NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[yg1968]

I think HLS gets cancelled along with it unfortunately.  There are just too many small steps to get to a crewed lunar landing at this point.

I also think HLS will be cancelled.

I think the Blue Origin will lander will be used for direct to moon. A fully disposable Starship can send the Blue Origin lander, European Service Module and Orion Capsule all in a single direct flight. Replicates the Apollo concept.

Or New Glenn sends the Blue Origin lander and Starship sends the ESM and Orion capsule. Super Heavy could probably be reusable if it does not need to send the lander.

HLS won't get cancelled. It it is the best part of the Artemis program.

Eric Berger thinks that Gateway might also get cancelled. There is some logic in canceling Gateway but I don't think that it will be.

[catdlr]

I think HLS gets cancelled along with it unfortunately.  There are just too many small steps to get to a crewed lunar landing at this point.

I also think HLS will be cancelled.

I think the Blue Origin will lander will be used for direct to moon. A fully disposable Starship can send the Blue Origin lander, European Service Module and Orion Capsule all in a single direct flight. Replicates the Apollo concept.

Or New Glenn sends the Blue Origin lander and Starship sends the ESM and Orion capsule. Super Heavy could probably be reusable if it does not need to send the lander.

HLS won't get cancelled. It it is the best part of the Artemis program.

Eric Berger thinks that Gateway might also get cancelled. There is some logic in canceling Gateway but I don't think that it will be.

It will get funded if NASA re-titles it "Trump Gate" and places his name on it. 

[Greg Hullender]

It's hard to predict what will happen when we're in an environment where so many "impossible" things (both in terms of politics and technology) have happened in the past decade or so.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elon is pushing to eliminate all the deadwood--SLS, Orion, Gateway, and the entire Marshall Spaceflight Center (did I miss anything?). As Machiavelli observed, if you're going to do something painful, it's better to do it all at once than to try to drag it out. From what he did at Twitter, Elon definitely seems to be a fan of that approach.

[Eric Hedman]

It's hard to predict what will happen when we're in an environment where so many "impossible" things (both in terms of politics and technology) have happened in the past decade or so.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elon is pushing to eliminate all the deadwood--SLS, Orion, Gateway, and the entire Marshall Spaceflight Center (did I miss anything?). As Machiavelli observed, if you're going to do something painful, it's better to do it all at once than to try to drag it out. From what he did at Twitter, Elon definitely seems to be a fan of that approach.

With this he can't do it like he did at Twitter.  The DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) has orders to come out with a report recommending how things are either cut or reorganized.  Their report is supposed to be out no later than early summer of 2026.  From there the fight is on with Congress on making the changes.  They can recommend, but not do major surgery without the consent of Congress.

Trump has already said that he wants to get rid of the Department of Education and its $90 billion dollar annual budget, so expect the major fights over things at that level.  NASA might be hidden in the weeds.  I suspect major changes to NASA might come before this DOGE has done any recommendations.  You have a lot of people impressed with catching a rocket booster on a launch tower and probably very unimpressed with the cost and the pace of SLS.  I think the next NASA administrator is going to be tasked with shaking up the agency just like RFK jr. is tasked with shaking up lots of agencies within HHS and Tulsi Gabbard is in the intelligence community.  I think the next administrator is going to have a bigger impact in the near term than the DOGE.  I don't think Trump is going to wait to shake up NASA for the DOGE recommendations.  The next few years are going to be interesting one way or another.

For those of you interested, the DOGE has already posted jobs for axe wielding budget cutters.  It could be fun for the right people.

[sdsds]

I wouldn't be surprised if Elon is pushing to eliminate all the deadwood--SLS, Orion, Gateway, and the entire Marshall Spaceflight Center (did I miss anything?).

Ames. Stennis. Glenn. Most of Johnson.

[thespacecow]

With this he can't do it like he did at Twitter.  The DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) has orders to come out with a report recommending how things are either cut or reorganized.  Their report is supposed to be out no later than early summer of 2026.  From there the fight is on with Congress on making the changes.  They can recommend, but not do major surgery without the consent of Congress.

There's no limits on when DOGE can make a recommendation, the July 2026 date is simply the end date of this task force. There's nothing preventing DOGE from making some recommendations right after Trump is in office, and making more all throughout the year.

Also it looks to me DOGE may not be the only player right now. Who is the source for Eric Berger's tweet? Doesn't seem like Elon or DOGE is the source, so there could be some NASA insiders who want to change the status quo.

[Vultur]

When are we likely to hear something about Orion's heat shield?

[StraumliBlight]

When are we likely to hear something about Orion's heat shield?

SpaceNews [Oct 29]

Glaze said that NASA was performing additional testing to study ways to mitigate the heat shield loss for Artemis 2. “We know what needs to be done for future missions, but the Artemis 2 heat shield is already built, so how do we assure astronaut safety with Artemis 2?”

She said the testing would be complete by the end of November. “We then anticipate discussions with the administrator, who will make the final decision on how to proceed,” she said. “We’re moving as quickly as it possibly can move, and there will be decisions forthcoming.”

Hawkins said she expected NASA to provide more details on the heat shield problem and plans for Artemis 2 “hopefully before the end of the year.”

[clongton]

When are we likely to hear something about Orion's heat shield?

When are we likely to hear something about Orion's heat shield?

SpaceNews [Oct 29]

Glaze said that NASA was performing additional testing to study ways to mitigate the heat shield loss for Artemis 2. ... she said “We’re moving as quickly as it possibly can move,

    I almost choked on my coffee when I read this. I had to spit it out I was laughing so hard. 

[Mr. Scott]

I wouldn't be surprised if Elon is pushing to eliminate all the deadwood--SLS, Orion, Gateway, and the entire Marshall Spaceflight Center (did I miss anything?).

Ames. Stennis. Glenn. Most of Johnson.

Today’s Washington Post article + Vivek’s video implies cutting ALL of NASA! This includes what Elon has funded including HLS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/11/16/trump-musk-ramaswamy-doge-program/

(Deep down I just know Elon wants out of the HLS mission to the moon… I mean come on, it’s already been done.)

Edited:  I took out where I said I just took a dump in my pants when reading this WAPO article.

[clongton]

Congressionally funding government programs is a 3-step process:

1. AUTHORIZATION: The House of Representatives authorizes a certain amount of money for the Senate to spend to fund a government program.
2. APPROPRIATION: The Senate appropriates the money to fund the program. If the amounts are in agreement, then that amount goes to the President for his signature.
3. RECONCILIATION: If the amounts are different, then the House and the Senate perform a negotiation to reach an agreed amount to spend. If there is no agreement then the program is NOT funded.

The House is like a person going to the bank to request a loan. (I want this much money to do this).
The Senate is like the bank saying:
1. Yes, you can have the money. Then a loan agreement is signed.  - or -
2. No, but I will give you THIS much money instead. Then they negotiate. If the negotiation reaches an agreed amount, then the loan agreement is signed . - or -
3. No, your loan request is denied - period.

If there is no agreement between the two houses of Congress, then the program is NOT funded. That's the way it has always been and, hopefully, the way it will always be.

[Greg Hullender]

Congressionally funding government programs is a 3-step process:

1. AUTHORIZATION: The House of Representatives authorizes a certain amount of money for the Senate to spend to fund a government program.
2. APPROPRIATION: The Senate appropriates the money to fund the program. If the amounts are in agreement, then that amount goes to the President for his signature.
3. RECONCILIATION: If the amounts are different, then the House and the Senate perform a negotiation to reach an agreed amount to spend. If there is no agreement then the program is NOT funded.

The House is like a person going to the bank to request a loan. (I want this much money to do this).
The Senate is like the bank saying:
1. Yes, you can have the money. Then a loan agreement is signed.  - or -
2. No, but I will give you THIS much money instead. Then they negotiate. If the negotiation reaches an agreed amount, then the loan agreement is signed . - or -
3. No, your loan request is denied - period.

If there is no agreement between the two houses of Congress, then the program is NOT funded. That's the way it has always been and, hopefully, the way it will always be.

The Appropriations Process: A Brief Overview gives a good summary of the process. One quibble I'd make with your description: authorizations are separate bills passed by both houses and signed by the president. They're not something issued by the House alone. So are appropriations, although it's true that they won't appropriate anything that hasn't been authorized. Also, a single authorization may serve for many years; each appropriation doesn't require a separate authorization.

[yg1968]

Congressionally funding government programs is a 3-step process:

1. AUTHORIZATION: The House of Representatives authorizes a certain amount of money for the Senate to spend to fund a government program.
2. APPROPRIATION: The Senate appropriates the money to fund the program. If the amounts are in agreement, then that amount goes to the President for his signature.
3. RECONCILIATION: If the amounts are different, then the House and the Senate perform a negotiation to reach an agreed amount to spend. If there is no agreement then the program is NOT funded.

The House is like a person going to the bank to request a loan. (I want this much money to do this).
The Senate is like the bank saying:
1. Yes, you can have the money. Then a loan agreement is signed.  - or -
2. No, but I will give you THIS much money instead. Then they negotiate. If the negotiation reaches an agreed amount, then the loan agreement is signed . - or -
3. No, your loan request is denied - period.

If there is no agreement between the two houses of Congress, then the program is NOT funded. That's the way it has always been and, hopefully, the way it will always be.

The Appropriations Process: A Brief Overview gives a good summary of the process. One quibble I'd make with your description: authorizations are separate bills passed by both houses and signed by the president. They're not something issued by the House alone. So are appropriations, although it's true that they won't appropriate anything that hasn't been authorized. Also, a single authorization may serve for many years; each appropriation doesn't require a separate authorization.

Since we are quibbling, I also wouldn't call the third part, reconciliation as reconciliation is a formal process that is rarely used except for certain very important legislation (e.g., Obamacare and the Trump tax cuts). The advantage of reconciliation is that it only requires a majority of votes in the Senate but the disadvantage is that it takes forever. Instead of reconciliation, the leadership in the Senate and House usually negotiate common Appropriations bills which is an easier process.

[nethegauner_reloaded]

There is some logic in canceling Gateway but I don't think that it will be.

I do not see the logic in cancelling Gateway. I believe it is one of the best parts of the entire Artemis campaign.

[JayWee]

I think HLS gets cancelled along with it unfortunately.  There are just too many small steps to get to a crewed lunar landing at this point.

I also think HLS will be cancelled.

I think the Blue Origin will lander will be used for direct to moon. A fully disposable Starship can send the Blue Origin lander, European Service Module and Orion Capsule all in a single direct flight. Replicates the Apollo concept.

Or New Glenn sends the Blue Origin lander and Starship sends the ESM and Orion capsule. Super Heavy could probably be reusable if it does not need to send the lander.

As others said - HLS is the best part. That said, I'd love to see the smaller BO H2/O2 lander evolved into a lunar hopper - ISRU refuelable for short trips from the main (Starship serviced) base.

[yg1968]

There is some logic in canceling Gateway but I don't think that it will be.

I do not see the logic in cancelling Gateway. I believe it is one of the best parts of the entire Artemis campaign.

Why? Gateway seems unecessary except for the international cooperation part.

[nethegauner_reloaded]

Why? Gateway seems unecessary except for the international cooperation part.

Unnecessary? But in what context? I do not think it is unnecessary.

True, the aspect of continued ISS partnerships around the moon is quite an attractive notion — I love that! However, Gateway does not stop there. I believe in Gateway because it will be a superb science outpost taking advantage of what research can be done in NRHO — and in addition, as a "staging ground" for surface sorties, it will balance access to south polar regions with non-polar destinations. To me, Gateway exemplifies what makes Artemis different from Apollo. I am wildly excited about the prospect of establishing a space station in deep space — even if it is man-tendend "only" (but that will do it!).

To me, in other words, the key to admiring Gateway is looking at the full picture. I find an architecture that deletes Gateway as unattractive as an architecture where You have no foot on the ground. And if Artemis III were the blueprint for the entire campaign, there is not much added value in Artemis, or is there?

Well, even if one doesn't like NRHO, then fine: Gateway can go to other orbits using its xenon-driven electric propulsion subsystem — just sayin'. But I for one do not want to go to another orbit — I am feeling right at home in NRHO!

[yg1968]

I find an architecture that deletes Gateway as unattractive as an architecture where You have no foot on the ground. And if Artemis III were the blueprint for the entire campaign, there is not much added value in Artemis, or is there?

Thanks for your reply. I think that the argument is that your foot on the ground should be on the ground! That is to say, that your outpost should be on the lunar surface, not in orbit.

To the extent that Gateway is not too expensive (and I don't think that it is), I am not against Gateway but I agree with those that say that it isn't really necessary. However, from an international perspective, I think that the benefits of Gateway is that it is a lot easier to get to, for crew and cargo transportation, than lunar orbit would be.

[nethegauner_reloaded]

That is to say, that your outpost should be on the lunar surface, not in orbit.

Thanks for this interesting exchange!

I would like to draw Your attention to Gateway science objectives that cannot be achieved on the lunar ground — which however take full advantage of NRHO. After all, NRHO is a "science-relevant" orbit.

For example, depending on the phase of the orbit in which You are, it will be possible to take measurements either in deep space or in an environment where You are magnetically shielded — that's a big gain, for example, for heliophysics research. But the science campaign on Gateway will also include in situ radiation experiments that should help understand impacts an crew members and hardware (serving the overall Moon-to-Mars goals). These and other investigations will be run using both internal and external facilities — just like on the ISS. On top, there will be various technology demonstrations including firsts like in-space xenon refueling.

I have no doubt that at some point there will be surface bases — but right now, we have the Gateway (or soon, that is). Given the benefits of the station, the fact that flight hardware is being assembled (PPE, HALO), and already other modules are past their PDR or about to enter it, I would be heart-broken if this program would fall victim to some political or other turmoil. That would be sad.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Thanks for your reply. I think that the argument is that your foot on the ground should be on the ground! That is to say, that your outpost should be on the lunar surface, not in orbit.

To the extent that Gateway is not too expensive (and I don't think that it is), I am not against Gateway but I agree with those that say that it isn't really necessary. However, from an international perspective, I think that the benefits of Gateway is that it is a lot easier to get to, for crew and cargo transportation, than lunar orbit would be.

I don't think you can answer this without knowing what the killer app for cislunar space is going to be.  Since we don't know that, it's hard to see whether the Gateway is the node around which a lot of stuff nucleates, whether it's a lunar base, or both.  But without a killer app, cislunar activity, crewed or robotic, seems doomed to me.  So we should assume that something emerges.

My guess is that the lunar surface is the place to refine raw materials, because gravity prevents mining and refining ops from generating megatonnes of orbital debris, but some kind of space station is the place to manufacture or assemble stuff that comes up from the surface.

Lunar propellant depot?  Interplanetary mission marshaling point?  Solar power satellite assembly facility?  Specialty manufacturing?  Pure science research station?  Tourist destination?  Logistics transfer station?  Deep space network comms hub?  Contested military operations hub?  All of these will have different requirements for both the cislunar component and the surface component(s).

As far as Artemis goes, I think its job is to have enough infrastructure in both places that the people dreaming up killer apps can reduce their capitalization to the point where private investment can take the ball and run with it.  That ought to be what guides the build-out of both the Gateway and the surface.  I'm kinda biased toward the surface ops, but that's just a hunch.