This afternoon, NASA held a teleconference to talk about getting back to work on the Human Landing System (HLS) contract now that a Federal judge has ruled in the agency's favor in the lawsuit by Blue Origin and Dynetics against awarding the contract exclusively to SpaceX.
The teleconference, full video at the first link, was just over an hour long.
... NASA administrator Bill Nelson says that it will take the space agency some time to fully determine what and how much damage Blue Origin has caused. In the briefing, Nelson and associate administrators Kathy Lueders and Jim Free confirmed that Dynetics’ protest and Blue Origin’s protest and lawsuit have delayed SpaceX’s first crewed Starship Moon landing to no earlier than (NET) 2025.
As Eric Ralph from Teslarati put it in a Twitter exchange with Marcia Smith of Space Policy Online:
The article discusses a lot of details about the conference and they throw some information around that honestly surprised me. It's worth reading, as is Marcia Smith's page of tweets while the conference was happening. Bill "SLS" Nelson is still in love with his namesake program, and still ignorant of the world going on around him.Namely, exemplifying just how broken and deceptive NASA’s cost “transparency” is when it comes to SLS and Orion, the space agency used the briefing to announce its first updated Orion cost projections in more than half a decade. All the way back in September 2015, NASA announced major Orion delays and revealed that it had already spent $4.7B on the spacecraft and was committing another $6.7B through its first crewed launch – then scheduled no earlier than 2023.
That’s likely where NASA is getting its magically diminished Orion cost estimate. In reality, including Bush-era Constellation Program development that began in 2006, Orion will have cost NASA and the US taxpayer almost $22 billion by the end of 2021 and before a single full-up launch. Effectively doing the bare minimum to acknowledge a sanitized version of reality, NASA now says that Orion will cost at least $9.3 billion to its first crewed launch, which has been delayed to NET May 2024. It’s entirely unclear how NASA is calculating that deflated figure but in the six years since the space agency’s 2015 announcement that it would spend another $6.7B before Orion’s first crewed launch, it’s actually spent at least $8.4B and will have blown past the latest $9.3B target by mid-2022. Barring drastic funding cuts, Orion development will actually cost the US about $12.6B from 2016 to Artemis II and ~$25.8B since 2006 (not including inflation).
The worst of it, though, was that Nelson and Associate Administrator Jim Free seem to know little about what the HLS they've contracted for can actually do, and even less about contractor SpaceX.
In an even starker demonstration of cognitive dissonance, when a New York Times reporter asked a hard question about the possibility of sidestepping Orion and SLS to get astronauts onto SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander, Administrator Nelson – having just repeatedly discussed Starship – fell back on an old boilerplate statement that “there’s only one rocket capable of doing this” – “this” being launching humans to the Moon and returning them to Earth and that “one rocket” being SLS. Association admin Jim Free also exhibited similar confusion, stating that “the architecture…just wouldn’t work.”
In reality, as currently contracted with NASA, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander is a highly capable crewed spacecraft that will be refueled in Earth orbit before propelling itself to lunar orbit, where an SLS-launched Orion spacecraft would join it and transfer over three astronauts. Starship would then use its own propulsion to change orbits, land on the Moon, and eventually boost back into lunar orbit to transfer that crew back to Orion for the return to Earth. Nothing short of sheer ignorance – willful or not – could prevent competent spaceflight engineers or managers from understanding the possibilities such an architecture raises.
For her part, Associate Administrator Kathy Leuders, who was instrumental in
the private launch programs that brought manned launches back to the US
through SpaceX, seemed to understand the situation much better. She remarked,
"SpaceX has continued to make progress on HLS. Working to fully
understand that and make sure we can align milestones to safely return humans
to the Moon."
SpaceX illustration.
It boggles my mind that NASA is still sticking to the SLS launching a manned Orion capsule to a space station launched previously on another flight, all to connect to a ship that carries 100+ metric tons from Earth to the Moon.
ReplyDeleteI mean, how much stupidity? Just launch HLS-Starship from Earth with 20 astronauts and beaucoup supplies and do a direct to the moon flight, orbit for a bit, land, plant 20 people (hey, be really diverse, do a whole Village People thing of a Native American, a Construction Worker, a this, a that, and a few other odds and sods) and toodle around on the Moon for a week, setting up experiments, leaving stuff behind, doing some real exploring and then come back to Earth orbit to transfer whomever they want to another Starship for landing back on Earth, and re-supply, re-cargo, and do it all over again.
If you want a Gateway, talk to SpaceX about building two HLS Starships and have one in orbit while one is landed, as a backup. Have 3. One in Earth orbit being restocked and refueled, one in Moon orbit as a lab and emergency backup, and one landing/launching.
What is so hard about this? SpaceX is offering a combo full-sized bus and a tractor trailer while everyone else is trying to do the same thing with Smart Cars. Or SpaceX is offering a configurable Jumbo Jet for less than everyone else is selling their Piper Cub.
Gah. Our tax dollars at work.
I'm wondering when Musk is just going to throw up his hands and go all private-mission to the Moon, and tell NASA that he'd let their astronauts dead-head, otherwise tell NASA to get the hell out of the way.
Lessee... Go to moon on something basically less than advanced Apollo/Saturn was planned, or go to moon on a big huge-volume, highly configurable, reusable, Starship. (hits self in head with hammer until I can think like a bureaucrat/congresscritter) Let's go with the expensive, single use thingymabob!
But, but, look at all the jobs that SLS/Orion is creating. Also all of the graft that it can creat. You make too much sense to be a NASA administrator. Your last paragraph summed it up quite well.
DeletePut all those gubmint minions to work on private sector projects, or fire them. You don't need Office Space level management/worker numbers to achieve.
DeleteSeriously. Let Bigelow go back to working on what they did, let Sierra Nevada kick BO's arse, and let SpaceX lead the way on heavy lift tech.
Hey, that coffee isn't going to drink itself.
ReplyDeleteAnd, oh, hey, SpaceX kept working on the HLS even though NASA told them not to until the lawsuit was over. Once again, SpaceX is doing what no other Aerospace company has done.
ReplyDeleteI took that to mean that every step they're doing in Boca Chica on Starship also applies to the HLS version. I wouldn't doubt that a couple of engineers could keep going on HLS, figuring the accountants would keep track of the charge numbers and straighten it out when the dust settled.
DeleteHow much you wanna bet that SpaceX and Musk have a two-pronged approach to the HLS, one with NASA and... one without.
DeleteBasically, right now, as they work on all the Starship prototypes, the basic design work behind the HLS is just lots of CAD-ing while taking in all the various changes being made on the actual physical Starships.
But all that CAD-ing, keeping the design crews who are working on designing a human-rated Starship, isn't going to be much different than what is behind designing HLS.
Basically, Musk and SpaceX are designing a configurable hull. Want one to be a passenger only version, here is what you do to make the empty portion a passenger ship. Cargo only, here is what you do to make a cargo ship. Cargo/passenger or passenger/cargo configurable, here's what you do. They're basically giving us a space-travelling jumbo jet. And what do you need to make a moon-landing ship, well, pull off the flaps, add landers, put landing rockets on it, add an elevator, configure cargo decks and crew decks and there you go.
Heck, right now I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is working, without NASA approval, on an EVA or Expedition suit. Can't wait to see that pop out.
I don't follow this opera in detail, but the operational need for overlapping systems eludes me. So it turns out it's not just me.
ReplyDeleteI thought the idea was that if they have some reason that one vehicle/company can't fly, the other could be backup. If they're both flying the same design and something fails, they have to ground both manufacturers.
DeleteThat would be strangely prudent, but I thought it seemed that both systems would be flying at the same time, doing different parts of the mission. ??
DeleteNot that I know of. The positive side of that approach is the redundancy. The negative is that if they don't specify how the spacecraft user interface looks, they'll be completely different. Or they'll be just similar enough to mess up someone flying infrequently. Back around the first mission to the ISS, there was a lot of talk about how different the Dragon capsule was from the Shuttle and previous spacecraft.
DeleteIt seems they're likely to need to have two separate groups of pilots trained on flying the two ships. That limits options in a way, too.
I should have added my universal disclaimer: of course, I could be wrong.
DeleteI wonder how many Senators will be required on the flight to the moon? That's a lot of dead weight they'll have to carry and may explain why the SLS is the only way to get Orion to the moon. /sarc
ReplyDelete