![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/comcrew.jpg\")
<\/p>\nFollowing a year of testing and development, NASA recently selected SpaceX\u2019s Starship-based Human Landing System (HLS) to land astronauts on the moon under the Artemis program. SpaceX\u2019s proposal was the highest rated and lowest cost offering among three studied designs, the others provided by Blue Origin\u2019s National Team and Dynetics.<\/p>\n
In contrast to NASA\u2019s stated wish for multiple Human Landing Systems, only one design was selected for an initial uncrewed demonstration and the first crewed landing, due to significant budget constraints. The offerings from Blue Origin, Dynetics, and other companies not previously studied for HLS, may thus continue development in hopes of being on-ramped for future recurring missions to the surface of the moon.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
SpaceX was selected for an HLS Option A award, which calls for a demonstration of aggregation of the various elements of the system, docking the lander to the Orion spacecraft, transfer of crew from Orion to the lander in lunar orbit, conducting an Extravehicular Activity (EVA) after landing, and returning the crew and other materials from the surface. This included both an uncrewed and a crewed demonstration mission.<\/p>\n
Similar to the Commercial Crew program tasked with delivering astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), NASA aims to facilitate development of a multi-user transportation system for the moon. That is, NASA wants to be one of multiple customers to eventually utilize the vehicle designs produced from the HLS program.<\/p>\n
Similarly, NASA wants to use multiple dissimilar vehicles for moon landings, as they have for ISS logistics. However, funding allocated to the HLS program was not sufficient to cover any one offeror\u2019s proposed bid price. The source selection statement justifying NASA\u2019s award decision states that \u201cwhile it remains the Agency\u2019s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA\u2019s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NASA\u2019s pair of Commercial Crew vehicles, Boeing Starliner (left) and SpaceX Crew Dragon (right), have set a precedent for redundant, commercial access to space \u2013 render via Mack Crawford for NSF\/L2<\/p>\n
SpaceX\u2019s total evaluated price for their proposal was $2,941,394,557. While exact price figures are not provided for offerors that are not selected, the statement specifies that Blue Origin\u2019s proposal was significantly more expensive than SpaceX, and that Dynetics\u2019 proposal was significantly more expensive than Blue Origin.<\/p>\n
Since SpaceX\u2019s proposal was the lowest cost, ad also highly rated from technical and managerial perspectives, NASA chose to open price negotiations that could enable the agency to afford to develop the Starship HLS. SpaceX was able to revise the milestone payment timeline to fit within NASA\u2019s current budget, although the overall price of the program was not reduced. SpaceX was not permitted to alter any technical aspects of their proposal during negotiations.<\/p>\n
NASA mission updates (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n SpaceX selected for initial landings<\/p>\n SpaceX\u2019s winning proposal is not without risk, but Starship offered several significant strengths that sufficiently offset any weaknesses. NASA\u2019s evaluated SpaceX\u2019s HLS proposal as a credible technical response to the agency\u2019s needs, with any weaknesses either offset by strengths of inconsequential to contract performance.<\/p>\n Notable strengths of the Starship HLS design include a 100 day loiter capability in lunar orbit, exceeding NASA\u2019s goal of a 90 day loiter period. The ability to wait at the moon for the arrival of the crew offers additional flexibility for Space Launch System (SLS) launches.<\/p>\n An unsurprising strength of the Starship architecture is the vehicle\u2019s scale, significantly larger than others proposed. The upmass and downmass capacity far exceeded NASA\u2019s requirements, so much so that the amount of cargo that can return to Earth is not limited by Starship, but rather what can be returned on the Orion crew vehicle. The large downmass capability is still valuable for delivering one-way payloads to the surface, which will facilitate greater science returns and a sustainable presence on the surface.<\/p>\n Orion docks to the Starship HLS. The lander design has been altered recently, including changes to the landing legs and thrusters, as well as the solar panels \u2013 via Mack Crawford for NSF\/L2<\/p>\n The Starship design also supports a greater number of EVAs for longer durations than required. While the scale of Starship did present some relatively minor risks, including airlocks and windows located high off the moon\u2019s surface, these were offset by the many benefits of such a large scale lander.<\/p>\n NASA also commended the robust abort and contingency plans available with Starship. The vehicle\u2019s excess propellant margin can be applied to expedite an emergency ascent, and the design features both engine-out capability and redundant airlocks.<\/p>\n A focus of the HLS solicitation was also the ability to evolve vehicles to operate sustainably, using reusable vehicles that can be refueled and serve as useful habitation assets on the surface. Starship, in its initially proposed design, can act as a habitat for four crew members without relying on any pre-placed assets, and will not need any significant redesign work to meet NASA\u2019s long term sustainability goals.<\/p>\n There is one area within which NASA found weaknesses with SpaceX\u2019s proposal. The Starship architecture relies heavily on refueling in low Earth orbit (LEO), which complicates the company\u2019s concept of operations. Plans call for a propellant tanker in LEO to be fueled my multiple Starship missions prior to the HLS Starship launching to refuel from that tanker and depart for the moon.<\/p>\n By launching the lander after the fuel has been delivered to orbit, risk to the time critical lander is mitigated, as well as schedule risks for the crew to be launched on Orion and SLS. Other minor risks identified during the HLS study period are mitigated by an aggressive testing plan, which is already underway at SpaceX\u2019s facilities in Boca Chica, Texas, the site of multiple Starship flight tests to date.<\/p>\n NASA rated SpaceX\u2019s HLS management structure as \u201coutstanding,\u201d citing the company\u2019s plan to self-fund more than half of development and testing. SpaceX is developing Starship for multiple markets, which aligns with NASA\u2019s commercialization goals and reduces price.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/docking.jpg\")
<\/p>\nSee Also<\/h4>\n
\n