Some folks do NOT believe that "reducing the number of CLV-based logistical launches" is desirable ... in fact, flying multiple flights, quite often is better from a safety, redundancy and long term cost perspective (and other reasons).* Multiple resupply flights provides opportunities for multiple players. This redundancy assure mission success as demonstrated by the successful cargo contracts to the ISS which gracefully recovered from a couple of failures.* Commercial providers, with appropriate fixed price contracts, are at least one order of magnitude cheaper per pound. So it follows that having to throw 20% or 30% more mass is not a problem. Minimizing mass is the WRONG variable to optimize. Minimizing costs (development and operational) while designing away single points of failure are the right variables to optimize.* Scalability. SLS can't scale up. The only way to have more than another flags and foot prints moon presence going forward is to utilize the large and increasing capacity available via commercial rockets.* Sustainability. If Jim B means something serious behind this rhetoric, then the moon efforts need to have a significant cadence, and be cheap enough to fund a diverse set of follow on missions.
I think using the cryo upper stage of a FH-class (or SS-class) fully reusable vehicle at least for cycling stuff to the Gateway and back directly to Earth trades out better than LEO refueling of a storable in-space-only tug, but that does depend on how hard it is to refurbish a heatshield after a lunar reentry.
Ehhhhh... We know how to transfer small amounts of storables with a crew attending the transfer. Autonomous transfer of tens of tonnes of storables does require some new tech. I don't think it's impossible by any means, but it's yet another task on the PERT chart. We don't need more of those.
Refuelling is no longer a requirement for the 2024 landing but sustainability is wanted for 2026. The lander needs the ability to dock directly with the Orion.
After reviewing the comments, NASA removed requirements that industry perceived as potential barriers to speed while preserving all the agency’s human safety measures. For example, industry stated that delivery of a high number of formal technical reports would require a company to spend considerable resources and incur undue schedule risk. Taking this into consideration, NASA has designed a less formal insight model that will be used for accessing critical contractor data while minimizing administrative overhead. As a result, NASA reduced the number of required contract deliverables from 116 to 37.“Reports still are valuable and necessary, but to compromise and ease the bulk of the reporting burden on industry, we are asking for access to the companies’ systems to monitor progress throughout development,” said Nantel Suzuki, the Human Landing System program executive at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “To maximize our chances of successfully returning to the Moon by 2024, we also are making NASA’s engineering workforce available to contractors and asking proposers to submit a collaboration plan.”When called to accelerate its return to the Moon, NASA said it would meet this ambitious goal by “any means necessary.” The agency’s preferred approach to a lunar landing is for the crew in the Orion spacecraft and the uncrewed human landing system to launch separately and meet in lunar orbit at the Gateway, which is critical to long-term exploration of the Moon. NASA wants to explore all options to achieve the 2024 mission and remains open to alternative, innovative approaches.Another shift centered around how to best achieve sustainability on the Moon by 2028. In addition to greater performance, such as global lunar surface access and higher payload mass capacity, NASA originally required the Human Landing System to be refuelable as a means to ensure a more sustainable exploration architecture. Multiple companies had concerns about this requirement, and NASA agreed to remove it so that industry has greater flexibility to address the more fundamental attribute of sustainability, which is long-term affordability.“They were absolutely right,” said Lisa Watson-Morgan, the Human Landing System program manager at NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “We are operating on a timeline that requires us to be flexible to encourage innovation and alternate approaches. We still welcome the option to refuel the landing system, but we removed it as a requirement.”
The goal is to use the Gateway for the Human Landing System as soon as possible and the Gateway will be ready to support the 2024 HLS mission. Proposals that do not use the Gateway must demonstrate substantial technical depth, including impacts on the Artemis III mission, as well as show how the system would evolve to support Gateway operations by 2026. For those proposals that do not choose to use the Gateway for the 2024 mission, the Gateway will continue to be available to provide functions such as serving as a communications relay in NRHO. The Gateway will be required for the sustained missions starting in 2026.[...]The HLS program assumes that the HLS Integrated Lander will be delivered to the Lunar vicinity separate from the crew and that the crew will be delivered using the Orion spacecraft. Per the general guidelines outlined above, for the Initial Capability missions the HLS Integrated Lander may use the Gateway to facilitate lunar mission operations, including crew access from Orion, or it may dock directly to Orion for crew access.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 10/01/2019 12:20 amRefuelling is no longer a requirement for the 2024 landing but sustainability is wanted for 2026. The lander needs the ability to dock directly with the Orion.That isn't my interpretation. They can propose either gateway docking or orion docking.
The commercial launch vehicle approach does not prevent or preclude offerors from negotiating with the Space Launch System (SLS) and Exploration Ground Systems prime contractors directly (Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, United Launch Alliance, and Jacobs) to provide an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution for the Artemis launch mission(s) in which NASA is not the integrator or provider. Any proposal to purchase such a launch solution must not interfere with current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions.[...]The Offeror may propose use of a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution, in which NASA is not the integrator or provider, for transportation of HLS module(s), components, or integrated systems to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In addition to items (ii) and (iii) above, the Offeror proposing use of an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution shall provide:1. Method of integrating Offeror’s proposal with the SLS contractors, including hardware, software, and flight operations2. Method of acquiring an Engine(s), Upper Stage, Fairing, Payload Adapter and any other component for an SLS-derived commercial cargo configuration3. A plan of how the Offeror’s proposal use of SLS cargo vehicle solution as transportation will not interfere with any current SLS contracts or NASA’s current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions; as well as any priority NASA has laid out to meet the deep space exploration objectives4. Total integrated launch vehicle price
The relevant passages on usage of the SLS in proposals:Quote from: Appendix HThe commercial launch vehicle approach does not prevent or preclude offerors from negotiating with the Space Launch System (SLS) and Exploration Ground Systems prime contractors directly (Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, United Launch Alliance, and Jacobs) to provide an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution for the Artemis launch mission(s) in which NASA is not the integrator or provider. Any proposal to purchase such a launch solution must not interfere with current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions.[...]The Offeror may propose use of a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution, in which NASA is not the integrator or provider, for transportation of HLS module(s), components, or integrated systems to trans-lunar injection (TLI). In addition to items (ii) and (iii) above, the Offeror proposing use of an SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle solution shall provide:1. Method of integrating Offeror’s proposal with the SLS contractors, including hardware, software, and flight operations2. Method of acquiring an Engine(s), Upper Stage, Fairing, Payload Adapter and any other component for an SLS-derived commercial cargo configuration3. A plan of how the Offeror’s proposal use of SLS cargo vehicle solution as transportation will not interfere with any current SLS contracts or NASA’s current government plans for SLS development, production, and operations that are required for the successful execution of the 2024 and subsequent lunar lander missions; as well as any priority NASA has laid out to meet the deep space exploration objectives4. Total integrated launch vehicle priceI'm quite surprised to learn that NASA wants anyone going this route to negotiate with the SLS contractors directly, and not go through them. It's not at all what I was expecting.
I like this move. SLS would have to compete with commercial providers for these launches. They may have to come up with ways to reduce launch costs to compete. I think NASA wants to see what the primes are willing to do if anything to get more launches.
Updated evaluation factors and relative weighting;
Something that sticks out to me is the fact that they call it "a SLS-derived commercial cargo vehicle." Why aren't they just calling it a cargo SLS? It implies that there'd be something different about the rocket other than the fact it would be purchased by a non-NASA party.I suppose they may just be signalling that anyone going down this route doesn't need to consider themselves chained to current NASA spec, but it's still an odd choice of phrasing.
Boeing was lobbying to be a systems integrator for SLS as telegraphed by Doug Cooke in a recent NASA hearing in front of Congress. They likely want the room to make whatever changes they want as well(this is going to be unmanned for the launch portion so that may lead to some savings - weight or cost). I think it is likely that Boeing will bid a single SLS block 1B launch.