Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)

[theinternetftw]

I'm not sure where to put this, but CNBC has an article about competition for lunar landers with human payloads:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/nasa-moon-landing-acsc-commercial-competition-to-build-human-landers.html

ACSC (the topic of the article) has been discussed in this thread as it and CLPS were proposed at the same time and covered together in early NASA presentations.  But the major thread on it is here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.0

Edit: At least the article finally lets us know what FLEx was: not a strange renaming of the program that came and went, but an attempt to grasp the steering wheel of ACSC and bend it toward traditional NASA development practices.

[woods170]

Could be Blue Origin's 4,500kg lander which they say can be ready by 2024. The best thing about this lander is NASA won't be up for most of the R&D.

Emphasis mine.

I'll believe that when I see it sitting on the lunar surface (in one piece) no later than 2025. Until then...Gradatim...

[daedalus1]

Parts needed-
1. Two stage lunar lander similar to Apollo (put into lunar orbit by FH?).
2. Earth escape and return stage with bigalow crew quarters (launched by SLS, no need for expensive man rating). Engine end minor heat shield for aerobraking back to earth orbit.
3. Dragon 2 for launching crew and retrieving crew.

Almost easy. Eventually some of these can be reused by refueling.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Parts needed-
1. Two stage lunar lander similar to Apollo (put into lunar orbit by FH?).

I estimate FH-E TLI payload to be 20.8 t and to low Lunar orbit (using FUS and assuming no LOX boiloff) to be 15.1 t. That's just enough for an Apollo LM!

[envy887]

Parts needed-
1. Two stage lunar lander similar to Apollo (put into lunar orbit by FH?).

I estimate FH-E TLI payload to be 20.8 t and to low Lunar orbit (using FUS and assuming no LOX boiloff) to be 15.1 t. That's just enough for an Apollo LM!

I concur on those values, but that leaves essentially no margins there on the injection and insertion. And did the LM even have enough delta-v for a polar landing? The poles are a little harder to get to delta-v wise, but the LM had quite a bit of margin.

[rakaydos]

Parts needed-
1. Two stage lunar lander similar to Apollo (put into lunar orbit by FH?).

I estimate FH-E TLI payload to be 20.8 t and to low Lunar orbit (using FUS and assuming no LOX boiloff) to be 15.1 t. That's just enough for an Apollo LM!

I concur on those values, but that leaves essentially no margins there on the injection and insertion. And did the LM even have enough delta-v for a polar landing? The poles are a little harder to get to delta-v wise, but the LM had quite a bit of margin.

Equatorial advantange is basically nil, for the moon. 11,000 km every 4 weeks, is 16 km/hour. (Elsewhere I've suggested a solar powered rover that stays on the dayside for years, circling the moon)

[envy887]

Parts needed-
1. Two stage lunar lander similar to Apollo (put into lunar orbit by FH?).

I estimate FH-E TLI payload to be 20.8 t and to low Lunar orbit (using FUS and assuming no LOX boiloff) to be 15.1 t. That's just enough for an Apollo LM!

I concur on those values, but that leaves essentially no margins there on the injection and insertion. And did the LM even have enough delta-v for a polar landing? The poles are a little harder to get to delta-v wise, but the LM had quite a bit of margin.

Equatorial advantange is basically nil, for the moon. 11,000 km every 4 weeks, is 16 km/hour. (Elsewhere I've suggested a solar powered rover that stays on the dayside for years, circling the moon)

The difference is the plane change, not the equatorial velocity. Using a polar LLO eliminates the lander plane change, but adds in a plane change for either LOI or TEI, or both, because the LLO orbit plane is fixed in inertial space, but the Earth is not staying aligned in that plane.

The only way to eliminate both plane changes and still go through LLO is to have a 14-day surface stay, but a Apollo LM-type lander cannot accommodate that unless other support elements (hab, power, life support) are already in place. Also, mid-mission abort options range from impossible to pretty bad.

Using a higher lunar orbit or a halo orbit resolves some of the plane change and abort issues, and is easier to get to, but again places a larger delta-v requirement on the lander.

[rakaydos]

Parts needed-
1. Two stage lunar lander similar to Apollo (put into lunar orbit by FH?).

I estimate FH-E TLI payload to be 20.8 t and to low Lunar orbit (using FUS and assuming no LOX boiloff) to be 15.1 t. That's just enough for an Apollo LM!

I concur on those values, but that leaves essentially no margins there on the injection and insertion. And did the LM even have enough delta-v for a polar landing? The poles are a little harder to get to delta-v wise, but the LM had quite a bit of margin.

Equatorial advantange is basically nil, for the moon. 11,000 km every 4 weeks, is 16 km/hour. (Elsewhere I've suggested a solar powered rover that stays on the dayside for years, circling the moon)

The difference is the plane change, not the equatorial velocity. Using a polar LLO eliminates the lander plane change, but adds in a plane change for either LOI or TEI, or both, because the LLO orbit plane is fixed in inertial space, but the Earth is not staying aligned in that plane.

The only way to eliminate both plane changes and still go through LLO is to have a 14-day surface stay, but a Apollo LM-type lander cannot accommodate that unless other support elements (hab, power, life support) are already in place. Also, mid-mission abort options range from impossible to pretty bad.

Using a higher lunar orbit or a halo orbit resolves some of the plane change and abort issues, and is easier to get to, but again places a larger delta-v requirement on the lander.

it depends on how long the polar orbit is maintained- a few day flag and footprint shouldn't materially affect earth return from earth arrival.

[theinternetftw]

Plans for payload development (via the DALI program) continue apace.  2019's first deadline for what looks like will be a yearly thing is in April, final selections some time after the second deadline in June.

In 2018, ten instruments were selected. For more on that, see here.

Let's sum up.  So far there have been 10 DALI selections and 12 internal NASA selections.  Add to that 8-12 selections from the "let's fly whatever you have on hand to the moon ASAP" LSITP program which will probably be announced sometime between now and July.  And then the 5-10 DALI selections for 2019.

So 35-44 payloads in development expected by year's end.

[spacenut]

Why doesn't NASA want to use LL1 or LL2 for staging points.  Easier to get more payload to from earth. 

[Eric Hedman]

Why doesn't NASA want to use LL1 or LL2 for staging points.  Easier to get more payload to from earth.

It was a trade study on possibly orbits that had had the limited delta V of the Orion service module restricting orbit locations that could be used.

[Phil Stooke]

"it depends on how long the polar orbit is maintained- a few day flag and footprint shouldn't materially affect earth return from earth arrival."

This is true - but how I wish we didn't hear this phrase 'flag and footprint' so often (not criticizing that post, just the oft-used expression).  Look at the science that came out of Apollo 11, the closest to a 'flag and footprint' mission there ever was.  Those rocks, the laser reflector, a bit of seismology, a solar wind collector.  If we went back with a 1 day surface mission in 2025 we would get a lot out of it, far more than was possible in 1969.  If it was a precursor to bigger things, great!  But don't dismiss a short landing as 'flag and footprint'.   OK, rant over (for now).

[QuantumG]

Why doesn't NASA want to use LL1 or LL2 for staging points.  Easier to get more payload to from earth.

That territory is already owned by ISS. L-points are free real estate!

[theinternetftw]

All proposals for the first CLPS missions have been received.

And from the budget amendment announcement, selections should be complete and contract work started by September/October.

[A_M_Swallow]

The extra $90 million for lunar surface work could mean extra CLPS payloads. The marketing departments may wish to show how much progress has been made.

[ncb1397]

Bridenstine is starting to pull out the checkbook for Artemis.

NASA will announce the next major step in the Artemis program’s lunar surface exploration plans during a NASA Science Live broadcast at 1 p.m. EDT Friday, May 31. The announcement will air on NASA Television and the agency's website.

Paving the way to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon, and ultimately Mars, NASA will announce the selection of the first commercial Moon landing service providers that will deliver science and technology payloads as part of the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-selection-of-science-commercial-moon-landing-services-hold-media/

[Markstark]

Really happy with speed of this program. My original post was created almost 13 months to tomorrow’s announcement. Now let’s see how fast the selected providers can deliver!

[ncb1397]

starts in a few minutes...

[ncb1397]

Astrobotic, OrbitBeyond and Intuitive Machines.

[Chris Bergin]

Here's the video:


https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1134506432248909825