SpaceX Proposed Adapting Human Landing System into a Commercial Space Station
by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
SpaceX unsuccessfully applied for NASA funding to begin work on adapting the Human Landing System (HLS) it is building to send American astronauts to the lunar surface into a commercial Earth orbiting space station, according to a newly released government document.
NASA didn’t think much of the proposal, giving the plan a low level of confidence for technical merits and a very low level of confidence on its business plan. Technical details were not well defined, and the proposal lacked a clear business plan, according to a selection statement signed by Phil McAlister, NASA’s director of human spaceflight.
The space agency awarded $415.6 million for space station proposals from Blue Origin, Nanoracks and Northrop Grumman under the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program. The commercial stations are designed to provide the United States with uninterrupted access to Earth orbit when the International Space Station is retired in 2030.
SpaceX is building HLS for the Artemis moon program under a $2.9 billion contract from NASA. HLS is an adaption of the Starship rocket/spacecraft that will be launched by the Super Heavy rocket.
Relevant excerpts from the selection statement with minor changes are reproduced below. Long paragraphs have been broken up to improve readability. Acronyms have been spelled out for the sake of clarity.
NASA Level of Confidence Ratings
Selection Statement Excerpts
Signed by Phil McAlister, NASA Director of Human Spaceflight
Technical Evaluation
For the Technical Approach evaluation, SpaceX received a Level of Confidence rating of Yellow (Low).
Its significant strengths included proven speed, safety, and systems engineering in vehicle manufacturing; its early prototype and demonstration plan for Human Landing System (HLS) can increase technical maturity on some CLD systems; and a comprehensive and proven safety and risk management approach.
Its strengths included more than 2 crew members at initial operations; a strong approach to future commercial communications including the maturity of Starlink; and a proven design and strategy for rendezvous and docking.
Its significant weaknesses included a lack of definition on its CLD concept; a lack of definition for
external payload accommodations; a lack of payload capabilities definition in its proposed conversion of HLS into a CLD; and a lack of detail for scaling up Environmental Control & Life Support (ECLS) from a short to long duration capability.
Its weaknesses included limited available payload power for its proposed CLD and proposing a single docking part, which reduces crew and cargo access to the CLD.
Business Plan Evaluation
For the Business Plan evaluation, SpaceX received a Level of Confidence rating of Red (Very Low).
Its significant strengths included rapid development of Starship and a planned orbital mission in the coming year; use of in-house developmental resources; and no dependence on outside suppliers.
Its strengths included strong financial resources, which increase the likelihood of successful execution in the event of cost overruns.
Its significant weaknesses included a lack of business strategy, which fails to meet goals for developing the LEO economy; seeking full reimbursement of its narrowly scoped Space Act Agreement (SAA) costs from NASA, despite leveraging private financing of Starship; no proposed Preliminary Design Review (PDR) on its CLD system, which fails to meet one of the primary goals of the Announcement; and milestones do not objectively demonstrate technical or business progress.
Its weaknesses included its high dependence on HLS without addressing it as a risk.
47 responses to “SpaceX Proposed Adapting Human Landing System into a Commercial Space Station”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Once operational these low grade items will be quickly covered. This is probably going to play out much like Commercial Crew did. Boeing did all the up front system definition in the accepted way to become the lead program, then got overtaken by Space X’s focus on flying first and addressing issues beyond base flying later.
what will happen is that either SpaceX will get the entire thing working or they will start falling short on various issues and go nowhere. if Starship works as Musk’s aspirations say then he will simply own the engineering market
to the degree that they dont he will start colliding with various casual factors falling short
in other words NASA doesnt want to get into much deeper a company that is paddling pretty hard right now
The next 6 months are going to tell us a lot. I think 2022 is going to go pretty slow for Starship. Some real changes going on in that program. My question is … Is Starship Super Heavy 0.x ready to fly now and the changes we are seeing the modifications to deploy after flights start, or are these changes needed for even first flight? I think the answer to that will tell us a lot.
It really depends on the FAA. If they throw a 2 plus year delay into flight tests to do a EIS, with no guarantee of approval, than it depends on how quickly SpaceX will be able to relocate Starbase to Florida.
the first in a cascading series of m2 musk misjudgments
If it happens it would not be the first time they had to abandon a launch site. When SpaceX started the plan was to fly from VAFB. But when they showed that they might actually be able to launch a rocket the USAF became worried about the risk to their other facilities and kicked them out. So they relocated to the U.S. Army’s site at Kwajalein.
I’m not sure that having to deal with the vagaries of government regulations equals misjudgments on Musk’s part.
there is little vague about what Musk wanted from the FAA…and there are two or three steps along the way that he and his organization made that I am sure (I dont know any of hte FAA folks doing this) just made them angry beyond belief
I have a small airport on my farm it is left over from WW2 and the USN building it as a training landing strip from Galveston. we got some money in the build back better plan and the recent defense bill to “refurbish” certain aspect of it (the TANG uses it as a helicopter dispersal base its still a government facility)
we had to get an environmental study. its not hard just so long as you are truthful and cross all the T’s Musk has smart lawyers but that is not how he operates
Airports have been around for over a hundred years and there are thousands of them in the United States, so the bureaucratic procedures are known well by both sides. Spaceports are still new, with only couple of private ones, so it’s still new to everyone. Just look at how the spaceport in Georgia got a pass by the FAA on both launch safety and potential environmental impacts.
three points
First I dont know anything about the Georgia spaceport issues. and you dont compare application A with B but …
Second I do know a lot about the Musk application. in self disclosure my attorney (relative) helped me prepare my response . its clear to me that musk has pulled a bait and switch ie I want to do A, A is well understood in the federal regulatory system and it was pretty “easy” and then Musk came up with B. nothing about B is clear. Plus its also clear that Musk has been playing lose and fast with the agreements he does have.
so three. its not surprising to me that the FAA has walked very carefully here. they are paid to do this.
Space regulation is in its infancy but there are dramatically serious consequences about what is going on down at BC…and Musk has the money to hire first class talent to help him follow the rules.
But that is not his style.
Tom I have had probably near 100 things accepted by the FAA. and that is outside my work at the major airplane corporation. If you ride on SWA for example you ride on airplanes that have pilots that are being trained to programs they paid me to develop. this is what I do
Musk could have done this so easily had he followed the rules, unless there is a lot of corner cutting there…which makes me suspect there is. and no I dont excuse it because he is going to save humanity
Musk can be impetuous…I’ll grant you that. Whether, in the long run, it ends up helping or hurting him more…we’ll just have to wait and see to determine that. Do you have a prediction on which way the FAA is going to go with their decision?
I am surprised as Doug has posted enough articles here on it. Basically the Georgia Spaceport plans to launch expendable rockets over the Cumberland National Seashore, a National Park. When they launch the National Park, which has hundreds of visitors each day, will need to be closed while dozens of private homes on the island will need to be evacuated. The State of Georgia didn’t even offer to buy out those home owners like Elon Musk did. Of course if one of those expendable rockets explodes the National Park will be closed for days while the home owners will need to continue staying at motels while the wreckage is cleaned up. Yes, the FAA approved it.
I guess since Elon Musk is not involved you don’t care about it…
I dont think it will happen, the rockets are very small and there was a guy on one of the threads who did a nice breakdown of the issue. plus its not in Texas
dont make everything a love or dont love Elon issue. thats a trump thing
So what was your interest in commenting on Boca Chica? It’s a long way from the property you own.
It’s a Bob O. thing.
As usual, you assume the worst on the basis of zero evidence.
I make no assumptions on the outcome of the FAA I was clear in that. the outcome was just a muse based on nothing
A lot of people in power have their knives out for Musk. Hopefully that is not the case in your situation.
I am sure Boeing and Lockheed would love to see SpaceX go under so they could buy up the technology and start offering it to the government under those old cost plus arrangements. Given their FAA connections you have to wonder if the FAA is getting any “advice” off the record over the Boca Chica license.?
I have no doubt that the Wheelers and Dealers are wheeling and dealing for all they’re worth. And I’m not at all sure how much clout the Starship supporters in NASA and Space Force have compared to the political appointees who pull the strings behind the curtains.
there is no interest in SpaceX technology from the major companies
there is no technology they could not acquire themselves.
You mean like the new technology they acquired in building in their Starliner?
“they” I assume y ou are referring to Boeing. I do not speak for the company these are my own opinions. Boeing is famous for integrating non core technology into vehicles. Boeing does not and never has built engines for aircraft. Not since the first Boeing airplane to the 787. Other companies build engines and the company integrates them into the product. the core technologies of the product operation however are company held. autoflight systems are one of them. Engines are not nor are thrusters.
there are business but most importantly historical reasons for that.
there is not a single technology in Starliner that I am aware of that the company does not have nor could acquire if it felt the need to. I am fairly sure there is zero interest in stainless steel.
And there in are the reasons Boeing’s Starliner failed, depending on the old subcontractor model for designing and building it. Hopefully Boeing will get it to work on its next flight when they get around to scheduling it.
thats not true. in fact it is completely false. again I do not speak for the company and am not in space test flight (I could be but am not)
its ignorant in fact. you dont understand that any better then you do SpaceX pricing
I guess NASA doesn’t understand it either as one reason they picked SpaceX to use the Dragon to supply the Gateway is because of SpaceX’s in-house design over Boeing using subcontractors. Note that this contract was awarded after the failed Starliner flight
https://wccftech.com/spacex…
SpaceX Beat Boeing For Moon Logistics Through In-House Design And Strong Dragon Track Record
By Ramish Zafar
Apr 12, 2020 11:35 EDT
It would be interesting to see how much of the Starliner work was subcontracted out in standard old space fashion. If you recall both Aerojet and Bigelow were subcontractors at one point on the CST-100 that evolved into the Starliner.
http://www.parabolicarc.com…
in house, sub supplier etc are all business decisions that have their pros and cons each. in a properly run system they are not relevant as to product
How did that work out for the 777 and 787, exactly?
probably thinking of the 787…almost all the triple is produced in the US. I think in general that US business are rethiinking Krugmans and the GOP’s flat earth theory ie that it doesnt matter where things are produced. particularly for technical goods where there are all sorts of non manageable risk and the rewards seem to be dimming. the nation has been on a 40 year GOP inspired drive to de industrialize in the name of profits and I think slowly but surely that concept is going. I kind of refer to it like the liesure suits of my youth. they are here then one day they will simply vanish. like the thing trump hoped would happen to the virus 🙂 these are my own personal opinions. and I speak for no organization fly safe
I guess you do not know that Paul Krugman is well known to be a liberal Democratic economist. So it looks like you are now agreeing with me that the cult of Free Trade that both political parties believe in is what has gotten the United States to the mess it is in today. I know, it’s hard for you as a Democrat to saying anything bad about them, but as I have shown the Democrats are as much to blame for driving business, especially heavy industry, overseas in the last 60 years as the Republicans are.
Only by admitting that the cult of Free Trade both parties have advocated has been wrong and drastically raising tariffs to mirror those of other nations will advanced manufacturing return to the United States.
I guess you do not know that Paul Krugman is well known to be a liberal Democratic economist.”
I am remarkably well read and quite knowledgeable as to who is who in the world of politics and the press.
Krugman is a Clinton apostle and Clinton worshiped at the alter of free trade that the Republicans and other “capitalist” set; in large measure to get money for the political endeavors. In an economic stand alone sense the notions of “export from China and Bangladesh etc” all made sense if the goal ws to give the masses cheap goods while company made massive profits and passed along those profits to select stockholders who funnelled it to the politicans who advocated those programs.
my stage is wider…and it is the survival and prospering of the US as a superpower and an economic powerhouse that creates a better life for its people. I am reasonably critical of Clinton (WJ) on quite a few aspects of his presidency; not the least of which is acceptance of GOP economics. Clinton was the best Republican president ever in economics; as he managed to make trickle down “work” in terms of keeping the government afloat economically. no Republican has had a balanced budget since Ford
the problem for most on the corporate middle is that really they dont have that same stage. they dont look past their well being into either the country of the next generation. the problem for the extreme right is that they generally have no idea what they are talking about in terms of preserving a superpower based on the middle class RGO
It is a very simple question of control versus investment/sales. Doing something in-house requires more up front investment but gives you full control over the quality and schedule. Your investment is less if you subcontract but you then have to spend money monitoring the quality and incentives to keep to the schedule, oversight which become a tempting targets for bean counters wanting to cut costs to improve the bottom line.
For Old Aerospace it had the added advantage of distributing the work to gain Congressional support, or with commercial aircraft, foreign sales.
its far more complicated than that. In the case of aviation the external production of engines and engine development has been essential in both the development and reliability of the turbojet. It will be even more important as the search for even more fuel (and alternative fuel) technologies go forward. the problem with rockets is that the volume is so low that its hard to support the same competition. but in aviation the triad of Pratt, GE and RR (or the entirety of the companies mentioned) has kept western development of the turbojet at the forefront of the world.
I dont expect the low volume issue in spacecraft to change.
the next/coming generation of engine for spaceflight development should be interesting as to who develops a functional product.
this is also true in a wide variety of technologies. Cockpit displays for instance (avionics) have benefited enormously from unique source development.
I could care less about Musk personally he is not a politican and not involved in the issue as a personality
this is not an issue like oh immigration where there are philosophical views. its a “does it meet the requirements” issue and these are ABC check check check
Prediction? right now no idea.
the FAA tends to work fairly methodically in terms of safety…and also filling out the four corners of whatever requirements one is trying to meet.
so the first thing that they do mercilessly is “was every I and T dotted and crossed. if no. its gone. if they like you they tell you in the debrief where it failed. if not well they are less
then the answer is “is it safe”.
A guess right now just a guess is that they will authorize two or some number of test flights over a given time period (probably a year) and we will sort those out.
I assure you no other space company has any input to this Nor does NASA. or SF. if either is putting some on. it hurts SpaceX
I think back to when Elon had to sue the AF because there was obvious favoritism going on. You must admit that there is always the possibility of that happening here too.
that was internal. and I am sure there is that in the FAA. the trick is to have good friends but “me” I dont care less about Musk as a person. I would not work for him in any way. but thats just because I enjoy my personal life
no matter what the folks on NASAspaceflight .com say you cannot tell the FAA “I am going to operate J3’s out of the place and try and operate hawkers”
I’d say it’s more like B-17s vs. B-29s.
this one is easy because they dont have to actually go to orbit and are carrying near zero payload (or zero) …so the mass margins or are should be in hand. the issue with them is that like a lot of “homebuilders” they are starting to “perfect” the vehicle even when they have not found out if the basic design works. I think “pretty slow” is an understatement. and really no one has a clue where the FAA is going with this.
for all I know this works perfectly the first time. but I no longer have any real prediction of when they will fly and finally how it will work the first time. they are probably two months away from a full up load…I am curious if they try and do a full flight burn on the engine stack for the 29 engines 🙂
If the FAA comes in with a reasonable decision on the spaceport license, I think things will go fairly quickly thereafter. If the FAA decides to go full Walter Peck, though, there will be no flight progress for Starship this year, but a lot of infrastructure progress in FL. That said, I think the odds heavily favor the first of these alternative futures.
He will absolutely be building space stations which will be launched by using just the first stage of starship, the second stage will be the huge space station, with an engine of course to help get it to it’s destination, perhaps ion, which can also be used to maintain the stations orbit.
It’ll have 9 engines. Raptors – it will need them to reach orbit!
Looks like they kinda threw a technical proposal together based on existing hardware to try and get in on an award rather than having had a real business or operational plan for a LEO space station.
I think NASA got it right — they’ll have a huge volume that’s likely to fly and be placed on orbit in the next year or three, but how is it an actual operating space station (power, life support, crew and cargo resupply, multiple docking ports, airlocks, external experiment ports, experiment racks, data management for the experiments, etc.) and, given that up to this point SpaceX has shown no interest in space stations, do they have any real business plan for running a space station? Who would their customers be and what facilities and services would they offer them?
Basically, I think SpaceX, which is probably the entity most likely to have flight hardware ready to go in the next 3 or 4 years, needs to decide if they want to be in the space station business, and if so, go after it with some of the same vigor they’ve gone after launch and commercial crew. It’s theirs to win if they decide to go for it — no one else has anywhere near their vertical integration, lift capacity, volume, track record and ability to raise funding.
Finally, a LEO space station and the long term life support requirements and substantial power requirements needed for that would be great practice for 6 month journeys to Mars and possibly points beyond, so I hope they go for it (not sure if they will though – their plate is pretty full)
yeah. I will be curious to see if SpaceX can pull off the lunar lander. it strikes me in a way that they almost create a space station if they are able to pull this off, not in terms of the lander but either the lander sits orbiting the earth for a rather long period of time (unless the launch cadence is well daily 🙂 ) or they develop some sort of fuel farm in orbit tht the tankers go to
other wise they have this lunar lander in orbit boiling off fuel on a daily basis.
now the big part is what do you do with the lunar lander after it comes back from the moon and has no fuel 🙂
A orbital fuel farm based on a modified Starship is exactly what they are planning on. I expect they eventually will develop a second fuel farm in Lunar orbit eventually with LOX from a lunar facility.
decades away (lunar orbit) if our technology does it at all