Main Engine Cut Off - T+78: No Cost-Plus, But No Vision, Either

Episode Date: April 9, 2018

NASA had some interesting comments on the Lunar Gateway at a recent NASA Advisory Council meeting—the program is eschewing cost-plus contracting, but it’s lacking vision. This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 27 executive producers—Kris, Pat, Matt, Jorge, Brad, Ryan, Jamison, Nadim, Peter, Donald, Lee, Jasper, Chris, Warren, Bob, Brian, Russell, John, Moritz, Tyler, Joel, and six anonymous—and 153 other supporters on Patreon. Eschewing Cost-Plus, Lacking Vision - Main Engine Cut Off NASA considers acquiring more than one gateway propulsion module - SpaceNews.com Email your thoughts and comments to [e-mail] Follow @WeHaveMECO Listen to MECO Headlines Join the Off-Nominal Discord Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn or elsewhere Subscribe to the Main Engine Cut Off Newsletter Buy shirts and Rocket Socks from the Main Engine Cut Off Shop Support Main Engine Cut Off on Patreon

Hello and welcome to Main Engine Cutoff. I am Anthony Colangelo, as always. And I've got a topic here today that I've been thinking about for a couple of days. There was a NASA Advisory Council meeting back on March 27th, where they were discussing human exploration, operations, that sort of thing. And there are some updates surrounding the Lunar Gateway project that I found quite interesting, and they have been bouncing around my head the past couple of days. I wrote a blog about it earlier this week, but I thought it was important enough that I wanted to cover it here on the show as well. The discussion was around the power and propulsion element of the Lunar Gateway. This is the element that has solar panels, provides power to the rest of the gateway, and has solar electric propulsion built in to do station keeping, orbital maintenance, maneuvering,

that sort of thing. So this is really the backbone element of the Lunar Gateway. And it's the first one that's going to launch. And previously, we've heard it, you know, it was going to launch on SLS. Now it's going to launch on a commercial launch vehicle in 2022. So there are some shifting plans surrounding this. And there was a really interesting piece of info that came out of this meeting. So I'm going to read a little excerpt here from a SpaceNews.com article by Jeff Faust on comments about the power and propulsion element, which you will hear called the PPE. For the PPE, NASA plans to develop the module in a public-private partnership with industry. Once the module is launched and its performance demonstrated in space,

NASA would have the option to then buy the module for use in the Gateway. Gates said that NASA expects to issue a draft solicitation for the PPE in April, with an industry day to take place in late April or early May. A final solicitation will then follow with proposals due to NASA in late July. NASA envisions a 2022 launch of the PPE on a commercial launch vehicle. There is substantial funding planned to support its development, she said, including $51.5 million for the current fiscal year and $542.1 million projected through fiscal year 2022.

So the big piece of info here is that not only is the power and propulsion element planning on using a public private partnership method where private industry puts up some of the development funding, NASA puts up some of the development funding, and they work on it together, it's also going to be acquired entirely differently. NASA is going to have the providers launch the module, demonstrate its performance on orbit, and then NASA would buy the module for use in the Gateway. So this is an entirely different model specifically for the exploration side of NASA, which has always done things in the cost plus manner. And right now, we see that with SLS Orion, where those budgets are just huge and they're ongoing throughout its

development. They're not fixed price or even this public-private partnership money partnership, where Boeing and Lockheed Martin are not putting up their own money to develop SLS and Orion. Those are funded by the government, worked on by contractors. The Lunar Gateway here, even the backbone element, the most important element of the Lunar Gateway is not going to use that model. gateway here, even the backbone element, the most important element of the lunar gateway, is not going to use that model. And that's a big step. That should not be overlooked. Because NASA has been stuck in this cost plus mindset for its exploration program for quite a while now. And there's been a lot of noise around it that the incentives are wrong for these kind

of programs, and especially a launch vehicle and a crew capsule. There's been a lot of fuss around that. And in this project here, where they're developing this module that's going to go to lunar orbit and be the backbone of a small space station, they are using this public-private partnership method and even more so are acquiring it competitively once its performance is demonstrated in space. That is huge. That is big news. And it is a big deal to see that. Because, you know, right now,

we're not sure what the future of NASA exploration is. We're not sure if they're going to keep going down the route that SLS Orion are, you know, the massively funded cost plus thing, or if they're going to go the competitively sourced route, like they've been showing in other areas, specifically commercial cargo, commercial crew, the ISS program in general. And this is a pretty big statement that the new architecture that they're working on, the new grand project that NASA is working on, is going to be built in this new way. It's going to be acquired in this new way. And that has a lot of interesting impacts when you really start to think what that means for the program going forward.

When you have this big single cost plus funded project like SLS, like Orion, that tends to lead to a more conservative architecture. You know, you're putting all your eggs in one basket. You're putting massive funding behind a project. You have to pick something that you know is achievable and that you know will get the job done. It doesn't leave a lot of room for, you know, bolder projects. Specifically, I'm thinking with regards to SpaceX's BFR, BFS program. In the cost plus world, it's really hard for me to see NASA going all in on something like that and being willing to latch on to an architecture that looks like that. But in a world where NASA works with public-private partnerships and they acquire services

and modules from people once they are launched and demonstrated, that leaves a lot more room for bolder, more forward-thinking plans, plans that might not otherwise be able to flourish within that sort of government program. So, you know, if NASA is pitching this for something like commercial cargo landers or commercial crew landers, that's another area that I could see this sort of mechanism working out. They could say, we're going to work public private partnerships to develop landers, but we're not going to buy any to use until you've launched one and shown us its performance. And in that method, you could see them saying, you know what, SpaceX, go ahead, build something bold and big.

Blue Origin, you're working on this Blue Moon lander with reusable launch vehicle architectures. Go ahead, work on something crazy like that. And they could go to the more traditional aerospace companies and say, you know, build the lander that we expect you to build today, which, you know, something that's LEM inspired, maybe a little bit alt-terry from the Constellation days. Something a little more conservative, a little bit more, maybe not using composites like SpaceX is, maybe they're using more traditional materials. Build something that is less forward-thinking in a way. They're not obviously going to say that, but that is the breakdown that we're seeing between these different architectures. So that leaves them the opportunity to do that, to have some providers pushing the boundaries, working on revolutionary ideas, and some working on evolutionary ideas. Whichever one works out better, they can acquire

when it comes time to it. And this architecture lets them do that. And that is something that I think is really interesting because, you know, when we were looking forward to Lunar Gateway and what surrounds that, if it was going to go the same route as SLS Orion or even the ISS in the early days, it was going to be a very slow moving conservative program with not a lot of room to push the boundaries, especially when you're talking about getting humans to the surface with how risk averse NASA has become. But if they're going this route that doesn't tie them down to a particular architecture, it does let people that want to push the boundaries flourish. It does let them push the boundaries. And if they pull it off right, NASA can buy some really interesting services from people out there.

So I think this is a big statement moving forward. And I think this is something we're going to see a lot more of with landers, with even the habitation modules that will be on Lunar Gateway. You know, they've had this Next Step program that we talked about a few times here on the show. And that is a project that is leading up to some habitation elements that will take place on the Lunar Gateway. And that will probably be acquired the same way where they, you know, help develop some of these things and then they acquire them once they're placed out on orbit and demonstrated and tested and verified, you know, specifically with some things again, like you've got traditional players like Lockheed and Boeing proposing basically ISS modules. You've got some people like Bigelow proposing expandable modules

that haven't been used too much in space yet. So you're starting to see that even in the next step away. And then even to go to the extreme route, you've got the NanoRacks ULA and SSL team proposing to reuse Centaur as a wet workshop for a habitation element. So you've got a lot of these areas that you're seeing with habitation that are traditional, conservative, and very forward-thinking, pushing the boundaries. And I think that's the model that we're going to see going forward.

And that is a very good thing. Say what you will about Lunar Gateway, I don't think it's the best architecture to go forward with. But if they go forward with it in this way, the benefits of that could be pretty massive. To give companies that have an idea that's a little outside the norm incentive to push forward with that. And the freedom to push forward with that without tying NASA down to going all in on it and being at risk politically, which is really what they have to cover themselves for. So this is a good sign. Which is really what they have to cover themselves for. So this is a good sign, and I think it's really... I don't know, it's a good sign among an otherwise not-so-great architecture.

But it's not all good news. There is one piece of bad news from this meeting that I want to get into. But before I do that, I want to say a huge thank you to all the supporters of Man Engine Cutoff over at patreon.com slash miko there are 180 of you supporting this show week in and week out this is an independent show funded completely by listeners readers everyone out there like you you help this thing going keep going you help it keep growing you help keep it what it is and make it better than what it is now and I could not do it without your support. This episode was produced by 27 executive producers. Chris, Pat,

Matt, George, Brad, Ryan, Jameson, Nadim, Peter, Donald, Lee, Jasper, Chris, Warren, Bob, Brian, Russell, John, Moritz, Tyler, Joel, and six anonymous executive producers. They produced this episode. I could not do it without them and everybody else over at patreon.com slash Miko. There are some great perks over there if you want to help support the show. $3 or more a month, you get access to the Miko headlines feed. Every single Friday, I run through the headlines, big and small, help keep you up to date on all the space news out there. And $5 or more a month, you get access to the off nominal discord, which is a great place to hang out with some space fans, talk space, follow along with live events. And it is just a fantastic growing community that I love hanging out in every single day. So if you want any of that, you want to help

support the show, patreon.com slash Miko is where to go to do that. Or if you don't want to do that, help spread the word. Tell a friend about Main Engine Cutoff if you think they might like it. Post a link on Twitter, favorite subreddit. Help spread the word because that is a massive help as well. So thank you so much for supporting the show. All right, so you got the good news. NASA's changing up how they think about acquisitions. The bad news is a problem of vision. So I'm going to read a little bit again from that Jeff Faust article, spacenews.com. However, NASA is not restricted to buying a single PPE. The proposal synopsis released in February states that NASA is planning potentially one or more contract awards for PPE development. Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, said the agency

would be open to selecting more than one proposal for development and in-space demonstration depending on what was proposed and at what price. Quote, the architecture is open enough that we can tolerate more than one of these power and propulsion elements in the vicinity of the moon if we got the right prices and the right considerations, he said. The architecture is broad enough and open enough that we can accommodate more of these in orbit, end quote. In that approach, he said one PPE would be used at the Gateway. Additional PPEs could be used for other aspects of NASA's lunar exploration campaign, such as serving as communications relays around the moon. We will see what we get in proposals. We'll see how the selection process moves forward, he said.

It's too early to say one way or another. So on this particular example, it's maybe not the worst idea because they will need some sort of other infrastructure, some other communications relays for landers and for communications while on the backside of the moon, etc, etc. So, you know, in this particular instance, maybe not the worst idea, especially if they do get it at the right price and it is helpful to their situation. But I think it points at a larger issue with NASA's exploration roadmap that is one of vision. This sort of, you know, we'll see what we get, we'll see what turns out, we've got a flexible roadmap, we've got a flexible architecture, we'll see what we get, we'll see what turns out, we've got a flexible roadmap, we've got a flexible architecture, we'll see what happens. That sort of mantra points to the fact that there's still nobody out there that can tell you what the Lunar Gateway is, what it will be used for, what it does,

how it will be used, how it will operate. There's nobody out there that can hit you with the vision for the lunar gateway. There is no grand vision for this architecture. It's kind of this, you know, floaty, flexible architecture that, you know, maybe we'll get two of these and maybe we'll get one of those and maybe Russia will contribute that. Maybe ESA will contribute that. It's this very, you know, wishy-washy architecture. And that lack of vision is what makes NASA exploration so floundering right now. Because I think we all feel that, you know, there are some parts that are good. But in general, I think human exploration at NASA is a floundering program due to politics, due to, you know, there's a lot of factors in it, and it's not NASA's fault. It's not anyone within NASA's fault. But the whole situation right now

is very tough. And there's a great quote from Jeff Bezos a couple of years back about his vision for, you know, this was with regards to Amazon, but I think it extends to a lot of other circumstances as well. He said, we are stubborn on vision, we are flexible on details. And I think that's very telling when you look around and you look at what are the organizations out there with true vision for a particular thing and look at their track record. Jeff Bezos, as I said, obviously with Amazon, you can see the

same thing with Blue Origin. You know, they've just last week changed what they, you know, they talked, we were talking about how they changed what they're thinking for New Glenn. Their vision didn't change, but the details did. You can think about it with SpaceX. They've got this vision for where they're heading, but the details always change with SpaceX. They were going to do Red Dragon. They're not going to do Red Dragon. They were going to launch two humans on Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 and send them around the moon. No, they're not. They were going to build this huge BFR. Now they're going to build a slightly less huge BFR. Even so much as they were going to originally recover Falcon 9 with parachutes, that didn't

work out. So they went towards propulsive landing. That's a huge one. So when you see these organizations with vision that are going somewhere, that are on a mission, and they're flexible on details, that's okay. That's what you want. But for NASA, in the flexible path error, which was this thing coming out of the Augustine Commission way back when, that put them on this route of have a flexible path so you can build some components and always be flexible when politics change. In that era, NASA is without vision and without details. They are flexible on vision. They are flexible on details. And that's what leads to this flip-flopping, wishy-washy, you know, changes every four years architecture that NASA is stuck in right now.

They're flexible on too many things. There needs to be a grand vision for projects like this. The details can change, and that's okay. But, you know, maybe even arguably NASA's not flexible on the details, but they are flexible on the vision. The details are there's SLS, there's Orion, there was going to be some sort of solar electric propulsion tug, and the vision is we're going to do Mars, we're going to do the moon, we're going to go to an asteroid, we're going to bring an asteroid back, we're going to bring a boulder back, we're going to bring a small rock back, we're going to put it in lunar orbit. Now we're just going to go to lunar orbit. We're maybe going to go to the surface, we're not going to go to the surface. We're not going to go to the

surface. But all along, the details are staying the same. And I think that's totally flipped. There needs to be hard vision, needs to be flexible details, not the other way around. The other way around leads to this floundering and floating and indecisiveness that we're seeing now from human exploration. So again, while this particular decision about power and propulsion elements, you know, having two of them, using one as a communications relay, that sort of thing, this particular piece might make a little bit of sense. And it's a really good sign that they're going forward with a new kind of acquisition. I think that's really promising for what could come of this program

in the next five, 10 years. But the lack of stubbornness on vision is really disastrous for NASA. And again, it's not just NASA's fault, because they are a part of the government. The government is in many ways flip-floppy and back and forth, and that's the result of so many other outside considerations. But the problem is that until we get stubborn vision, we're not going to get a very sensible architecture going forward. That's all I got for you this week. Sorry to end on a down note, but things are looking up, because next week is the Space

Symposium. It is going to be jam-packed full of news, I'm sure. Every year coming out of that, we've got so many things to break down. And two years ago, I started the podcast the week after Space Symposium, and it was a good one then. Don't go back and listen. I tried the other day. It's hilarious. We're going to have some really interesting stuff we're gonna have some orbital ATK news on the stick we're gonna have some news I'm sure out of ULA about Vulcan and uh who knows we might see some of that new Glenn uh change architecture stuff at the Space Symposium so it'll be a great week next week uh follow me on Twitter at wehavemiko we'll keep up with everything going on day-to-day at the Space Symposium, and it's going to be a great time.

So follow me over there. And if you've got any feedback on this episode, anthony at mainenginecutoff.com is where to send that. Thank you once again to everybody supporting the show over at patreon.com slash miko. Thank you.