[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

1 minute ago, ZooNamedGames said:

My issue is with those who basically proclaim SpaceX to be the savior of space exploration- when they ignore major hurdles SpaceX hasn't yet overcome and yet NASA has literally accomplished with their latest spacecraft. People for example, proclaiming that SpaceX will beat NASA to the moon when SpaceX has no way to accomplish such a goal.

Pot, meet kettle.

NASA has literally accomplished nothing at all with SLS so far, and they accomplished testing the Orion heat shield such that they changed it for the next flight---which has as the primary purpose testing the new heat shield. Unless you refer to the actual gal of SLS (see below).

That doesn't mean they won't accomplish anything, but SLS will have accomplished something only when it actually flies, not a moment before that. Orion is not even complete for the Artemis-1 flight, so that doesn't get much in the way of accomplishment until they fly it all-up the first time (Artemis-2).

I don't see many people saying SpaceX has no hurdles, quite the opposite. I do, however, think that my chances of seeing anything really interesting happening in space while I'm still around over the next several decades have very little to do with NASA. I used to feel the other way around, then I watched nothing interesting happen for decades (Shuttle never interested me that much, and I was paying attention from start to finish).

NASA will not be going to the Moon without SpaceX, BTW. Their architecture requires multiple commercial launches, many of which will be Falcons of one kind or another.

 

11 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Perhaps- but yet even with the worst circumstances it still succeeds. Yes costly- but we can blame politics. If Starship were to be put through the same political hurdles and delays SLS has- it'd evolve into a nasty beast just like SLS. SLS is more a product of it's leadership than engineering design.

That said- it still offers something that no other agency can offer. Manned capacity to the moon and the possibility of a landing by 2025. Something SpaceX and no other agency can do. 

Succeeds? Sure, the goal of SLS is accomplished by existing. The goal of SLS... the mission of SLS---is to build SLS.

The whole benefit of SpaceX and Blue Origin is precisely the fact that they are not forced to bend to political whims. They can pursue goals with clean sheet designs, where they try to at least optimize over parameters they choose.

 

 

I'm a realist.

Starship is moving forward, and I'll be stoked to see it fly. I'll be more excited if it actually works. NG is supposedly moving forward, and I'll be super excited to see that fly as well. Both because reuse is the silver bullet for really interesting things to happen. No reuse---and in the long term I mean complete, operational flight to and from space---and nothing interesting ever happens. People can argue if current efforts will achieve that goal, but there is no arguing the goal. Throw-away rockets can fly business as usual payloads, maybe even a lot cheaper, but we're never a spacefaring species with expendable rockets.

SLS is definitively a dead end in that regard. That's not a problem, so was Apollo, and Apollo was awesome. If SLS could accomplish something really great before it gets superseded I'd be very happy. I'm just unsure what that might be. Sending people sorta kinda near the Moon is not terribly interesting, I've seen that before, indeed I've seen people land on the Moon, live on TV. That's my benchmark for interesting. Is there a decent chance SLS is PART of such a project in the next few years? Yeah, there is. The money shots will have SLS/Orion not even in the picture, and utterly uninvolved I'd wager, however, as the lander is not an SLS launch, IMHO. SLS/Orion will be required, mind you, critical---but so was Michael Collins, and most people only remember Neil and Buzz.

[tater]

I agree with @.50calBMG on a bunch of those recent points, BTW (can't "like").

I am a fan of space efforts that I think move the ball forward in a meaningful way. ULA doesn't tend to do that, for example---but building ACES (or an alternate IVF stage) would definitely be moving the ball down the field.

SLS right now I see as doing the opposite, which is why it bugs me so much---because I see it as a wasted opportunity. The current goal, a polar Moon base, is actually pretty decent. I'm fine with Artemis when the goal is: "Set up a permanent human outpost in a particularly interesting location on the Moon."

What I would have preferred was the goal, then the tech. If that had been the goal from day 1, and SLS/Orion had been designed with that goal in mind, do you think SLS/Orion would look any different? I sure do. That's the lost opportunity.

[ZooNamedGames]

25 minutes ago, .50calBMG said:

@ZooNamedGames Thank you for not misinterpreting that as an attack and for providing a logical explanation instead of the "do as he says, but not as he does" excuse. 

I am well aware that it's politics that is currently drowning SLS, but I try to stay as far from politics as possible because nothing ever ends well after bringing it up.

I am also not in the "Elon is God emperor of humanity" camp either. There are definitely faults with every program. For example, SpaceX is essentially building a MiG-21 as a test platform for something more akin to... Well... A space shuttle, and I am amazed they haven't had more problems than they have. 

One of the main reasons I come back to this thread is because of users like @tater . We've probably tossed hundreds of messages back and forth to each other over SLS- and despite being polar opposites on the spectrum of ideology- We've never (that I'm aware of) made any personal remarks. We know it's just opinion and forum talk. It's a fun way to actually dissect what you think and try to rationally and logically defend it. So I definitely give a round of applause to tater and everyone else who's kept their heads about them and kept cool talking here. You honestly make this discussion the best I can possibly find on the internet.

24 minutes ago, tater said:

NASA will not be going to the Moon without SpaceX, BTW. Their architecture requires multiple commercial launches, many of which will be Falcons of one kind or another.

Never said it wouldn't take SpaceX's help- they just wouldn't perform such an endeavor singlehandedly. It would be a cooperative effort across multiple agencies and corporations to make happen.

[.50calBMG]

Yeah, I would have posted much sooner, but every time I went to do so, tater got there a few minutes before me with basically the same points. It has been pretty civil though, you paying attention, rest of the world? Not that hard.

[tater]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

One of the main reasons I come back to this thread is because of users like @tater . We've probably tossed hundreds of messages back and forth to each other over SLS- and despite being polar opposites on the spectrum of ideology- We've never (that I'm aware of) made any personal remarks. We know it's just opinion and forum talk. It's a fun way to actually dissect what you think and try to rationally and logically defend it. So I definitely give a round of applause to tater and everyone else who's kept their heads about them and kept cool talking here. You honestly make this discussion the best I can possibly find on the internet.

I certainly try not to (please take the pot/kettle thing in the gentle, bantering way it was intended).

I'd wager most everyone that hangs out on space forums would have a great time over coffee arguing about this stuff in RL, the goals are generally the same---seeing humanity do something interesting off this planet.

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

I certainly try not to (please take the pot/kettle thing in the gentle, bantering way it was intended).

I'd wager most everyone that hangs out on space forums would have a great time over coffee arguing about this stuff in RL, the goals are generally the same---seeing humanity do something interesting off this planet.

I figured that wasn't meant badly .

Very true. I would love to have like an early morning livestream talking about stuff like this over coffee like you said because I'm sure people would watch it as much as we enjoy talking about it.

[Ultimate Steve]

My view on the whole thing is that we should keep SLS around until we have something that can do it's job reliably and for less money (talking about physical job, not political job). Depending on how close the cost gap is and on launch demand, it might be better to wait until we have two replacements. I'm cautiously optimistic about the replacement (or one of them) being Starship, although there is certainly a lot of work to be done.

[YNM]

Hold your horses folks, this is large news.

 

JAXA has signed into Artemis.

Spoiler

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)

and

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Joint Statement on Cooperation in Lunar Exploration

During their September 24, 2019, meeting at JAXA Headquarters in Tokyo, NASA Administrator James Bridenstine and JAXA President Hiroshi Yamakawa welcomed the ongoing engagement between their agencies to realize JAXA’s participation in NASA’s Artemis program and vision for the participation of Japanese astronauts in lunar exploration.

They noted that these efforts build on the long history of strong cooperation between their two agencies on the International Space Station and across all mission areas, as well as the May 2019 shared view of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to accelerate discussions on cooperation regarding lunar exploration and affirmed their joint commitment for NASA and JAXA to collaborate in lunar exploration with a view toward Mars. Specifically, both agencies’ leaders expressed their desire to expand the scientific and technological cooperation between NASA and JAXA to advance human lunar surface activities, leading to eventual human exploration of Mars.

The agency leaders shared their intention to seek support and commitment from their stakeholders in the United States and Japan to document proposals and to conclude the necessary arrangements between their respective agencies and governments.

Administrator Bridenstine welcomed JAXA’s proposals for cooperation on Gateway, including habitation functions and logistics missions, utilizing the Japanese HTV-X spacecraft and H3 launch vehicle.

The leaders highlighted NASA’s participation in JAXA’s SLIM (Smart Lander for Investigating the Moon) mission and discussions regarding NASA’s potential participation in the planned JAXA-Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Lunar Polar Exploration mission, as well as JAXA’s sharing of acquired observational data from those missions to contribute to NASA’s lunar exploration goals and objectives. Both leaders also welcomed JAXA’s interest in providing science instruments to fly with NASA payloads on future CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) delivery missions and the planned upcoming launch of two JAXA-provided cubesats on NASA’s Artemis 1 mission. These cooperative activities will contribute to their respective lunar science and exploration priorities, and both leaders acknowledged that the acquired data from these missions will contribute to NASA’s plan to return humans to the Moon in 2024.

Additionally, President Yamakawa expressed JAXA’s willingness to explore further cooperation to realize sustainable lunar surface activities, including through the potential provision of and collaboration on pressurized crew rovers, transportation vehicles to and from the lunar surface, and In-Situ Resource Utilization technology.

Acknowledging that both agencies are at a critical time for realizing their shared goals of advancing sustainable human presence at the Moon and Mars, the agency leaders committed to continue the close dialogue across their agencies at all levels in the tradition that has been the hallmark of NASA-JAXA collaboration.

Signed on September 24, 2019

 

 

Hiroshi Yamakawa
JAXA President

 

James F. Bridenstine
NASA Administrator

 

 

This cements Artemis and LOP-G in my opinion - and that, in turn, will hopefully cements SLS.

Edited September 25, 2019 by YNM

[tater]

 

[jadebenn]

NASA's released the terms for bidding an SLS-launched lander:

Quote

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 operations
2. Method of acquiring an Engine(s), Upper Stage, Fairing, Payload Adapter and any other component for an SLS-derived commercial cargo configuration
3. 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 objectives
4. Total integrated launch vehicle price

My predictions as to who takes this approach?

Boeing: Yes - They have every reason to choose this approach. It gets them more flights of SLS, and since they're already one of the SLS contractors, it wouldn't be too difficult for them to wrangle-up the rest.

Lockheed Martin: Maybe - They have the contacts, but they don't directly benefit from increased SLS usage like Boeing does, although it doesn't hurt them either.

Blue Origin: No - It's not impossible, but I don't see it happening. They'd rather have something that can be launched from their rockets once those get to flying.

Edited October 1, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

Boeing: Yes - They have every reason to choose this approach. It gets them more flights of SLS, and since they're already one of the SLS contractors, it wouldn't be too difficult for them to wrangle-up the rest.

Lockheed Martin: Maybe - They have the contacts, but they don't directly benefit from increased SLS usage like Boeing does, although it doesn't hurt them either.

Wouldn't they have to buy a launch? I suppose that means they break even on the core and EUS, and have to buy the fairing and the SRBs. I'd hope that NASA would also charge for ground services, and other NASA specific bits to mitigate program costs.

LockMart seems less likely, because they'd have to actually pony up a billion dollars for an SLS launch, they'd not be paying 750M$ (or whatever) back to themselves like Boeing would.

This seems unfair on the Boeing side, honestly, as Boeing gets to profit on huge dev costs paid by the taxpayer if they get to only pay the marginal cost of an SLS (most of which goes right back to them). Since it's actually the taxpayer writing the check here, I'd be fairly annoyed if they could have launched the thing cheaper. These are flying ahead unmanned, they should literally fly the cheapest possible way (which can't possibly be SLS costed fairly).

[jadebenn]

7 hours ago, tater said:

Wouldn't they have to buy a launch? I suppose that means they break even on the core and EUS, and have to buy the fairing and the SRBs. I'd hope that NASA would also charge for ground services, and other NASA specific bits to mitigate program costs.

LockMart seems less likely, because they'd have to actually pony up a billion dollars for an SLS launch, they'd not be paying 750M$ (or whatever) back to themselves like Boeing would.

I put down LM as a maybe mainly because there are some real design advantages to going two-stage. The per-launch costs might be higher than the three-stage approach, but overall lander development costs should be lower, and lander performance should be higher. You are correct though in saying that they aren't going to be nearly as motivated as Boeing would be to choose that route.

[tater]

33 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

I put down LM as a maybe mainly because there are some real design advantages to going two-stage. The per-launch costs might be higher than the three-stage approach, but overall lander development costs should be lower, and lander performance should be higher. You are correct though in saying that they aren't going to be nearly as motivated as Boeing would be to choose that route.

If SLS is the LV, the launch costs are more than just higher, they're absurdly higher (assuming the cost of SLS launches is properly established). If SpaceX, ULA, and BO need to cost launches such that dev cost is amortized over XX flights (and added to launch cost), then SLS should have to set the price in a similar fashion. If commercial pricing also includes operational costs added into their per launch "retail price," then so should SLS launch pricing. NASA in a sense is competing with the private market, so they need to be fair about how they price SLS in that case.

So they need to add in XX billion in dev cost in some pro rata way per flight (/50?), and they need to have the launch cost offset that launch's share of the operational costs (what, 2 B$/yr?). Seems like fairly prices, and SLS launch should be:

Marginal cost: ~1B$/flight

Dev cost: ~8.9 B$/50 flights* = 178M$/Flight

Operations: ~2.5 B$/yr which is ~1.25B$/flight (if they do 2 flights/yr).

So we'd have ~2.3 B$ a flight.

20+ FH/NG/Vulcan launches, 7 DIVH launches.

(*note how nice I am on dev cost amortization, I don't think SLS flies 50 times, maybe half that at most)

Edited October 1, 2019 by tater

[jadebenn]

2 hours ago, tater said:

If SLS is the LV, the launch costs are more than just higher, they're absurdly higher (assuming the cost of SLS launches is properly established). If SpaceX, ULA, and BO need to cost launches such that dev cost is amortized over XX flights (and added to launch cost), then SLS should have to set the price in a similar fashion. If commercial pricing also includes operational costs added into their per launch "retail price," then so should SLS launch pricing. NASA in a sense is competing with the private market, so they need to be fair about how they price SLS in that case.

So they need to add in XX billion in dev cost in some pro rata way per flight (/50?), and they need to have the launch cost offset that launch's share of the operational costs (what, 2 B$/yr?). Seems like fairly prices, and SLS launch should be:

Marginal cost: ~1B$/flight

Dev cost: ~8.9 B$/50 flights* = 178M$/Flight

Operations: ~2.5 B$/yr which is ~1.25B$/flight (if they do 2 flights/yr).

So we'd have ~2.3 B$ a flight.

20+ FH/NG/Vulcan launches, 7 DIVH launches.

(*note how nice I am on dev cost amortization, I don't think SLS flies 50 times, maybe half that at most)

Yeah, no. There's no reason they will charge anything but the marginal costs in launch pricing. The other costs are already paid for by NASA. You can argue that's unfair, but it's essentially the same deal the commercial crew program gets - just with a rocket instead of a capsule.

GSE costs would be factored in, but not completely, since those will be shared with NASA. You'd be paying the marginal cost for them to handle an additional launch; they're already committed to paying the rest. It'd be a similar situation with use of NASA personnel and facilities. As far as I'm aware, NASA has always handled KSC ground ops in-house, as they've successfully argued it's more cost-effective than contracting them out, so any bidder would need to pay them for those services as well. But again, just the marginal costs of an additional launch. NASA already pays for the rest.

Now, you can argue that this is unfair competition, but that's not how NASA sees it. They believe there's no business case to develop an SHLV, so it's the government's responsibility to make one. The SLS primarily exists for their use; any additional usage on the side is simply a bonus. It really is more similar to the philosophy behind CCrew and COTS than you're giving it credit for. NASA is the main customer, and funded most development, but the companies are allowed to re-sell those products developed with government money on the open market, and offer them to others.

Edited October 1, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

2 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Now, you can argue that this is unfair competition, but that's not how NASA sees it.

That's exactly how I see it. If a SHLV exists in a commercial space at all, developed with no government money, for example, then it's clearly not a level playing field for a commercialized competition, and the NASA case for them not being a thing falls apart.

I'm sure you're right, and they will not compete fairly---because they cannot compete fairly, SLS is uncompetitive, it's far, far too expensive.

It's sad, actually, because as a customer, NASA is in a position to create a market here by actively seeking commercial launches, instead of trying to have one particular contractor pay itself for launches---and one that has in fact mismanaged their end of the program badly for years according to NASA's own OIG.

[jadebenn]

Is it really all that different from the government building a highway?

Even if the highway goes over-budget and was managed poorly, for better or worse, nobody driving on the highway has to actually pay a toll commensurate to the cost of financing it (i.e. no $50+ tolls for the Big Dig), because that would defeat the entire purpose of building the highway in the first place: Having people use it.

Edited October 1, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

Just now, jadebenn said:

Is it really all that different from, say, the government building a highway? Even if the highway goes overbudget and was managed poorly, nobody driving on the highway has to actually pay a toll commensurate to the cost (i.e. no $50+ tolls for the Big Dig), because that would defeat the entire purpose of building the highway in the first place: having people use it.

Could MAC sell seats below airline cost, they're flying anyway? Would that be reasonable or fair?

The people paying the bills here (the taxpayers) deserve to not pay extra for things. The added costs of assembling the lander in space would have to be vastly higher to justify SLS, particularly since it means 2 launches (I'd think any lander should be tested uncrewed first, Apollo flew the LM 3 times (not counting the 2 dummy versions on Apollo 4 and 6) before they landed with it (1 unmanned, then Apollo 9 in LEO, and Apollo 10 over the Moon). They could get away with a single test these days, and they could simply land it.

[jadebenn]

15 minutes ago, tater said:

Could MAC sell seats below airline cost, they're flying anyway? Would that be reasonable or fair?

The difference there is that there's a thriving commercial airline market that exists. If that had been the case for SHLV, NASA would've never built the SLS.

15 minutes ago, tater said:

The people paying the bills here (the taxpayers) deserve to not pay extra for things. The added costs of assembling the lander in space would have to be vastly higher to justify SLS, particularly since it means 2 launches (I'd think any lander should be tested uncrewed first, Apollo flew the LM 3 times (not counting the 2 dummy versions on Apollo 4 and 6) before they landed with it (1 unmanned, then Apollo 9 in LEO, and Apollo 10 over the Moon). They could get away with a single test these days, and they could simply land it.

You're focusing on in-space assembly costs for some reason. My argument was that a two-stage lander would have a simpler, yet more capable design, and would therefore have lower development costs. The tipping point is whether or not the savings in development would justify the higher per-launch costs.

 I think the following possibilities exist:

• The bids are mostly 3-stage
• The bids are split between the two fairly evenly
• The bids are mostly 2-stage

Anything 2-stage needs to go up on cargo SLS, and I'm fairly certain that at least Boeing is pursuing this route. For everyone else, we'll need to wait until the bids come in during November.

Edited October 1, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

4 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

The difference there is that there's a thriving commercial airline market that exists. If that had been the case for SHLV, NASA would've never built the SLS.

True, when they started this, years ago, there was no off the shelf option (except maybe DIVH, actually, if distributed launch is on the table).

Right now, we have DIVH and FH.

By 2024, we have DIVH, FH, VH (not sure if Vulcan heavy is flying by 2024, or just Vulcan), NG, and very likely now, SS/SH.

Literally every one of those choices is an order of magnitude cheaper than just the marginal cost of SLS.

 

8 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

You're focusing on in-space assembly costs for some reason. My argument was that a two-stage lander would have a simpler, yet more capable design, and would therefore have lower development costs. The tipping point is whether or not the savings in development would justify the higher per-launch costs.

 I think the following possibilities exist:

• The bids are mostly 3-stage
• The bids are split between the two fairly evenly
• The bids are mostly 2-stage

Anything 2-stage needs to go up on cargo SLS, and I'm fairly certain that at least Boeing is pursuing this route. For everyone else, we'll need to wait until the bids come in during November.

Yeah, that's entirely reasonable, though it's funny to care about dev costs only in this regime. Also, SLS cargo is just as imaginary as any of the unflown LVs I just listed. SLS itself has not flown at all. When it does fly, it will be with a different upper stage than cargo. The EUS doesn't exist. Will it? Sure, I have no doubt. But look at the timelines. the pathfinder core stage (the dummy mockup they are using to test fit and procedures for testing SLS Core) started work in 2016. It's just recently been done. 2-3 years for a boilerplate tube. I'll buy EUS in the timeframe when I see it.

[jadebenn]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, that's entirely reasonable, though it's funny to care about dev costs only in this regime. Also, SLS cargo is just as imaginary as any of the unflown LVs I just listed. SLS itself has not flown at all. When it does fly, it will be with a different upper stage than cargo. The EUS doesn't exist. Will it? Sure, I have no doubt. But look at the timelines. the pathfinder core stage (the dummy mockup they are using to test fit and procedures for testing SLS Core) started work in 2016. It's just recently been done. 2-3 years for a boilerplate tube. I'll buy EUS in the timeframe when I see it.

I have a bit of a beef with what you're saying here.

Minimizing development costs here is pretty important because they haven't been spent yet. The SLS's development costs largely have. In fact, at this late in the game I'd wager that it'd be more expensive to try and cancel the program than letting it continue until all the currently agreed-upon orders have been fulfilled. At least on a fixed-cost basis.

I also strongly disagree with the implication that building a cargo variant of SLS is anywhere near as technically challenging as developing an entirely new rocket is. If cargo capability had not been baselined for SLS since the very beginning, you might've had a point there. But it has been, and the rocket's design reflects that. You do have a point that SLS is still not flying yet, but the design's been locked-in for quite some time. Aside from the planned evolutions and some minor refinements, it's not changing.

The pathfinder 'delays' sound to me like it was held up because there'd be no point in training with it when the actual rocket was still years away.

Your criticism of EUS is more fair, as EUS has not exited CDR yet, and is therefore subject to change. Similarly, while the tools to make the Universal Stage Adapter (the fairing that holds the co-manifested payload on Block 1B) exist, a dedicated cargo fairing does not at this time. There have been some concepts of how the USA could be modified to act as one if the need arise, though.

Edited October 1, 2019 by jadebenn
Added the image!

[tater]

49 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

I also strongly disagree with the implication that building a cargo variant of SLS is anywhere near as technically challenging as developing an entirely new rocket is. If cargo capability had not been baselined for SLS since the very beginning, you might've had a point there. But it has been, and the rocket's design reflects that. You do have a point that SLS is still not flying yet, but the design's been locked-in for quite some time. Aside from the planned evolutions and some minor refinements, it's not changing.

It's not, but it requires EUS (doesn't exist yet), and every single rocket I mentioned as another SHLV either already exists (DIVH/FH), or is actively under construction right now, and is planned to fly by 2021.

A number of these companies care rather a lot about dev costs---because they actually have to pay to develop them. Not really an issue with cost plus, need a change to something? Awesome, that'll be an extra 500 M$, and sorry, it'll take an extra year.

53 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Minimizing development costs here is pretty important because they haven't been spent yet.

The problem here is that if the dev looks anything at all like SLS/Orion, those dev costs will be some multiple of what it should cost. I thought the goal with Artemis (all this really belongs in the Artemis thread) was to move to a fixed price model in order to avoid all the problems that SLS/Orion demonstrably has had. It was one of the things I really liked about Bridenstine, I thought he was trying to get this thing on track.

If a 2 stage design that requires SLS is built by one of the usual suspects, it very much defeats the purpose of a commercial approach, and trying to operate in a sustainable, cost effective way. The reality is that there are at least 2 players here who are going to do it better, with or without NASA, IMO. I'd rather see them go back to talking about a model where NASA pays after the contractor demonstrates the vehicle can do the thing---in this case land their lander on the Moon (goes for anyone trying this, IMO).

[tater]

 

[jadebenn]

Mid-2021 is what I'm betting it gets re-baselined to after Gerst's position gets filled. That should give them roughly 3 months of schedule margin on-top of the 9 months for the green run.

Edited October 10, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

25 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Mid-2021 is what I'm betting it gets re-baselined to after Gerst's position gets filled. That should give them roughly 3 months of schedule margin on-top of the 9 months for the green run.

Probably, but at this point not if they think it will have any chance to go longer (Bridenstine has to be sick of the number changing, and he himself told Congress that 2021 "might be achievable" so I'd think he'd want some hard evidence that that was gonna happen). Beats 2022, that's for sure.

[jadebenn]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

Probably, but at this point not if they think it will have any chance to go longer (Bridenstine has to be sick of the number changing, and he himself told Congress that 2021 "might be achievable" so I'd think he'd want some hard evidence that that was gonna happen). Beats 2022, that's for sure.

The "official" green run estimate is 6-9 months. The longest unofficial estimate I've heard is 12 months. Either way, I think that makes mid-2021 a reasonable estimate.