Human Landing System Awards Announced
NASA to Announce Commercial Human Lander Awards for Artemis Moon Missions, NASA
“NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Thursday, April 30, to announce the companies selected to develop modern human landing systems (HLS) that will carry the first woman and next man to the surface of the Moon by 2024 and develop sustainable lunar exploration by the end of the decade. Audio of the call will stream online at: https://www.nasa.gov/live.”
|
|
|
|
I’m hyped for this.
I will be if they don’t Wed the design only to the SLS and it’s $2 billion per launch costs. Then add the $2 billion costs (at least) in Orion & Lander hardware, and the billions more in infrastructure costs per mission on top of that… Not counting the cost of building the ‘Gateway’… How much is *each* crewed Lunar Mission going to cost again?!
Do the Math, if you’re not too frightened to… :'(
If they have any sense – they will break up the Human Lander into 3x modules that can be sent to the Gateway or even low lunar orbit on rockets that don’t cost $1.5-to-$2 billion per launch and are *expendable*. Keeping launch costs per Lander module segment to under $100 million might be acceptable or sustainable – especially on rockets that are at least partially reusable. Keep the SLS for launching humans on the Orion and the ‘Block 1B’ SLS for sending out co-manifested cargo with the Orion to Gateway; such as propellant or occasionally, a new module for a reusable Lander system.
If they don’t shoot for a fully or at least partially reusable Lander from Day One: how will this be affordable or sustainable? My question *may* be rhetorical, so please don’t anyone tell me “That’s not the point”.
You will be disappointed. SLS is the official NASA program of record. Were I Administrator and based on what I know, which is not a hell of a lot, I would take a similar course of action.
I’m a convinced Commercial space supporter. I support a policy that puts NASA as the arbiter of policy and procurer of needed technology. It will be a very long time before we see a dramatic change.
And, no. I can’t believe I wrote that. But it is the facts as I see them.
Edit Wed. to add: Like many Federal agencies, NASA is much like those huge oil tankers, at sea, or the cargo ships, requiring a huge amount of effort, energy, and time to alter course. Months of preparation set courses for those ships, and once at sea just about nothing will stop them. Can it be done? Sure, if you have a hurricane in your back pocket.
Meanwhile, while NASA is doing view graphs, down Texas way in American’s other Moon program, Elon Musk who is in Boca Chica, is getting ready to attached a Raptor to SN4, light the fire, and go for a little test hop. Elon also says SN5 will be ready soon and will have three Raptors fitted to it in order to go higher and further. ?
I’m a big SpaceX fan – but even I wont get excited until they’ve done a crewed, LEO-and-back test flight of a Starship. And after that: transferred a small ocean’s worth of LOX/CH4 into it’s tanks while in LEO. THEN we’ll be warming up to getting truly excited…
Why set such a high bar for Starship? Even Falcon 9 hasn’t launched crew yet.
I would be thrilled just for a successful unmanned launch to LEO, bonus if it can get back in one piece.
Starship doesn’t need to have all its features to change the game, even an expendable version would be able to surpass SLS Block 2 in terms of TLI in a single launch. This is a launch vehicle that is larger than Saturn V, roughly the size of the Nova booster NASA envisioned but never built, just launching it would be crazy exciting.
The hard part of starting Space X and make an 80% reusable orbital rocket not to mention making one Starship a month is already done.
Yes – *and* no. This particular type of vehicle has never flown and been reused before – especially with methane propellant. And the transfer of huge quantities of cryogenics in microgravity has simply never been done. I await all this with thinly-veiled impatience. I WANT them to succeed beyond our wildest dreams.
An excellent point: “This particular type of vehicle”. Humanity knows how to build rockets. It’s hard, yes, but there is an army of capable and knowledgeable engineers.
Starship is an entirely different critter. It appears that engines, fuel tanks, and the like scale well from known knowledge, with challenges, of course. As viewed by this non-engineer.
But look deeper. Starship development dips into tech that, while understood to trying degrees, is supported by an increasingly thin knowledge base: waste processing and life support come to mind as just a few examples.
Human experience with space borne living is quite limited at any scale. Subdividing and managing 3D spaces, providing for circulation, amenitization- all come to mind. And of course the entire issue of refueling on orbit, again with he quantities envisioned, remains to be resolved.
On and on. And what of the practicalities of a ‘colony’ on Luna, or Mars? So many questions, so many pretty pictures.
Do not expect quick resolution. Also, do not underestimate SpaceX.
A thousand upvotes!
Just because SpaceX has already achieved the seeming impossible, too many SpaceX fans assume that the even harder problems will be solved too, and even faster than before!
You got that backwards. It is orbital transfer of cryogenic propellants first with Starships then crewed flights to orbit.
One hopes that is really, really true. I don’t think anybody wants Constellation again; with Lucy taking the ball away. Again.
No bucks. No Buck Rogers. Where is the money going to come from?
This is even more true in our current economic environment. If they depend on high-price-tag SLS launches to put these missions together, the program will be basically dead in the water. A new administration in January will have to get practical, again, and clean up the economic mess, again (shades of 2009…) and multiple multi-billion-dollar launches to appease the occupant of the White House will be high on no one’s agenda. Efficiency will be the name of the game. That has never been NASA’s strong suit.
I’d actually be in favor of keeping Bridenstine after January 20, 2021. He’s been a pleasant surprise. I’d be interested to see what he could do without the need to bend over backwards to keep a single personality happy.
You do remember that the SLS started under President Obama’s Administration and the Trump Administration got stuck with it? Do you really think President Obama’s own VP will cut it if he is elected? If anything the election of Senator Biden will give the SLS/Orion safety for years as NASA skips the Moon and once again resumes the ARM program started under President Obama.
I think it can be argued that SLS began (under an alias) under Griffin long after (15+ years) it made any sense to pursue a shuttle-derived HLLV.
I remember there was the Direct design. Also any debate about the Shuttle-C concept from 1970s, seems like if pursuing
shuttle-derived would that have resulted in cost and schedule overruns as much as SLS? Could it be done at higher production rate? Just wondering.
Yep, like Orion it is going to survive and keep draining money no matter who is elected. All that will change is the destination it will go to – someday…
Come on, let’s not rewrite history, SLS is not Obama’s idea, it was created by the Senate (Shelby, Nelson, some guy from Utah I think). Obama’s 2010 budget request wanted to postpone superheavy for 5 years, instead he wanted to develop large hydrocarbon engines and other game changing technologies like propellant depots, it’s a very good plan, ahead of its time (it turns out we did need large hydrocarbon engines to replace RD-180, fortunately private industry took over the burden of doing the development instead of the USG).
Of course congress went nuts because it moved their pork, so they created SLS instead, Obama made a compromise to support SLS in exchange for congress supporting Commercial Crew.
It’s always Obama’s fault to some people.
No different than some folks always blaming Republicans. But the reality is there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to how NASA got to where it is now. When President Obama compromised with Senator Shelby to kill Project Constellation his Administration took ownership of SLS/Orion.
Constellation was canceled because it had been chronically underfunded by Congress and turned into a appropriations black hole. The Augustine Committee wisely recommended that it be scrapped. We had an administration that accepted expert advice in those days.
We have covered this ground before. President Obama only supported Lori Graver’s Commercial Crew idea because it allowed him the political cover he needed to kill Project Constellation. He could care less about happened to space after he had his “Kennedy” moment in 2010 if Florida.How soon folks forget.
Now who’s rewriting history?
Sure Obama tried to kill Project Constellation. And he did, he killed the best part of Constellation, the return to the Moon. That part of the Obama plan for space stuck.
But the worst parts of Project Constellation Obama failed to kill, the Orion and the Ares V. Instead, Obama knuckled under to a Congress which was under Democratic Party majority control.
And just to add the Obama cherry on top, Orion and SLS fell year behind schedule and billions over budget, all while under the direct management of Obama and his people running NASA.
At least if they release some real designs. Maybe different variations along with outlines of advantages and disadvantages. Like early concepts of Shuttle with discussions of tradeoffs. Like all engineering there is no one-type-for-all missions. If no money but at least have a chart but use some other method to make it besides PPT. If I was on the selection committee, any concept that uses the word Mars I would send it back for resubmittal. If gotta have an M word it should be moon like the celestial body 239K miles away.
…’any concept that uses the word Mars I would send back for resubmittal” Exactly!
This is about moon landing. Why do NASA advance planning/program discussions degrade into SLS vs. SpaceX? Is the community not mature enough to discuss moon programs without the distraction of booster complaints? Anyone with enough money and tolerance of failure can build a rocket, big and small. Today’s challenge is what we are doing with that rocket. A HLS is much more complicated than any booster.
You make a point. But the GAO is starting to find that NASA is laboring under the massive and escalating costs of programs like SLS, Orion and James Webb. While Pork will always be around: the supply of money is not infinite during eras of deficit spending. And with a Human Landing System top of the ‘Wishlist’, such a vehicle cannot be just added to the overburdened credit card and ordered from Amazon!! Some of us ‘Space Community’ types have been wincing at the costs and warning about the political fragility of these ventures for YEARS. Please forgive us if some of us are cautious, fractious or cynical!
Because Starship makes SLS unnecessary. Indeed, FH/Dragon2 could replace SLS/Orion if needed. But the big question is why should NASA paid $2 billion a launch when a commercial alternative is available for $150 million a launch?
audio only? WTH for such a big announcement no models, no pictures, no smiling faces. for such a big milestone that is disappointing and uninspiring for such a historic announcement.
The fine print is that this is a short-term program to mature designs. Only SpaceX, it seems, is proposing to actually fly hardware and prove capacity during the 10 months of the contract. Designs can be expected to change during this period. Nothing is set in stone.
That is true but one of these three will be the 2024 lander. If you didn’t make it into this pool if three you don’t get considered for the decision gate/follow on work next feb
SpaceX Starship was selected! Amazing! NASA is gonna to need a bigger astronaut corps… Say another 300-400 astronauts to start.
Looks like we have a race, SpaceX with Starhip versus everyone else.
Yes, SLS/Orion is for all practical purposes is no longer the only critical path for Artemis. Sure NASA talked it up, but would NASA really need to send astronauts in a capsule that only carries 4 astronauts in a tiny 20 cubic meter cabin only to transfer to a Starship, which is sized for 100 astronauts with an over 1000 cubic meter cabin just to go the last 15 km to the surface?
No race. The chance of the Starship not going orbital before the second and last SLS shows up at VAB is slim IMO.
NASA should be worry that unless they signed up for SpaceX’s first Moon surface sortie. SpaceX could let a paying customer be the first woman on the Moon.
Now let see if the senior senator from Alabama slaps Bridenstine down for the SpaceX Starship option. Which to me seems like a backdoor way to scuttled the SLS & Orion after the inaugural flight, if there is one.
No, pork still rules. SLS, Orion and Artemis are still intertwined. If Starship is chosen as the HLS it will be unmanned to LO, stripped down to eliminate everything required for reentry and 1G landing. Human Landing Starship (see what I did there?) will just shuttle between 1/6G Luna and LO, without staging or surface refueling.
We won’t, unfortunately, be sending hundreds of people to the Moon soon, nor will we be ashcanning SLS.
Not really. SLS only appears to be in the critical path. If all that is required is a non-Starship ride to LEO Crew Dragon can do that as well as Orion.
HLS is only going to transport humans from LO to the surface and back and will be autonomous (and they will offer a demo autonomous landing prior to the first crewed flight).
Unfortunately, the baseline plan is for SLS/Orion to get astronauts to a high lunar orbit. Starship (a stripped-down, lunar version) will pick the astronauts there, land them and then return them to that high lunar orbit. Then the Orion capsule will take them back to Earth. So replacing SLS/Orion in the current plans would require a new Earth to lunar orbit crew ferry.
Currently there are none. Falcon Heavy/Dragon 2 can’t quite make it. But I wonder what would could be done if they designed and added some sort of service module for Dragon 2 (e.g. replacing or expanding the trunk.) That is very definitely not something in NASA’s plans, I’m just wondering if it would be possible in theory.
Falcon Heavy/Dragon 2 can’t quite make it. But I wonder what would could be done if they designed and added some sort of service module for Dragon 2 (e.g. replacing or expanding the trunk.) That is very definitely not something in NASA’s plans, I’m just wondering if it would be possible in theory.
According to the numbers I’ve run, Dragon 2 needs about double the normal amount of propellant for enough Delta-v for the lunar NRHO rendezvous and return to Earth. So a relatively trivial propulsion system added to the Dragon 2 trunk should suffice.
NASA may not be, but other commercial customers will. When the cost of a lunar mission carrying 100 passengers is in the range of $30 million to $40 million with a per seat cost of $300,000 to 400,000 you should have lots of interest.
Yes yes a thousand times yes . . . but not by 2024.
There are some odd things about the NASA announcement. These are ten month contracts to develop the ideas, but to build and fly them. But, in the case of SpaceX, they mention conducting a test landing on the Moon (without crew.) That’s odd, first because I can’t see it happening within ten months and must refer to plans for work on a later contract. Second, such a test flight isn’t mentioned for the other two selected contracts. Third, because the crew would go to a lunar halo orbit on an SLS/Orion, and the landers would just take them from the halo orbit to the surface and back. That seems like a huge waste of the claimed Starship capacity. Four astronauts rattling around in a Starship?
It might make sense in terms of the stated two-pronged approach, one for an initial landing in 2024 and another, parallel effort for a sustainable presence by 2028. Starship, in the stripped down configuration they plan and used in the way they plan, would be a possible but inefficient solution for the initial 2024 landing. But it would give NASA a vehicle which could be upgraded into (and actually, is designed to be) something much more capable. _That_ would put them well along the path towards a sustainable presence by 2028. Also, the other selected concepts would be quite useful for landing payloads, robotic landers and rovers, and perhaps a small number of astronauts at a diverse number of locations on the Moon. Starship seems, to me, much better suited to supporting a permanent base.
So I think the possibilities for a sustainable solution by 2028 played a role in the selections. Boeing’s proposal wouldn’t have contributed to that. At the same time, even if it’s a Starship which lands in 2024, I wouldn’t expect a crew of 100 on that flight. It might be more like the test flights of a commercial aircraft, with a couple test pilots and maybe some technicians on board an otherwise empty plane. Then, years later, it might go into service with all the passenger seats full.
Yes it does allows a logical progression for the contract winners just as with the Commercial Crew Program. But also recall, as with Commercial Crew it will likely allow the contractors to set milestones as they go. So at the end of that period you will see NASA review progress and then decide who get money for the next step and what those steps are.
In terms of Starship, you will see lots of test flights without crew on board because it’s design allows it, both for Earth orbit and beyond. It’s one of the advantages of a fully reusable design that is produced on an assembly line and is capable of flying frequently.
In terms of lunar missions you will see an uncrew mission, or probably multiple missions, go around the Moon first before the commercial Dear Moon mission carries a dozen or so flyers. Then the same for lunar landing. Indeed, the first Starship without a crew going to the lunar surface may just be left there as a future base to eliminate the need for multiple refuelings, another advantage of it being inexpensive to build and available in a large production run. Others will go and then return to Earth. With lunar missions costly only $20-30 million you have lots of options for testing.
No, I don’t expect a crew of a 100 on the first crew landing. More like 4-6 with maybe the NASA astronauts docking and transferring to it from an Orion in LLO while the SpaceX astronauts welcome them on board.
The bid each company submitted is for a landing in 2024, it’s not just for the 10 months period. 10 months comes up because they may do a downselect from 3 to 2 in 10 months.
It is possible the other two companies didn’t include a unmanned test landing in their bid, the schedule is very tight and they can’t pump out landers and LVs like SpaceX pumping out Starships. This got asked in the press conference (why there’s no unmanned test landing for some companies) and NASA kind of avoided answering the question, just says they will do a lot of tests and the plan could still change in the 10 months period.
But you’re right that Bridenstine chose Starship because he sees its potential for the future, here’s a direct quote from Eric Berger’s article on Ars:
What we have here in the Administrator is a Leader. Hard to recognize, I know.
Nice to see SpaceX selected… wonder if they’ll switch to aluminum for Starship tanks/body to save weight since it doesn’t have to re-enter. I’m also wondering if they really would reuse it, and if so where they’d park it between missions. Exciting if this all gets fully funded…
SpaceX will not be using anything other than stainless steel for the various variants of the Starship. To do so is to developed a new space vehicle that requires another production line.
I agree it seems unlikely right now. However, this vehicle will have different requirements than the interplanetary version, and a customer that would probably not bat an eye at the cost of a second production line. Who knows, maybe they’ll use some of that $153M to get a production line going based on aluminum, and do the additional structural analysis and design. If they did it, I’m guessing manufacture and assembly would be in So Cal., maybe in the recently re-leased San Pedro land.
From what I understand, the manufacture of the HLS Starship from conventional materials used in the Falcon rockets would be cheaper than manufacture from stainless steel.
The friction stir welding process used for manufacture of Falcons doesn’t work as well with stainless steel. So SpaceX has been inventing new methods of building the stainless steel Starship.
The biggest problem though, would be testing and experience. SpaceX is laser focused on mass production and testing of the stainless steel Starship. Even if an aluminum HLS Starship could be run off the line, it won’t have the legacy of testing of the stainless steel Starship.
The 2024 deadline is so close, that testing and construction experience would be the killer factor.
Do none of these _require_Gateway?
And was this version of Starship shown before – without wings, and with what appear to be thrusters mounted forward of midship?
Also, someone needs to do a pic with all three landed together (an unlikely scenario IRL)…
Do none of these _require_Gateway?
Yes, none require Gateway for the 2024 Artemis 3 mission.
And was this version of Starship shown before – without wings, and with what appear to be thrusters mounted forward of midship?
No, not shown before. The closest approximation was the ‘expendable Starship’ tweet talk from Musk. A version of Starship stripped of s/l Raptors, thermal protection system, landing gear, and aerodynamic control fins.
As to what that amidships engine clusters are, I have a theory. I propose a methane burning version of the Kestrel rocket engine that SpaceX flew on the 2nd stages of the obsolete Falcon 1 rocket, might be that lunar landing engine illustrated on the lunar landing Starship.
OK, this is only approximate. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…