NASA Announcement for the Moon

[Nikxice]

But that material has to go somewhere. The particles are so fine that it may create a temporary haze, which I assume should dissipate fairly quickly.

Not to beat a dead horse, whether fine particles or rocks, every lunar object will follow Galileo's law of gravitation by falling at the same rate. Many can probably recall Dave Scott's famous demonstration on the moon using a hammer and feather. Also, with blasted ejecta traveling at the speed of bullets, engine off it's over quick.

Besides the man-made crater issue, more reason to build a landing pad. A powerful lander will raise the issue of potential damage to heritage Apollo landing sites. There's speculation that despite a one or two mile exclusion radius, a landing anywhere on the orb could strike these areas.

So we hopefully don't have a repeat of the Starlink/Dark Skies controversy, there also has to be planning for gaseous emissions created by multiple landings, departures, and lunar development. NASA has recognized a concern for surface and atmospheric pollution in the near-vacuum surrounding the lunar environment. Research is ongoing to evaluate the potential for any long lasting contamination. Astronomers have already raised this issue with regards to affecting the quality of observations from any future lunar outpost.

 

[ecarfan]

I'm curious why you believe SpaceX would not do a Moon landing before a manned trip to Mars?

I’m quoting your post from another thread to keep that thread on topic.

Elon has given no indication that he wants to do a Moon landing before a Mars landing, and in fact for years now in his public announcements about Starship he has only shown scenarios for going to Mars. I believe only NASA paying SpaceX to land humans on the Moon using Starship will cause Elon to do that. And right now it appears there is no chance NASA will do that.

 

[Bobfitz1]

I’m quoting your post from another thread to keep that thread on topic.

Elon has given no indication that he wants to do a Moon landing before a Mars landing, and in fact for years now in his public announcements about Starship he has only shown scenarios for going to Mars. I believe only NASA paying SpaceX to land humans on the Moon using Starship will cause Elon to do that. And right now it appears there is no chance NASA will do that.

You are correct Elon has not said he plans to land men on Moon before Mars. But in a Time magazine interview last July he did seem to leave the door open to that. Even speculating on how soon it could happen if SpaceX elected to do so.

" If you had to bet your house on it, when would you say the next boot prints show up on the moon?

Well, this is gonna sound pretty crazy, but I think we could land on the moon in less than two years. Certainly with an uncrewed vehicle I believe we could land on the moon in two years. So then maybe within a year or two of that we could be sending crew. I would say four years at the outside.

 

[RDoc]

Easier than landing it on Earth (engine throttling permitting)
Really though, if you are building base, you need to get payload mass to the surface. Starship can get a mass of mass moved per trip.

I don't agree. First, when landing on Earth, the atmosphere can be used to slow down a lot, and second, it's a whole lot easier to refuel on Earth than on the Moon.

The question isn't about Starship getting the mass to the vicinity of the Moon, it's about landing not just the payload mass, but the entire mass of playload, Startship and return fuel, including what it takes to get Starship off the Moon. Put Starship in low Lunar orbit and use a light 1 way lander for cargo. It's about 3.4 m/s to go to the surface and back from low Lunar orbit.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Dana White on Instagram: “LMFAO get ready everyone”

Background: The UFC is a mixed martial arts promotion, and they, like all other sports, have had to postpone/delay their shows. This particular fight, between these two fighters, has been booked five times, the four previous matches had to be scrapped for one reason or another (usually some freak injury/accident by one of the fighters). So when this fight was rebooked in January of this year for April, it was a running joke that SOMETHING was going to happen to derail it.

So here we are, and the UFC CEO, Dana White, is pulling his hair out (literally, he’s bald) trying to find a venue to hold this fight.

 

[ecarfan]

But Congress hasn’t funded Gateway yet, right?

 

[e-FTW]

Someone posted the redacted report. Good read, especially for SpaceX fans:
GLSSSSRedacted_Version.pdf

 

[Cosmacelf]

Someone posted the redacted report. Good read, especially for SpaceX fans:
GLSSSSRedacted_Version.pdf

Interesting reading! When I got down to the cost section, SpaceX was the lowest, of course, and Boeing was the highest, again, of course. But in addition, NASA couldn't figure out the exact cost since Boeing couldn't help themselves and put in assumptions and exceptions. Specifically, NASA said:

"The SEB was unable to determine whether Boeing's proposed price was reasonable given its inaccurate conditional assumption and exceptions to the contract terms."

Boeing just can't get out of its own way, it appears. Nice to see NASA not putting up with the BS.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I also thought it interesting that NASA pointed out use of SpaceX's use of Ethernet as a weakness, and then later stated that the use of "internet communications protocol" is a weakness. I wonder what they prefer? 2400 baud RS-232?

 

[mongo]

I also thought it interesting that NASA pointed out use of SpaceX's use of Ethernet as a weakness, and then later stated that the use of "internet communications protocol" is a weakness. I wonder what they prefer? 2400 baud RS-232?

That came up in the CRS7 failure. Due to the non-deterministic nature of Ethernet, there was missing data from the time of the event.

Technical finding 4

General Finding: SpaceX’s new implementation (for Falcon 9 “Full Thrust” flights) of non-deterministic network packets in their flight telemetry increases latency, directly resulting in substantial portions of the anomaly data being lost due to network buffering in the Stage 2 flight computer.

Technical Recommendation 3

SpaceX needs to re-think new telemetry architecture and greatly improve their telemetry implementation documentation.

 

[Cosmacelf]

That came up in the CRS7 failure. Due to the non-deterministic nature of Ethernet, there was missing data from the time of the event.

Technical finding 4


Technical Recommendation 3

So do others have deterministic gigabit communication links?

And I wonder what kind of Ethernet SpaceX uses. Is it the old time shared coaxial cable? Or a modern switch based architecture? If the latter, it should be easy to implement deterministic round robin queuing for packets all heading to the same destination. There isnt much stochastic stuff going on in a modern switch since all links are point to point.

 

[Nikxice]

"That is, since Boeing’s proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration." Wow, Boeing has been eliminated from any slice of the Gateway logistics pie. Maybe the world is changing in more ways than we've recently considered. Shelby probably wishes his black sharpie had been shown this report to contribute more redactions.

It's worth pointing out a couple of the interpersonal relationships that SpaceX has fostered over the years. The signator on this NASA report is Ken Bowersox. He worked for SpaceX for nearly 3 years, 2009 - 2011, so he's got some inside perspective. His SpaceX title was VP of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance. Best info I found is that he left SpaceX on good terms. The regular commute between family in Houston and Hawthorne wore him down. Last year Bowersox temporarily replaced Bill Gerstenmaier at NASA, but he's still listed as a Deputy Administrator for Human Spaceflight. Of course recently Gerstenmaier was hired by SpaceX as a consultant. As a human spaceflight expert his role at SpaceX is likely similar to the job created years ago for Bowersox, only now in 2020 it's about to get real.

 

[mongo]

So do others have deterministic gigabit communication links?

And I wonder what kind of Ethernet SpaceX uses. Is it the old time shared coaxial cable? Or a modern switch based architecture? If the latter, it should be easy to implement deterministic round robin queuing for packets all heading to the same destination. There isnt much stochastic stuff going on in a modern switch since all links are point to point.

SpaceWire and SpaceFiber are a couple European standards.

Paper related to the topic (only skimmed it)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000033995.pdf

 

[e-FTW]

Boeing’s response:

Source: Michael Sheetz on Twitter
I can’t even.

 

[ecarfan]

So Boeing appears to be implying that the NASA contract would mean NASA would own the rights to the product they were paying for and Boeing could not agree to that? Obviously we don’t know the details of the contract terms, but that seems to be the message Boeing intends to convey.

 

[Grendal]

Eric Berger tweeted this:

Here is the full report:
GLSSSSRedacted_Version.pdf

 

[Nikxice]

So Boeing appears to be implying that the NASA contract would mean NASA would own the rights to the product they were paying for and Boeing could not agree to that? Obviously we don’t know the details of the contract terms, but that seems to be the message Boeing intends to convey.

Boeing's response, "Although our design was not selected, in part because of our commitment to protecting our intellectual property.", looks more like a lame attempt to explain their elimination.

Interpreting one of Boeing's weaknesses listed in the report, "A third significant weakness was assigned for an exception taken to providing source code as required under DRD GLS-108, Launch Vehicle Flight Software Input for Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V), and DRD GLS-220, Mission Specific Software." Surely NDA's or other means would be available to Boeing. Although based on Boeing's recent failures, can't imagine they have much intellectual software property worthy of protection.

 

[e-FTW]

If you’ve not read Eric's piece on this report yet, it is well worth it. The comparisons he makes with the same report from 2014 is eye-opening...
New document reveals significant fall from grace for Boeing’s space program

 

[Grendal]

NASA should want to see Boeing's source code when source code has been the source problem in most of Boeing's issues. Not wanting to see the code would be negligent on NASA's part.

 

[ecarfan]

It’s as if Boeing actually did not want to win the contract...