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #102 on: 11/16/2018 06:37 pm »
{snip}

SpaceX
  - Standard generic Wooster talk.  Which means it's a BFR talk.  He's clearly there for offline networking.

{snip}

The classic problems are appearing when a company competes with its customers. Landers from Moon Express, Astrobotic and Masten are all potential users of the Falcon 9.

The BFR team will now have to worry did SpaceX slighting Falcon 9 customers hurt sales to future BFR customers?

At future events SpaceX will have to use different marketing men for the Falcon 9 and BFR.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #103 on: 11/16/2018 07:10 pm »
From the Users Advisory Group meeting that just happened, this slide.  NASA's lunar roadmap for the next decade.

So within 15 years NASA aims to have men back on the Moon.

(The slide says 10 but these things are always late.)
Normally I would 100% agree with your final comment. In this case I feel compelled to point out, for a sufficiently narrow definition of "these things," there is exactly one historical example of this being done before. It was proposed in 1961, with a deadline of the end of the decade, and achieved its goal with half a year to spare.

Yes, I know the reasons that worked are no longer applicable, but the commercial movement in this direction may make it happen again. (At least I hope so, and that is ignoring that BFR could potentially solve the challenge by pure brute force from a parallel development path.)

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #104 on: 11/16/2018 11:42 pm »
From the Users Advisory Group meeting that just happened, this slide.  NASA's lunar roadmap for the next decade.

So within 15 years NASA aims to have men back on the Moon.

(The slide says 10 but these things are always late.)
Normally I would 100% agree with your final comment. In this case I feel compelled to point out, for a sufficiently narrow definition of "these things," there is exactly one historical example of this being done before. It was proposed in 1961, with a deadline of the end of the decade, and achieved its goal with half a year to spare.

Yes, I know the reasons that worked are no longer applicable, but the commercial movement in this direction may make it happen again. (At least I hope so, and that is ignoring that BFR could potentially solve the challenge by pure brute force from a parallel development path.)

To estimate the scaling factor try ratio of development time for Orion to Apollo Command Module.

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #105 on: 11/16/2018 11:49 pm »
From the Users Advisory Group meeting that just happened, this slide.  NASA's lunar roadmap for the next decade.

So within 15 years NASA aims to have men back on the Moon.

(The slide says 10 but these things are always late.)
Normally I would 100% agree with your final comment. In this case I feel compelled to point out, for a sufficiently narrow definition of "these things," there is exactly one historical example of this being done before. It was proposed in 1961, with a deadline of the end of the decade, and achieved its goal with half a year to spare.

Yes, I know the reasons that worked are no longer applicable, but the commercial movement in this direction may make it happen again. (At least I hope so, and that is ignoring that BFR could potentially solve the challenge by pure brute force from a parallel development path.)

To estimate the scaling factor try ratio of development time for Orion to Apollo Command Module.

Service module started development in 2012 and the the launch vehicle a year or so earlier. What dependancies for the deployment of a lunar lander are starting development after it?

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #106 on: 11/17/2018 12:52 am »
To estimate the scaling factor try ratio of development time for Orion to Apollo Command Module.
This is the thread for commercial lunar services. I stated that my assumption was commercial development. Orion is about as far from commercial development as you can get.

If you want to compare Apollo era NASA to modern commercial development, you could pick something such as time between the first orbital Saturn I to the first Saturn V, compared to the first successful Falcon 1 to the first Falcon 9 launch. There are major problems with this comparison too, particularly a tendency for cherry picking, but that applies to all such comparisons. My original post used a single data point for reference, which is not useful for proving much of anything, which is why I expressed my statement as a hope.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #107 on: 11/17/2018 03:11 am »
Busy day.  From the "providers" session of LEAG:
<snip>
 - Peregrine's User's Guide v3.0 released: https://www.astrobotic.com/payload-user-guide [pdf]

Just a bit from that Astrobotic guide, which is really detailed and almost twice as long as their old guide:

$1,200,000/kg to the lunar surface (as already mentioned).
$2,000,000/kg to the lunar surface if attached to an Astrobotic rover.
$300,000/kg to a 100km x 750km lunar orbit.  100km x 8700km available on request.

Peregrine can be reconfigured to accommodate a smallsat on top of it, making it an orbital tug.

Mail a 0.5" x 0.125" package to the moon for $460.  Scales to 1" x 2" for $25K.
That service was announced in 2017.  I'd completely forgotten about it.

M1 Lander: 1.9m Height  |  2.5m Diameter  |  1,283kg Wet Mass

1st mission: 35kg capacity (plus NASA reserved space)  |  2nd mission 175kg  |  3rd mission 265kg
265kg is the nominal max payload for Peregrine

Five 667N Main Engines using MMH/MON-25  |  Twelve 45N ACS Engines using MMH/MON-25

Flight Computer: LEON3FT, which is a dual-core fault-tolerant SPARC processor.  Going to the moon using a CPU architecture from Sun Microsystems.  That's pretty great.

M1 Mission:
Lunar Orbits: 100km x 8700km, hold 12hrs  | 100km x 750km, hold 48hrs  |  100km x 100km, hold 72hrs
Powered Descent Duration (after deorbit burn and coast): 600s
Maximum Horizontal Landing Velocity: 0.5m/s  |  Maximum Vertical Landing Velocity: 2.0m/s

Lacus Mortis is the landing site for M1 (also where iSpace plans to land). 43.914° N, 25.148° E.
Landing ellipse: 24km x 6km  |  Effective slope: Less than 12 degrees  |  Greatest expected rock height: 0.35m
Local landing time: 55-110 hours after lunar sunrise. (354 hours == 1 Lunar day)

Launch phase: 1-3 hours  |  Cruise phase: 3-33 days  |  Orbit phase: 4-25 days  |  Surface phase: 8 days

There's a Centaur "Earth-departure burn" before sep.  Then Peregrine will do a Perigee raise, then TLI.

Tons more in the guide.  Attached below for posterity.  Compare with the v2.1 guide, which is in this thread.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2018 03:15 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #108 on: 11/17/2018 04:25 am »
Just noticed something.  Astrobotic said in the LEAG meeting that they're currently getting ready for CDR.  If they're following the schedule outlined in their User Guide, they are somewhere around 22-29 months from launch.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #109 on: 11/17/2018 11:40 pm »
Also from the LEAG meeting:

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is receiving CLPS funding to help characterize landing sites for commercial landers.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11356
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8398
  • Likes Given: 6728
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #110 on: 11/19/2018 09:43 am »
- This quote pull is for Lar: "The MX-1 is sized and constrained to go under the shroud of Electron, that is true, but as we put these lego pieces together into different configurations, they are aligned with other existing and emerging launch companies.  The MX-2 system (two MX-1s stacked vertically) is sized to go into the Virgin Orbit LauncherOne. [...] The MX-5 module (five MX-1s stuck into a pentaweb) is designed to go into the back of a Dragon and can become a tug..."  It goes up to MX-9 with a payload capability of 500kg in a "return configuration."
Thanks for thinking of me, LOL But I can't help but think that 9 of these lashed together would be ungainly. So much system duplication. But if it worked for Falcon?

Quote
SpaceX
  - Standard generic Wooster talk.  Which means it's a BFR talk.  He's clearly there for offline networking.
It must be hard to listen to people talk about their 50kg payload landers when you have a 50,000kg lander in the works....
 
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #111 on: 11/19/2018 12:23 pm »

Quote
SpaceX
  - Standard generic Wooster talk.  Which means it's a BFR talk.  He's clearly there for offline networking.
It must be hard to listen to people talk about their 50kg payload landers when you have a 50,000kg lander in the works....
 

SpaceX may have to buy small landers to build the landing pad for its heavy lander. A 50,000kg lander will have similar problems to the Apollo LEMs only bigger.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #112 on: 11/19/2018 02:18 pm »
SpaceX may have to buy small landers to build the landing pad for its heavy lander. A 50,000kg lander will have similar problems to the Apollo LEMs only bigger.
'Have to' - a hell of a lot of things have to go right for you for that to be the case.

SpaceX already has landers that can cope to deliver stuff intact from the near surface without landing.
They're called Teslas, and cope fine with a 30mph impact.

BFS seems very likely to be able to land without incident, the only issue is you may not be able to get it back if the surface is worst case.

To step back to 'proper' designs, commercially available tanks (And I mean normal industrial ones, not aerospace), with hypergols and superdraco are quite enough to land some 20 tons, if dropped off in LLO.

The tanks may weigh 20 tons extra. So what?

For there to be a place for themselves in a environment with BFS means you have to bring a lot to the table that SpaceX can't do easier just by sacrificing a little mass.
There may be a transitory place if BFS keeps prices lots higher than costs - if for example $1B/100 tons in LLO was the cost, you might be able to make a case for your own lander.

'Rockets aren't lego' gets a lot weaker on the moon, for nonreusable unmanned landers deployed from a main craft.
Gravity and escape velocity is so low that large mass growth is not too big of an issue.
There are no aero issues.
Thermal issues almost go away, as you have a total exposure outside of a conditioned environment of a few minutes, and if longer, due to no aero issues, can simply wrap MLI around your craft and get pretty good insulation for an hour or three.
Power isn't an issue, as batteries are quite good enough.
You can land quite a long way above the surface and hit at modest speeds.

For CLPS landers to have a place in this future, they need to be very special.
An off-the-shelf methalox 50kg payload reusable lander - perhaps.

The moon is weird. Your main ship may be able to get close enough to do really quite in depth investigations while still in orbit on the flatter or pointier bits.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5326
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2630
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #113 on: 11/19/2018 08:24 pm »
Sounds like the science community is interested.

ScienceMag...

Quote
NASA to pay private space companies for moon rides

Next month, almost a half-century since the United States last landed a spacecraft on the moon, NASA is expected to announce plans for a return. But the agency will just be along for the ride. Rather than unveiling plans for its own spacecraft, NASA will name the private companies it will pay to carry science experiments to the moon on small robotic landers.

Under a program called Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS), NASA would buy space aboard a couple of launches a year, starting in 2021. The effort is similar to an agency program that paid private space companies such as Elon Musk's SpaceX to deliver cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). "This a new way of doing business," says Sarah Noble, a planetary scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C., who is leading the science side of NASA's lunar plans.

Scientists are lining up for a ride. "It really feels like the future of lunar exploration," says Erica Jawin, a planetary scientist at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. She and other attendees at the annual meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group in Columbia, Maryland, last week were eager to show NASA why their small experiments would be worthy hitchhikers on the landers.

« Last Edit: 11/19/2018 08:26 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #114 on: 11/20/2018 01:41 am »
{snip}
For CLPS landers to have a place in this future, they need to be very special.
An off-the-shelf methalox 50kg payload reusable lander - perhaps.

The moon is weird. Your main ship may be able to get close enough to do really quite in depth investigations while still in orbit on the flatter or pointier bits.

CLPS lunar lander missions expected to start in 2021. That is only 3 years away. The SpaceX BFS is likely to be several years later that that. It could also be more expensive.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5326
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2630
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #115 on: 11/20/2018 02:20 am »
>
CLPS lunar lander missions expected to start in 2021. That is only 3 years away. The SpaceX BFS is likely to be several years later that that. It could also be more expensive.

The roadmap calls for a "human scale descent module" by 2024 soon followed by a "reusable lunar ascent vehicle." Musk, answering a direct question about a Moon base,  tweeted "2025."

Space News...
« Last Edit: 11/20/2018 02:27 am by docmordrid »
DM

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #116 on: 11/20/2018 03:54 am »
>
CLPS lunar lander missions expected to start in 2021. That is only 3 years away. The SpaceX BFS is likely to be several years later that that. It could also be more expensive.

The roadmap calls for a "human scale descent module" by 2024 soon followed by a "reusable lunar ascent vehicle." Musk, answering a direct question about a Moon base,  tweeted "2025."

{snip}

"Demonstrate human-scale Descent Module by 2024"

A good start but an Ascent Module and cabin with life support will also be needed, which NASA is probably assuming will take until 2028 to develop.

Note: Did the Xeus lander from Masten and ULA pass its System Concept Design Reviews 1 and 2?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #117 on: 11/20/2018 03:06 pm »
{snip}
For CLPS landers to have a place in this future, they need to be very special.
An off-the-shelf methalox 50kg payload reusable lander - perhaps.

The moon is weird. Your main ship may be able to get close enough to do really quite in depth investigations while still in orbit on the flatter or pointier bits.

CLPS lunar lander missions expected to start in 2021. That is only 3 years away. The SpaceX BFS is likely to be several years later that that. It could also be more expensive.

That does not answer 'may have to buy'.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #118 on: 11/21/2018 12:04 am »
{snip}
For CLPS landers to have a place in this future, they need to be very special.
An off-the-shelf methalox 50kg payload reusable lander - perhaps.

The moon is weird. Your main ship may be able to get close enough to do really quite in depth investigations while still in orbit on the flatter or pointier bits.

CLPS lunar lander missions expected to start in 2021. That is only 3 years away. The SpaceX BFS is likely to be several years later that that. It could also be more expensive.

That does not answer 'may have to buy'.


The surface of the Moon is not a nice place - it has many rocks, boulders and crevices which caused the Apollo LEM landers problems. The BFS is too big to fit between many of these rocks. See the picture of the hazard area NASA built to test the Morpheus lander.



A smaller lander can fit between more of the rocks and unload say a bull dozer able to clear a landing area for the BFS. A landing pad with a solid surface, so the BFS does not fall over, would be a second improvement.

SpaceX could design its own mini lander and bull dozer but will probably find it cheaper to buy an off the shelf small payload lander.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2018 12:11 am by A_M_Swallow »

Offline Joffan

  • NSF Irregular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Liked: 452
  • Likes Given: 1323
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #119 on: 11/21/2018 12:22 am »

SpaceX could design its own mini lander and bull dozer but will probably find it cheaper to buy an off the shelf small payload lander.

Do they have a Home Depot card? Probably could get a few hundred K discount, at least. :-)

Personally I'd have thought that their experience with Dragon abort modes and Falcon stage landing on ships would make a small tough lander fairly straightforward for SpaceX.
Max Q for humanity becoming spacefaring

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Canada
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #120 on: 11/21/2018 02:20 am »
A_M_Swallow:

"The surface of the Moon is not a nice place - it has many rocks, boulders and crevices which caused the Apollo LEM landers problems. The BFS is too big to fit between many of these rocks. See the picture of the hazard area NASA built to test the Morpheus lander."

Sorry, but this is completely false.  No Apollo LM ever had a problem with these 'hazards', and any review of images of the landing sites will clearly show this.  It is true that you can find images of very rocky areas - the Camelot Crater rim at Apollo 17's site is a good example.  But you just don't aim for such a place.  And today we have on-board hazard avoidance (demonstrated on Chang'e 3, planned and tested by the new lander companies) so we don't even have to rely on a human pilot to avoid hazards.

The only landforms which threatened any Apollo landing were craters.  Apollo 15's LM landed on a crater slope and Apollo 16 narrowly missed one.  It was also craters which jeopardized two Surveyor landings (3 and 5) but both survived because of their stable design.  Plenty of other larger-scale slopes at sites from Apollo 14 on were simply avoided by targeting safer places.

Modern targeting and hazard avoidance completely negate this problem, as far as I am concerned.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #121 on: 11/21/2018 08:18 am »
{snip}
And today we have on-board hazard avoidance (demonstrated on Chang'e 3, planned and tested by the new lander companies) so we don't even have to rely on a human pilot to avoid hazards.

The Hazard Area shown was built to flight test on-board hazard avoidance equipment.

Craters and crevices - to the lander's leg both types of hole are a problem.

The bigger the lander gets the fewer the natural landing areas available.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #122 on: 11/21/2018 05:12 pm »
{snip}
And today we have on-board hazard avoidance (demonstrated on Chang'e 3, planned and tested by the new lander companies) so we don't even have to rely on a human pilot to avoid hazards.

The Hazard Area shown was built to flight test on-board hazard avoidance equipment.

Craters and crevices - to the lander's leg both types of hole are a problem.

The bigger the lander gets the fewer the natural landing areas available.

The moon is globally imaged at some 2m/pixel, with 0.5m/pixel from selected sites, and imagery from Apollo and Lunakhod at somewhat higher resolution in very limited locations and tracks.

A LRO class camera could, over moderate portions of the moon get images down to 10cm, with skimming orbits, using the gravity models from LRO to aid in planning.
A 1m aperture telescope significantly less.

Note that these figures are misleading - you can find boulders much smaller than 0.5m/pixel in the images as their shadows are longer.
The moons lack of atmosphere and excellent mapping of the gravity field and surface elevation mean you can with little risk compute trajectories that let you verify pre-selected landing sites are suitable, without actually landing.
In addition, 'mobile phone' class cameras, as found on the Mars 2020 rover are quite suitable for verifying landing sites even closer up.
That last tenth of a second before impact is quite high resolution indeed.

Modest additions to even quite small landers can let you survey in even more depth than LROs best for your landing site.
If you have no atmosphere, are landing in 1/6G, and have 3d imagery that is better than the diameter of your footpads, this is a very different problem from a generic situation where you have to try to autoland on the moon with no knowledge.

This is pretty much true if your lander masses a kilo or a megaton.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #123 on: 11/23/2018 07:13 pm »
Story mainly on the ACSC "approaching-human-sized" lander, and their new three-stage plan for that:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/

But it drops in a bit at the end about a series of ~500kg mid-sized landers with a first launch in 2022.  And says that might get completed via an outgrowth from CLPS.

Notable here is it looks like this is a shift from the initial plans for a 2022 launch based on an internal Lunar Pallet Lander design that had been planned for Resource Prospector.  Instead, they're looking to give that work to commercial.  This keeps the 2022 launch from being a one-off lander unrelated to everything else save that it was also going to the moon.  Now it's a real part of the program.  Sounds like good news.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #124 on: 11/23/2018 09:35 pm »
An Eric Berger story on proposals for the Lunar Surface Instrument and Technology Payloads program being due:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/forget-big-rovers-one-company-envisions-a-swarm-of-tiny-lunar-prospectors/

There are two payload development programs.  There's this one that was mentioned in the article, which is for getting payloads *now*, so they can launch in 2019 (more likely 2020, but 2019 was the original plan).  Then there's DALI, which is a long-term payload development program for instruments expected to be ready in 2021.

One potential payload already has a flashy demonstration video (this from a company founded in 2017):

« Last Edit: 11/23/2018 09:36 pm by theinternetftw »

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #125 on: 11/27/2018 11:14 pm »
This is likely an announcement on CLPS contract awards. Can’t wait.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-to-announce-new-moon-to-mars-partnerships-with-us-companies/ NASA Administrator to Announce New Moon to Mars Partnerships - NASA

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #126 on: 11/27/2018 11:47 pm »
Also, the Masten retweet might be a hint at getting an award. I know it’s kind of stretch lol


Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #127 on: 11/28/2018 11:47 pm »
This is likely an announcement on CLPS contract awards. Can’t wait.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-to-announce-new-moon-to-mars-partnerships-with-us-companies/ NASA Administrator to Announce New Moon to Mars Partnerships - NASA

The CLPS awards were not due until the end of the year. Although this may be the start of CLPS#2 or possibly the start of Commercial Mars Payload Services (CMPS).

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 2500
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #128 on: 11/29/2018 03:19 pm »
Some more background and leak(?) ahead of today's announcement:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-return-moon-mission-commercial-companies-announcement-2018-11

Quote
Space-industry sources say the event will name 11 small companies that will be eligible to compete for millions of dollars in future NASA contracts.

Business Insider has independently confirmed that a company called Astrobotic Technology will be one of those 11 partners, but an Astrobotic employee said they can't reveal specifics until Thursday.


Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #129 on: 11/29/2018 04:25 pm »

The CLPS awards were not due until the end of the year.

It is the end of the year.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #130 on: 11/29/2018 05:24 pm »

The CLPS awards were not due until the end of the year.

It is the end of the year.


It is not the 31 December for another month. Something being a month a head of schedule is quite unusual.

p.s. The announcement was the CLPS contracts.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2018 06:46 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline PhotoEngineer

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • SoCal
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #131 on: 11/29/2018 06:22 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5895
  • Likes Given: 1991
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #132 on: 11/29/2018 06:36 pm »
No Blue Origin.
Hmmm....

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Canada
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #133 on: 11/29/2018 07:03 pm »
The award-winners had to be ready to fly by the end of 2021, so missing entities may just not have been able to commit to that date.  No reflection on anything else.  And there will be other awards like this for later, larger  landers

Offline MarcPol

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Connecticut, USA
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #134 on: 11/29/2018 07:10 pm »
No Blue Origin.
Hmmm....

They noted these are only capability and services contracts- each company will be responsible for securing their own launch vehicle to actually get to the moon.  If Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA, Arianespace, etc are all options to get to the moon for the commercial services providers, there will likely be a fair amount of competition to get the launch contracts.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 2500
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #135 on: 11/29/2018 07:24 pm »
Quote
Nov. 29, 2018
RELEASE 18-105

NASA Announces New Partnerships for Commercial Lunar Payload Delivery Services

Nine U.S. companies now are eligible to bid on NASA delivery services to the lunar surface through Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contracts, as one of the first steps toward long-term scientific study and human exploration of the Moon and eventually Mars.

These companies will be able to bid on delivering science and technology payloads for NASA, including payload integration and operations, launching from Earth and landing on the surface of the Moon. NASA expects to be one of many customers that will use these commercial landing services.

“Today’s announcement marks tangible progress in America’s return to the Moon’s surface to stay,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “The innovation of America’s aerospace companies, wedded with our big goals in science and human exploration, are going to help us achieve amazing things on the Moon and feed forward to Mars.”

The selected companies are:

Astrobotic Technology, Inc.: Pittsburgh
Deep Space Systems: Littleton, Colorado
Draper: Cambridge, Massachusetts
Firefly Aerospace, Inc.: Cedar Park, Texas
Intuitive Machines, LLC: Houston
Lockheed Martin Space: Littleton, Colorado
Masten Space Systems, Inc.: Mojave, California
Moon Express: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Orbit Beyond: Edison, New Jersey
Image Gallery: Draft lander concepts from companies selected for the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) initiated the request for proposals leading to these selections as the first step in achieving a variety of science and technology objectives that could be addressed by regularly sending instruments, experiments and other small payloads to the Moon. SMD serves as the NASA interface between the agency’s mission directorates, the scientific community, and other external stakeholders in developing a strategy to enable an integrated approach for robotic and human exploration within NASA’s Moon to Mars Exploration Campaign.

The Commercial Lunar Payload Services contracts are indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts with a combined maximum contract value of $2.6 billion during the next 10 years. The agency will look at a number of factors when comparing the bids, such as technical feasibility, price and schedule.

Lunar payloads could fly on these contracted missions as early as 2019. In October, NASA issued a call for potential lunar instruments and technologies to study the Moon, with proposals due in January. These early missions will enable important technology demonstrations that will inform the development of future landers and other exploration systems needed for humans to return to the lunar surface, and help prepare the agency to send astronauts to explore Mars.

NASA will re-examine the private market periodically for new and emerging lunar delivery capabilities, and may offer additional companies an opportunity to join Commercial Lunar Payload Services through a contract process called on-ramping.

For more information about NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration plans, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/moontomars

-end-

Cheryl Warner / Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1540 / 202-358-0918
[email protected]/ [email protected]

Jenny Knotts
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
[email protected]

Last Updated: Nov. 29, 2018
Editor: Sean Potter

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-new-partnerships-for-commercial-lunar-payload-delivery-services

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Liked: 3075
  • Likes Given: 1549
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #136 on: 11/29/2018 07:30 pm »
No Blue Origin.
Hmmm....

They noted these are only capability and services contracts- each company will be responsible for securing their own launch vehicle to actually get to the moon.  If Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA, Arianespace, etc are all options to get to the moon for the commercial services providers, there will likely be a fair amount of competition to get the launch contracts.

They have to use domestic launch vehicles and domestic spacecraft. Right now they can use SpaceX, ULA, NGIS, and RocketLab. Soon Virgin and Blue as well.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4723
  • California
  • Liked: 4419
  • Likes Given: 2682
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #137 on: 11/29/2018 07:36 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #138 on: 11/29/2018 07:58 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?
They're the only company in the US that's actually built any kind of planetary lander since the 60s, they seem an obvious pick.

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #139 on: 11/29/2018 08:10 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

I was thinking that Orbit Beyond was the odd man out. Can't find their website. Do they have one?

edit: Their address is listed as Edison, New Jersey. Sort of small town - population of about 100,000. Shouldn't be hard to find their office?

edit 2: Their one known employee, Jeff Patton (impressive resume btw), doesn't list Orbit Beyond on linkedIn and is listed as living in the Denver area. Anybody know if he still works at ULA and this is just a part time gig or what?
« Last Edit: 11/29/2018 08:39 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline John44

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3832
  • Netherlands
    • space-multimedia
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #140 on: 11/29/2018 09:09 pm »
NASA Administrator to Announce New Moon to Mars Partnerships with U.S. Companies
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6636

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #141 on: 11/29/2018 10:00 pm »


No Blue Origin.
Hmmm....

They noted these are only capability and services contracts- each company will be responsible for securing their own launch vehicle to actually get to the moon.  If Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA, Arianespace, etc are all options to get to the moon for the commercial services providers, there will likely be a fair amount of competition to get the launch contracts.

They have to use domestic launch vehicles and domestic spacecraft. Right now they can use SpaceX, ULA, NGIS, and RocketLab. Soon Virgin and Blue as well.

You can add Firefly to that list. At 1000kg to LEO or 600kg to GEO (???kg to LLO) its one of more capable small LV and big enough for few of these landers.

Relativity LV will be 1200kg LEO.

Moon Express can deliver some useful payloads to surface with LauncherOne, either using MX1 or 2 stage MX2.

So lots of choices for smaller landers when it comes to dedicated launch on small LV.


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #142 on: 11/29/2018 10:15 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

I was thinking that Orbit Beyond was the odd man out. Can't find their website. Do they have one?

edit: Their address is listed as Edison, New Jersey. Sort of small town - population of about 100,000. Shouldn't be hard to find their office?

edit 2: Their one known employee, Jeff Patton (impressive resume btw), doesn't list Orbit Beyond on linkedIn and is listed as living in the Denver area. Anybody know if he still works at ULA and this is just a part time gig or what?
"
OrbitBeyond has engaged TeamIndus for Lander engineering, Honeybee Robotics for payload integration, Advanced Space for mission management, Ceres Robotics for surface operations, and Apollo Fusion for future programs."

TeamIndus is real player here, OrbitBeyond is probably way to bring them into a domestic competition.

Japan's iSpace are also involved as partners with Draper.

Lots of strategic partnerships going on, which is good thing.  Newspace companies with no flight history partnering with well established aerospace  companies. As example Moon Express on their own would be risking but with SNC's vast experience I'd give them better than 90% chance of successful first landing.




Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Canada
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #144 on: 11/29/2018 10:33 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

I was thinking that Orbit Beyond was the odd man out. Can't find their website. Do they have one?

edit: Their address is listed as Edison, New Jersey. Sort of small town - population of about 100,000. Shouldn't be hard to find their office?

edit 2: Their one known employee, Jeff Patton (impressive resume btw), doesn't list Orbit Beyond on linkedIn and is listed as living in the Denver area. Anybody know if he still works at ULA and this is just a part time gig or what?
"
OrbitBeyond has engaged TeamIndus for Lander engineering, Honeybee Robotics for payload integration, Advanced Space for mission management, Ceres Robotics for surface operations, and Apollo Fusion for future programs."

TeamIndus is real player here, OrbitBeyond is probably way to bring them into a domestic competition.

Japan's iSpace are also involved as partners with Draper.

Lots of strategic partnerships going on, which is good thing.  Newspace companies with no flight history partnering with well established aerospace  companies. As example Moon Express on their own would be risking but with SNC's vast experience I'd give them better than 90% chance of successful first landing.

Yeah, I saw that part about being partners with Team Indus and co. But you would think that companies have to have more substantial U.S. operations and not just be a shell company. When a company gets listed as awarded a piece of a $2.6 billion program, and as far as I can tell, they don't even exist, it raises red flags. Seriously, the closest thing that comes up on the New Jersey government business registry is Orbitra in Edison New Jersey.

edit: Linked in page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/orbitbeyond
lists two employees in New York and California. So, the company is pretty spread out. And Jeff Patton seems to have left ULA based on their press release, so that makes 3. Two is company, three is a crowd I guess.

Quote
The Engineering team at OrbitBeyond is led by Jeff Patton, former Development Program
Systems Engineering and Integration Manager at ULA.
https://www.orbitbeyond.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/20181112-OBI-Press-Release-Final.pdf
« Last Edit: 11/29/2018 10:57 pm by ncb1397 »

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8785
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3788
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #145 on: 11/29/2018 11:07 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #146 on: 11/29/2018 11:16 pm »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

I believe the companies in the list are lander providers who of course will have to partner with a launch vehicle provider. I’m not aware of Rocket Lab working on any lunar landers. However, I thought Firefly was only working on a small launch vehicle. I’m not familiar with any lander work from them.

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 2208
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #147 on: 11/30/2018 12:08 am »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

I believe the companies in the list are lander providers who of course will have to partner with a launch vehicle provider. I’m not aware of Rocket Lab working on any lunar landers. However, I thought Firefly was only working on a small launch vehicle. I’m not familiar with any lander work from them.
The picture NASA posted of Firefly's proposal is a Beta vehicle with an extra stage and an attached lander.  We haven't heard any details about that - I thought they'd be contributing the SEP stage they've been talking about - but apparently they've at least drawn it up (I think this lander design is different from any of the others we've seen, but I'm not entirely sure).  I have a feeling they're planning to use this contract to fund the Beta LV's development, by pitching themselves as an "all-up" solution.
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #148 on: 11/30/2018 12:10 am »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

I believe the companies in the list are lander providers who of course will have to partner with a launch vehicle provider. I’m not aware of Rocket Lab working on any lunar landers. However, I thought Firefly was only working on a small launch vehicle. I’m not familiar with any lander work from them.
The picture NASA posted of Firefly's proposal is a Beta vehicle with an extra stage and an attached lander.  We haven't heard any details about that - I thought they'd be contributing the SEP stage they've been talking about - but apparently they've at least drawn it up (I think this lander design is different from any of the others we've seen, but I'm not entirely sure).  I have a feeling they're planning to use this contract to fund the Beta LV's development, by pitching themselves as an "all-up" solution.
Very cool. Had not seen that configuration before. Thank you !

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #149 on: 11/30/2018 12:58 am »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

I believe the companies in the list are lander providers who of course will have to partner with a launch vehicle provider. I’m not aware of Rocket Lab working on any lunar landers. However, I thought Firefly was only working on a small launch vehicle. I’m not familiar with any lander work from them.
The picture NASA posted of Firefly's proposal is a Beta vehicle with an extra stage and an attached lander.  We haven't heard any details about that - I thought they'd be contributing the SEP stage they've been talking about - but apparently they've at least drawn it up (I think this lander design is different from any of the others we've seen, but I'm not entirely sure).  I have a feeling they're planning to use this contract to fund the Beta LV's development, by pitching themselves as an "all-up" solution.
Earth departure stage isn't SEP, looks more like a Alpha US.

A rough calculation using this combination is 400-500kg to surface, thats lander mass+ payload.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 01:14 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #150 on: 11/30/2018 01:19 am »
From the announcement video, a bit about the selection process:

Quote
Thomas Zurbuchen: So frankly what we tried to do on this one is go relatively broad. It makes no sense to us to go select out based on some criteria that we may come up with using our own development cycles to cut down the competition. We believe what should decide on the success and on the viability of each one of those partners should be how they deliver these services that we want. So we went with a really broad set of criteria that really asked questions about their overall viability as companies, their likelihood to be able to deliver these services, but we did not go into really deep depth relative to the technical capability. Because frankly, that's going to come next. When we're going to talk about the very tasks that are going to come our way.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 01:19 am by theinternetftw »

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 2208
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #151 on: 11/30/2018 02:29 am »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

I believe the companies in the list are lander providers who of course will have to partner with a launch vehicle provider. I’m not aware of Rocket Lab working on any lunar landers. However, I thought Firefly was only working on a small launch vehicle. I’m not familiar with any lander work from them.
The picture NASA posted of Firefly's proposal is a Beta vehicle with an extra stage and an attached lander.  We haven't heard any details about that - I thought they'd be contributing the SEP stage they've been talking about - but apparently they've at least drawn it up (I think this lander design is different from any of the others we've seen, but I'm not entirely sure).  I have a feeling they're planning to use this contract to fund the Beta LV's development, by pitching themselves as an "all-up" solution.
Earth departure stage isn't SEP, looks more like a Alpha US.

A rough calculation using this combination is 400-500kg to surface, thats lander mass+ payload.
Agreed, that stage looks liquid, and using an Alpha second stage would (I assume) be much cheaper than a purpose-designed departure stage.  As a launch vehicle, it looks great.  As for the lander, I should've dug deeper.  From Firefly's website:
Quote from: Tom Markusic
In conjunction with our Beta launch vehicle and our partnership with Intuitive Machines, Firefly will provide an integrated lunar services offering, from the launch pad to the surface of the Moon.
I would assume that Firefly is doing the integration, launch, and transfer burn, then handing off to Intuitive for the coast, landing, and operations, since those are the areas the respective companies are known for.
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #152 on: 11/30/2018 02:39 am »
Masten Space Systems
Astrobotic
Lockheed Martin
Moon Express
Deep Space Systems
Firefly
Draper / iSpace
Intuitive Machines
Orbit Beyond

One of these is not like the other. Why was an aerospace giant included?

Stand-in for RocketLab maybe?

I believe the companies in the list are lander providers who of course will have to partner with a launch vehicle provider. I’m not aware of Rocket Lab working on any lunar landers. However, I thought Firefly was only working on a small launch vehicle. I’m not familiar with any lander work from them.
The picture NASA posted of Firefly's proposal is a Beta vehicle with an extra stage and an attached lander.  We haven't heard any details about that - I thought they'd be contributing the SEP stage they've been talking about - but apparently they've at least drawn it up (I think this lander design is different from any of the others we've seen, but I'm not entirely sure).  I have a feeling they're planning to use this contract to fund the Beta LV's development, by pitching themselves as an "all-up" solution.
Earth departure stage isn't SEP, looks more like a Alpha US.

A rough calculation using this combination is 400-500kg to surface, thats lander mass+ payload.
Agreed, that stage looks liquid, and using an Alpha second stage would (I assume) be much cheaper than a purpose-designed departure stage.  As a launch vehicle, it looks great.  As for the lander, I should've dug deeper.  From Firefly's website:
Quote from: Tom Markusic
In conjunction with our Beta launch vehicle and our partnership with Intuitive Machines, Firefly will provide an integrated lunar services offering, from the launch pad to the surface of the Moon.
I would assume that Firefly is doing the integration, launch, and transfer burn, then handing off to Intuitive for the coast, landing, and operations, since those are the areas the respective companies are known for.

I kinda see it


Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #153 on: 11/30/2018 05:41 am »
Nine winners. Seven landers.

Masten Space Systems - Developing the XL-1 Lander
Astrobotic - Developing the Peregrine Lander
Lockheed Martin - Developing the McCandless Lander (Phoenix / InSight based)
Moon Express - Developing the MX-1 Lander (presumably, but the "concept image" in NASA's gallery is the MX-9).
Intuitive Machines - Developing the Nova-C Lander (Project Morpheus based)
Deep Space Systems - Developing a Rover, using Intuitive Machines to land
Firefly - Selling Lunar Delivery Services, launching with its own Launch Vehicle and using Intuitive Machines to land
Draper / iSpace - Developing the Artemis-7 Lander
Orbit Beyond / TeamIndus - Developing the Z-01 Lander (unsure if Z-01 is the lander name, the mission, or both)
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 06:30 am by theinternetftw »

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18077
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3713
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #154 on: 11/30/2018 06:06 am »
News Release Issued: Nov 29, 2018 (2:23pm EST)


Lockheed Martin Selected for NASA's Commercial Lunar Lander Payload Services Contract

Only Company to Build Four Successful Mars Landers will Offer Commercial Lunar Payload Deliveries


DENVER, Nov. 29, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) will apply its expertise in interplanetary spacecraft to a new program designed to deliver commercial payloads to the surface of the Moon. NASA announced today they have selected Lockheed Martin's McCandless Lunar Lander to provide payload delivery services as part of the agency's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) contract.

Lockheed Martin's lander design builds on four decades of experience engineering deep space missions, including Mars landers. The McCandless Lunar Lander is based on the proven design of the InSight lander – which just touched down on the Martian surface on Monday, Nov. 26 – and the Phoenix lander – which successfully arrived at Mars in May 2008.

"We are excited to leverage our interplanetary lander designs and experience to help NASA build a new economy on and around the Moon, and beyond," said Lisa Callahan, vice president and general manager for Commercial Civil Space at Lockheed Martin. "Lockheed Martin has built more interplanetary spacecraft than all other U.S. companies combined, including four successful Mars landers. With our expertise on Orion and the NextSTEP lunar habitat, we can maximize the value of CLPS for lunar science operations as well as the path forward to tomorrow's reusable human lander."

The McCandless Lunar Lander is capable of transporting large payloads weighing hundreds of kilograms – including stationary scientific instruments, deployable rovers, or even sample return vehicles – to the surface of the Moon. The lander uses a proven propulsive landing approach that relies upon on-board radars and a set of rocket thrusters firing 10 times a second to slow to just five mph before touching down. Once on the lunar surface, the lander can provide power, communications and thermal management for sophisticated payloads.

"We're no stranger to commercial space business models, having built more than 100 commercial satellites and launched numerous Atlas and Titan commercial payloads," said Callahan. "On our last 10 interplanetary missions for NASA, we delivered on or ahead of schedule, and on budget. We want to assure payload customers who select Lockheed Martin can be confident that we'll deliver on-time and on-budget."

The McCandless Lunar Lander is named in honor of the late Bruce McCandless, a NASA astronaut and longtime Lockheed Martin employee who was a pioneer in space exploration. McCandless is best known for conducting the first ever untethered spacewalk using the Lockheed Martin-built Manned Maneuvering Unit during a flight on the space shuttle. He originally joined the astronaut corps during the Apollo program and served as the voice of mission control for Neil Armstrong's famous moonwalk. After retiring from NASA he was instrumental in the design of exploration technology and training the next generation of planetary explorers during his tenure at Lockheed Martin.


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7484
  • Likes Given: 2500
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #155 on: 11/30/2018 06:08 am »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18642
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6668
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #156 on: 11/30/2018 06:28 am »
Images of the eight landers and rover.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #157 on: 11/30/2018 08:35 am »
Images of the eight landers and rover.

For anyone who might have missed it, there are seven landers.  Both Firefly and Deep Space Systems use the Intuitive Machines lander.  That shot Firefly submitted to NASA for release is just a low-res version of that lander with some black solid rectangles grafted on to the sides, perhaps to signify payloads.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 08:37 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #158 on: 11/30/2018 09:19 pm »
Lets break down the seven landers.

Astrobotic (Peregrine Lander)
   - Based their CDR timeline, they could be ~22-29 months from launch
   - Only one to share potential pricing: $1.2M/kg payload
   - 265kg nominal payload (less on the first mission)
   - Has a user guide out: https://www.astrobotic.com/payload-user-guide
   - Does its own TLI from either GTO, or perhaps some kind of special super-GTO (hard to tell)
   - Five 667N Frontier Aerospace Main Engines using MMH/MON-25
   - Twelve 45N ACS Engines that also use MMH/MON-25

Draper / iSpace (Artemis-7)
   - Before CLPS announcment, plan was for an orbital mission in 2020, landing in 2021
   - Now, "The Artemis-7 design will fly multiple times before its first CLPS mission"
   - Those two statements might not conflict if by "fly multiple times" they mean fly twice, land once
   - Japanese lander design
   - Has received "substantial private funding" - $94.5M Series A in Japan
   - 10kg payload for first orbital mission (PDR complete)
   - 30kg payload for first landed mission

Intuitive Machines (Nova-C)
   - Planning for a July 2021 launch date
   - Based on the NASA Project Morpheus lander, company started by Morpheus folks
   - Methalox propulsion
   - "At least" 85kg payload capacity
   - Does its own TLI from what looks like GTO
   - Can relocate via hops
   - Despite Firefly connection, has a video where it is being launched by a falcon-looking rocket

Lockheed Martin (McCandless Lunar Lander)
   - Based on Phoenix/InSight landers
   - Hydrazine monoprop - InSight used Aerojet Rocketdyne MR-107N landing thrusters
   - Probably can learn a lot from InSight pages like this: http://spaceflight101.com/insight/insight-spacecraft/
   - 100kg payload (reported to Jeff Foust)
   - Compare that with "large payloads weighing hundreds of kilograms" (from press release)

Masten (XL-1)
   - Planning for a 2021 launch date
   - 100kg payload - two 50kg "saddlebags"
   - relies on the LV to perform TLI
   - 4 main Masten Machete engines using their own MXP-351 non-toxic storable hypergolic bi-propellant
   - Masten has developed and flown 5 landers, collectively completing over 600 vertical landings
   - Currently integrating and nearing testing of XL-1T, the terrestrial demonstrator for XL-1
   - XL-1T planned to fly in 2019

Moon Express (MX-1, but they put the more advanced MX-9 in the concept graphic they submitted to NASA)
   - Planning for a 2020 launch date
   - 30kg payload (assuming MX-1)
    - Only information released upon winning is the 2020 date and a set of partners
   - Those partners: NanoRacks, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Paragon Space Dev Corp, Odyssey Space Research
   - Has not talked about mission or vehicle specifics as of late

Orbit Beyond / TeamIndus (HHK-1 for 'Hum Honge Kamyaab', 'We Shall Overcome', unless they've changed the name)
   - Planning for a 2020 launch date
   - Indian lander design
   - One 440N Hydrazine/N2O4 Main Engine - A non-throttlable engine that will be pulsed
   - Sixteen 22N ACS engines
   - More great propulsion info here
   - 50kg payload on first mission
   - 500kg payload on future missions
   - Future missions will have robotic arm
« Last Edit: 11/30/2018 09:20 pm by theinternetftw »

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8785
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3788
  • Likes Given: 895
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline GWH

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #160 on: 12/01/2018 03:37 am »
Astrobotic (Peregrine Lander)
   - Does its own TLI from either GTO, or perhaps some kind of special super-GTO (hard to tell)

Intuitive Machines (Nova-C)
   - Does its own TLI from what looks like GTO

I feel like the systems that stage from GTO or LEO should have a better chance of commercial success than those that need the LV to take them to TLI. ULA, Blue Origin and Arianespace all offer dual payload launches, and are likely to have the extra capacity. For ULA it may be as "simple" as adding on a few extra solids.

Quote
Draper / iSpace (Artemis-7)
Is it known how the SpaceX ride shares would be handled for their launches?

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #161 on: 12/01/2018 04:16 am »
I feel like the systems that stage from GTO or LEO should have a better chance of commercial success than those that need the LV to take them to TLI.

The landscape for this is kind of a bit more complicated than it might first appear.  For example Astrobotic says they have the ability to use launches that have a LEO primary payload, but I think based on the materials released so far that by that they mean they have the second stage do a GTO-ish burn after the primary mission has been dropped off in LEO (or a bigger burn than that, even. They don't call it a GTO burn, so it's unclear, but it's less than TLI).

It also looks like they're gunning for missions where they *do* get a TLI burn.  The way they get that is by sending multiple Peregrines on the same flight and becoming the primary payload.  I think getting a TLI may be the only way they get full payload numbers.  So even the providers that aren't receiving TLIs on the first mission might want TLIs for the propellant savings, and that might even be built into their architecture.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2018 04:21 am by theinternetftw »

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #162 on: 12/01/2018 04:52 pm »

The landscape for this is kind of a bit more complicated than it might first appear.  For example Astrobotic says

<snip>


The day when we rely on what Astrobotic says is a long, long way away.

Offline GWH

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #163 on: 12/01/2018 05:58 pm »
The landscape for this is kind of a bit more complicated than it might first appear.  For example Astrobotic says they have the ability to use launches that have a LEO primary payload, but I think based on the materials released so far that by that they mean they have the second stage do a GTO-ish burn after the primary mission has been dropped off in LEO (or a bigger burn than that, even. They don't call it a GTO burn, so it's unclear, but it's less than TLI).

It also looks like they're gunning for missions where they *do* get a TLI burn.  The way they get that is by sending multiple Peregrines on the same flight and becoming the primary payload.  I think getting a TLI may be the only way they get full payload numbers.  So even the providers that aren't receiving TLIs on the first mission might want TLIs for the propellant savings, and that might even be built into their architecture.

Oh right. I thought I recalled  a video showing their lander as the secondary payload of a Cygnus launch on Atlas V.  I managed to track it down, they show an Atlas V 531 instead of the 401 a Cygnus would usually require: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=93&v=ncitbVZz1dk

I didn't realize some landers were banking on higher capacities by launching further out of Earth's gravity well. That's a good strategy in my opinion, produce one size of lander and scale up the launcher and its launch costs to suit the mission requirements.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2018 05:59 pm by GWH »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1663
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #164 on: 12/01/2018 07:22 pm »
I feel like the systems that stage from GTO or LEO should have a better chance of commercial success than those that need the LV to take them to TLI. ULA, Blue Origin and Arianespace all offer dual payload launches, and are likely to have the extra capacity. For ULA it may be as "simple" as adding on a few extra solids.
To raise a silly point.
Assuming a very risk tolerant ridesharing comsat, is it technically plausible that a conventional comsat, with current electric + chemical propulsion could benefit from being taken through, or nearly through TLI?

So it can get on station faster compared with a sub-GTO launch as seems common, if the lunar team is prepared to pay for the upgrade to FH,and rideshare for example.
Clearly, other factors may make this practically impossible.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2018 07:28 pm by speedevil »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #165 on: 12/01/2018 07:59 pm »
That's a good strategy in my opinion, produce one size of lander and scale up the launcher and its launch costs to suit the mission requirements.

Compare this to Moon Express, who are apparently doing exactly the opposite, building 5.6km/s into the MX-1, trapping that model at 30kg payload, and then building the MX-5 and MX-9 to up their payload numbers.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2018 08:01 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #166 on: 12/01/2018 08:45 pm »


That's a good strategy in my opinion, produce one size of lander and scale up the launcher and its launch costs to suit the mission requirements.

Compare this to Moon Express, who are apparently doing exactly the opposite, building 5.6km/s into the MX-1, trapping that model at 30kg payload, and then building the MX-5 and MX-9 to up their payload numbers.

MX-1 is really limited LauncherOne for landings with payload of any note. They have two options fly MX-1 and use LauncherOne extra performance to give it and extra boost or fly 2 stage MX2 to LEO.

Electron + MX1 is great option for low cost lunar orbit missions. Comms relay satellites in lunar orbit will be essential for making most of any landers and rovers.

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 40

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #169 on: 12/22/2018 06:12 am »
The Source Selection Statement has been released for CLPS.  PDF is attached.

The highlights:

* Ten companies responded to the RFP.  Nine winners.

* The rejected proposal was from Crow Industries.
* All the information about why proposals were accepted was inscrutable and mind-numbing.
* But the rejection info wasn't: they didn't buy how Crow would get an engine, and their mass numbers didn't add up.

* Past performance was not considered for acceptance into CLPS club.
* Price was not considered for acceptance into the club.
* Both past performance *and* price will be considered when offering task orders to the club members.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2018 06:16 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #170 on: 01/29/2019 07:44 am »
The official CLPS award notices were posted Monday, now that the government's been booted back up.  No surprises.

Next up is the NASA task order for delivering user guides, though I don't know if there'll be any public signs of that happening.

The example guide NASA said they'd provide to the contractors would be nice to have.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #171 on: 02/05/2019 08:33 pm »
Cross-posting:

Post-shutdown, NASA has the release of the human lander tech BAA scheduled for February 7th.

The release of two reports on NASA's SMD lunar exploration plans is embargoed until the 7th at 11AM EST.  One report is on planetary science, one on commercial aspects.

Sounds like a lunar omnibus announcement could be coming Thursday morning.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #172 on: 02/09/2019 03:06 am »
Another cross-post, this time with links to the reports:

Partnerships Between NASA and Industry Can Support Lunar Exploration, Say Two New Reports
February 7, 2019
Press Release

Links to download pages (can download as a guest, but will need to give email address)

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25373/report-series-committee-on-astrobiology-and-planetary-science-review-of

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25374/report-series-committee-on-astrobiology-and-planetary-science-review-of

Short version of the commercial report:

* A confirmation that CLPS falls under SMD's LDEP (Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program).  I.e. CLPS funding comes from LDEP funding (as does payload development funding).  LDEP request for 2019 is $216M.

* On the DALI payload development program, of the 71 potential payloads that applied, 47 have made it to Step 2.  These include:

   * Ultraviolet/visible/infrared/thermal/mass/Raman/neutron/gamma ray spectrometers
   * Dust/plasma/solar wind instruments
   * Seismic instruments, heat flow probe
   * Lunar laser ranging,
   * Magnetometers and radar;
   * Lidar, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy, X-ray powder diffraction/fluorescence
   * Volatiles detection, radiation detection.

* The report worries that there's no common interface for those making CLPS payloads to work to.  They suggest designing one.

* A confirmation that task orders are expected to be firm-fixed price.

* The first task order was expected to have been released before the end of 2018.  It hasn't happened yet.

* NASA estimates CLPS pricing for payloads to be $1M/kg.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2019 05:44 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #173 on: 02/09/2019 05:32 am »
Quick addendum here.  Those reports above were written a few months ago, and thus things have happened since.  In an attempt to confirm some details on the DALI payload development program for CLPS, I discovered that the proposal selections had been made at the end of October.  Nigh silently, it seems.

Ten selections were made (twice the estimated number of five that was released with the solicitation).  The full release of selections is attached, but here are the highlights.  Each one of these projects will get $1M a year for 3-4 years, culminating in a launch date of "ideally" 2021.

University of Maryland, College Park: CRATER (Characterization of Regolith And Trace Economic Resources)
    * Proposed by Ricardo Arevalo (worked on MOMA-MS, a mass spec which will fly on ExoMars 2020)
    * Laser ablation mass spectrometer

University of Arizona: SLN (Seismometer for a Lunar Network)
    * Proposed by Samuel 'Hop' Bailey (currently working on seismometers for subsurface ocean worlds)
    * modification of a COTS optical seismometer 
    * Includes optionally burying the system to isolate it thermally via partnership with Honeybee Robotics

University of Maryland Baltimore County: LEMS (Lunar Environment Monitoring Station)
    * Proposed by Mehdi Benna (worked on Rosetta, LADEE, Curiosity's SAM)
    * Long-term (nominally 2 year) measurement of the exosphere via neutral mass spectrometer
    * Includes a low-power seismometer as well

NASA Ames: XTRA (eXTRAterrestrial Regolith Analyzer)
    * Proposed by David Blake (CheMin's Principal Investigator, see below)
    * X-ray powder diffraction/fluorescence, a la CheMin aboard Curiosity
    * Would obtain samples via a Honeybee Robotics-developed collection system

NASA Goddard: KArLE (Potassium-Argon Laser Experiment)
    * Proposed by Barbara Cohen (PI for the Lunar Flashlight EM-1 Cubesat, worked on MER, MSL)
    * In-situ sample dating (via Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy), plus mass spec and optical imager
    * Will require a lander/rover drill or sample handling system
    * Maturation intended for Discovery-class missions, but will look at commercial flights of "all or parts" of KArLE
    * Can detect the distant rhythmic thuds of foreheads hitting walls, will generate those thuds via its acronym

Jet Propulsion Laboratory: UCIS (Ultra-compact Imaging Spectrometer for the Lunar Surface)
    * Proposed by Abigail Fraeman (deputy scientist on MER (which she saw launch in high school), worked on MSL)
    * Extending detection range of a shortwave infrared imaging spectrometer to 3600nm to detect water and organics.
    * Extending the thermal regimen under which the spectrometer can operate to handle lunar environment extremes

University of Maryland, College Park: SSOLVE (Submillimeter Solar Observation Lunar Volatiles Experiment)
    * Proposed by Timothy Livengood (does ground-based atmospheric research of other planets / the moon)
    * Observe traces of water in the exosphere
    * Can work from orbiter or lander platforms (if an orbiter, could map emissions at all latitudes and local times)

NASA Goddard: BECA (Bulk Elemental Composition Analyzer)
    * Proposed by Ann Parsons (worked on the Swift spacecraft, built a gamma/neutron emission test facility at Goddard)
    * Will emit pulses of high-energy neutrons, returns are detected by gamma ray spectrometer and neutron detectors
    * Can detect the bulk elemental composition of 1m of regolith to a depth of 20cm
    * If on a rover, useful that a quick look takes 15 minutes, full measurements 2 hours

University of Colorado, Boulder: EDA (Electrostatic Dust Analyzer)
    * Proposed by Xu Wang (researches charged dust and plasma physics at CU Boulder)
    * Studies electrostatic dust transport by measuring the velocity, charge, and mass of lofted lunar dust.
    * Will characterize dust flux as function of local time, solar activity, and phase of lunar orbit

Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Lunar Super Low-Frequency Atomic Seismometer
    * Proposed by Nan Yu (supervisor for JPL's quantum science and technology group)
    * Utilizes the interference of atom waves, with atoms laser cooled to microKelvin temperatures without cryogenics
    * Long-period surface wave and normal mode measurements at sub-mHz range and tide measurements at sub-µHz
« Last Edit: 02/09/2019 06:10 am by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #174 on: 02/15/2019 04:58 pm »
Some CLPS timing updates from Dr. Z during the Human Lander System shenanigans yesterday:

* Still hoping (even now) for a first launch in 2019 for CLPS.
* The first task order will be released in a month.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1096103660499755008

Edit: Linkified
« Last Edit: 02/15/2019 05:54 pm by theinternetftw »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #175 on: 02/15/2019 11:02 pm »
Another Zurbuchen quote about CLPS from a Verge article: "“We have told everyone who’s in our catalog that we will incentivize speed, financially."

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #176 on: 02/16/2019 10:57 am »
Having found the long-term DALI payload development selections above, I also went on a hunt for more information about the "whatever you have on hand" payloads for the first few CLPS missions.  Those are being solicited under NASA's ROSES research program. It has the very catchy acronym of LSITP, which stands for Lunar Surface Instrument and Technology Payloads.  Info follows, including a nice hint as to realistic earliest launch dates for CLPS.

* Weight limit of 15 kg.
* Comm limit of 45 kb/s.
* Power limit of 8W, 25W peak.

* Due date for proposals is February 27th.
* Start of work is expected to be June 2019.
* Eight to twelve winners are expected to be selected.
* No NASA centers are allowed to apply (unlike DALI above, where multiple centers won awards)

* Payload operators should expect to deliver payload to CLPS providers "as early as March 2020"
* A handy timeline suggests that launch would be five months after delivery, so "as early" as August 2020.
* Each winner will get a maximum of $3M for payload prep, and $1M to $3M in funds for mission ops.
* First yearly budget is expected to be $24M to $36M.

Full solicitation is attached.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #177 on: 02/16/2019 10:19 pm »
If someone wants to test a dewar on the Moon for 6 months this is their chance. Maximum 15 kg including liquid instrumentation, solar panel and radio.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2019 11:02 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #178 on: 02/16/2019 10:35 pm »
Attempting to do a bit of black magic here.  LDEP is the budgetary line item that both CLPS and its instrument development programs are under, and the accepted budgetary request for that was $218M.  The ROSES-based parts of LDEP share what they'll cost the first year, and according to the released budget, $21M is reserved for LRO operations, so we can subtract those out and get closer to what CLPS will get in funding for the first year.  So here's that:

LDEP starting funds: $218M (officially projected as this program's steady-state year-to-year budget)

LRO Operations: $21M
Apollo Sample Analysis: $3.5M
DALI (long term payload dev): $1M per award * 10 awards: $10M
LSITP (short term payload acquisition): Not yet awarded, max of $36M for the year

(missing: smallsat ridealongs, Resource Prospector instrument dev)

Ballpark figure for what's left for the first year of CLPS: $147.5M

Remember, NASA wants multiple launches a year.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #179 on: 02/16/2019 11:08 pm »
If someone wants to test a dewar on the Moon for 6 months this is their chance. Maximum 15 kg including liquid instrumentation, solar panel and radio.

Dewars are useful because of the vacuum between the interior tank and the environment, right?  I'd think you'd need an atmosphere to protect yourself from.  It's a whole new world.

Also, surviving for 14 days at -170C is apparently so fraught that nobody is talking about doing that just yet.  It's in work (both with and without the use of RHUs/RTGs), but early CLPS landers plan to bite it when the sun goes down.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2019 11:15 pm by theinternetftw »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #180 on: 02/16/2019 11:24 pm »
In the FY 2019 Budget request in FY 2022 the budget for 'ADVANCED CISLUNAR AND SURFACE CAPABILITIES' doubles.
(FY 2019)116.5 (FY 2020)146.0 (FY 2021)163.7 (FY 2022)300.0 (FY 2023)320.3
See page DEXP-51 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy19_nasa_budget_estimates.pdf (large)

So NASA is expecting something to happen in about 3 years time which is about when the landers will on ramp.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #181 on: 02/16/2019 11:47 pm »
If someone wants to test a dewar on the Moon for 6 months this is their chance. Maximum 15 kg including liquid instrumentation, solar panel and radio.

Dewars are useful because of the vacuum between the interior tank and the environment, right?  I'd think you'd need an atmosphere to protect yourself from.  It's a whole new world.

In the early days the hydrogen fuel would be launched from Earth and need protecting from the Earth's atmosphere. When the equipment gets to the Moon the natural vacuum will help. Unfortunately the powerful sun light will cause problems.

Quote
Also, surviving for 14 days at -170C is apparently so fraught that nobody is talking about doing that just yet.  It's in work (both with and without the use of RHUs/RTGs), but early CLPS landers plan to bite it when the sun goes down.

With a period of 28 days the outside of equipment will cycle between -170C and +117C. A sun shield will be needed for the sun and something like 'S' bend legs to deal with the cold ground.
The James Webb Telescope project has paid for the development of some very low temperature electronics.
The CLPS landers shutting down at sunset is why the instrumentation needs its own power supply and radio.

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Canada
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #182 on: 02/17/2019 04:02 am »
"Also, surviving for 14 days at -170C is apparently so fraught that nobody is talking about doing that just yet.  It's in work (both with and without the use of RHUs/RTGs), but early CLPS landers plan to bite it when the sun goes down."

Although Astrobotic, for one, did a lot of work on overnight survival including cooling batteries in liquid nitrogen and testing their survivability (I think they had some success with that).  They posted a lot on their GLXP blog but I don't know if any of that material is still available.  So people certainly have been working on it, and I would assume a lot of proprietary work is not being reported yet.  But still not ready for flight, I am sure.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #183 on: 02/17/2019 04:27 am »
In the FY 2019 Budget request in FY 2022 the budget for 'ADVANCED CISLUNAR AND SURFACE CAPABILITIES' doubles.
(FY 2019)116.5 (FY 2020)146.0 (FY 2021)163.7 (FY 2022)300.0 (FY 2023)320.3

That line item is for the Human Lander System. Those funding ramps are for human lander studies and contracts and will not match CLPS funding plans.

The small CLPS landers will use the Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program (LDEP) line item, which is projected as being flat at $218M for the next five years.  A summary of that fact is on page 5 of the same PDF you linked (page BUD-4 if you're following NASA's absolutely atrocious page numbering scheme).  There's more info on page 369 (or PS-23) if you want to learn more.

The CLPS landers shutting down at sunset is why the instrumentation needs its own power supply and radio.

I'll just say that all indications are that night survival should not be expected on these first few missions.  Doing it without radioisotope help looks to be an open problem (with work in progress, e.g. Phil's example just above).

If you want to learn more about how NASA is thinking about lunar night survival, you can check out this PDF:
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/survivethenight2018/program/program-recordings.pdf
Each name on the right side of the schedule links to youtube videos of the respective talks (the video quality, I must warn, is tolerable).  Ron Creel's talk in particular discusses every night survival mission to date.

Edit: I'll go ahead and attach that PDF as well, for posterity.  That website may go away someday, but those youtube videos will likely have a far longer life.
« Last Edit: 02/17/2019 04:33 am by theinternetftw »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #184 on: 02/17/2019 04:47 am »
Lunar night survival at polar peaks maybe possible without RTG.
Only need to survive a few days and temperature swings aren't meant to be as extreme as equator.

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #185 on: 02/17/2019 05:13 am »
Lunar night survival at polar peaks maybe possible without RTG.
Only need to survive a few days and temperature swings aren't meant to be as extreme as equator.

Peaks of eternal sunlight (which I still love to call them even though we haven't found a particularly eternal one yet) are usually on peaks or ridges. That's difficult terrain that would probably require some serious landing accuracy.  It also might require some communications help from an orbiter.  I'm a fan of the idea, though.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)
« Reply #186 on: 02/17/2019 03:29 pm »
Lunar night survival at polar peaks maybe possible without RTG.
Only need to survive a few days and temperature swings aren't meant to be as extreme as equator.


Initially but when a Moon base is built 6 month stays on the Moon become possible, the same as happened on the ISS. ISRU propellant will have to be stored until the next ascent. The base and rovers may also use propellant.

Tags: