This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Artemis

Maxar Gets The First Big Gateway Contract

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 23, 2019
Filed under , ,
Maxar Gets The First Big Gateway Contract

NASA Awards Artemis Contract for Lunar Gateway Power, Propulsion
“This firm-fixed price award includes an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity portion and carries a maximum total value of $375 million. The contract begins with a 12-month base period of performance and is followed by a 26-month option, a 14-month option and two 12-month options.”
Maxar Selected to Build, Fly First Element of NASA’s Lunar Gateway
“Maxar previously conducted a four-month study to develop affordable and innovative electric-propulsion-enabled concepts for the power and propulsion element spacecraft. Building on the successful completion of the study, Maxar has been selected to proceed with development. The power and propulsion element will provide power, maneuvering, attitude control, communications systems and initial docking capabilities. Maxar is currently targeting launch of the element on a commercial rocket by late 2022.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

13 responses to “Maxar Gets The First Big Gateway Contract”

  1. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    I would hope that the power and propulsion element ought to be very close to “off the shelf”.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Almost but not quite. They are building a modified SSL-1300 for the power and propulsion element. SSL (now a division of Maxar) has been building those as communications satellites for a long time. They don’t technically have a “off the shelf” design. It’s more like building variations on a theme, depending on what the customer wants. But high power (although usually not more than 25 kW) is standard. Electric propulsion, to get from GTO to GEO and for station keeping, is standard. Although earlier descriptions of Gateway mentioned using a thruster developed by NASA/Lewis [Edit: NASA/Glenn. They renamed Lewis in 1999…] and I think the SSL-1300 normally uses a commercial one. And the design can be used for more than just communications satellites. The Discovery mission, Psyche, is a modified SSL-1300.

      Although I’m not sure about the contract, and how modified this SSL-1300 will be. $375 million is a fair amount more than communications satellites normally cost. But the press release says that’s the maximum value and the contract involves some optional extra work. Maybe it’s less without that optional work.

      In any case, it does look like a communications satellite contract in many ways. Maxar is responsible for building it, getting it launched, getting it to its desired orbit and testing and commissioning it. Once that’s done, they turn the keys over to the customer. That’s how things are done with communications satellites, but it’s not how NASA normally does things.

      (As a footnote, it is ironic that another division of Maxar made the Canadarm 2 and would have made another robotic arm for Gateway. Except that got pushed out to the indefinite future to focus on things like the PPE.)

      • imhoFRED says:
        0
        0

        Do you know if the 375 million includes the launch cost to TLI ? That’s a good fraction of the price

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Actually, I was just guessing they would launch it to a translunar orbit. It makes sense, but the press release wasn’t specific. In any case, the press release did imply that launch costs were included in the $375 million. At least, they said that the launch was Maxar’s responsibility. That’s not how things are usually done for robotic missions, although commercial cargo to ISS does it that way.

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            SpaceNews puts the mass at 5000 Kg which means that FH or possibly New Glenn would be the launch vehicle

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The press release mentioned plans to launch on a vehicle which hasn’t flown yet. But with alternatives in case that doesn’t work out. New Glenn and Vulcan are the only new and unflown launch vehicles on the horizon. Falcon Heavy and Delta IV Heavy are the only alternatives which have flown. With a maximum contract value of $375, I think it’s safe to rule out a couple of those possibilities.

  2. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    I wonder how much NASA (Govt) looks at a companies stock history as a measure of life, ability or success in their procurement process?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I’m fairly sure they can’t, legally, consider stock histories. The rules on what can and can not be considered are pretty lengthy and detailed. But it’s almost certain to be a factor anyway. One thing they are supposed to consider is how able a company is to actually do what they are proposing. That has to be described in the proposal. The people reviewing that know if a company has a long, good track record, or if the company is some newly founded startup. That will, inevitably, affect how they read the proposal. It’s the difference between accepting a plan that just says, “trust us, we can do it” and going over the plan with a very critical, fine-toothed comb.

      But in this case, Maxar is about as well-established at this sort of thing as you can get. Before a restructuring a few months ago, SSL (formerly Space Systems Loral) was a wholly owned subsidiary of theirs. Now SSL is one of several divisions of Maxar. They’ve been doing communications satellites for decades, and have plenty of experience with high power systems and electric propulsion.

  3. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    This makes Gateway begin to look real. I think it could have the effect of killing the lunar landing mission. Because Gateway makes a lander and particularly a reusable lander damn near impossible to design.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I’m not sure. Gateway is pretty useless. Possibly even harmful, as you suggest. But that power and propulsion element might be different. It really is a stand-alone spacecraft. Now that I think of it, it would make a fine, reusable, orbital tug. I think it could easily be used to haul payloads from a LEO-Moon transfer orbit to low lunar orbit. That would have some real potential.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        The thrust and impulse levels on this power and propulsion module will be so low that it will be useless as a tug.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Why do you say that? 50 kW is quite a bit of power. It’s based on a SSL 1300, which can take itself from GTO to geostationary orbit using electric propulsion. And more recent statements from Maxar say that they do have plans to use similar spacecraft as a tug.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Interesting as I always wondered if tugs couldn’t become what is in essence the first ‘derivative space hardware’ – that is, new functions derived from older established functions like the geo platforms.

            Given the type of propulsion, patience is a virtue, of course.