QuoteA (brilliant, maximally dedicated) Artemis engineer or program person will have one (1) beer at happy hour and confess a DEEP lack of confidence that we can even come close to pulling this off (16 superheavy lift launches to get 4 people to the moon, gateway, SLS, HLS, all of it)
A (brilliant, maximally dedicated) Artemis engineer or program person will have one (1) beer at happy hour and confess a DEEP lack of confidence that we can even come close to pulling this off (16 superheavy lift launches to get 4 people to the moon, gateway, SLS, HLS, all of it)
Quote from: thespacecow on 07/23/2024 02:14 amQuoteA (brilliant, maximally dedicated) Artemis engineer or program person will have one (1) beer at happy hour and confess a DEEP lack of confidence that we can even come close to pulling this off (16 superheavy lift launches to get 4 people to the moon, gateway, SLS, HLS, all of it)I interpret this to mean that the engineer is looking at the success probabilities of all of the different pieces of multiplying them together. Of course, each engineer thinks their own piece will work just fine but the the other ten pieces each with a 90% success chance gives you .9^10=35% chance of Artemis success.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/23/2024 08:25 pmQuote from: thespacecow on 07/23/2024 02:14 amQuoteA (brilliant, maximally dedicated) Artemis engineer or program person will have one (1) beer at happy hour and confess a DEEP lack of confidence that we can even come close to pulling this off (16 superheavy lift launches to get 4 people to the moon, gateway, SLS, HLS, all of it)I interpret this to mean that the engineer is looking at the success probabilities of all of the different pieces of multiplying them together. Of course, each engineer thinks their own piece will work just fine but the the other ten pieces each with a 90% success chance gives you .9^10=35% chance of Artemis success.If that's how they calculated probability for distributed launch, then they're a brilliant engineer who failed statistics... or doesn't understand distributed launch.
NASA says it can no longer afford to fund Chandra at the levels it has since the telescope launched in 1999. The agency has a diminished budget for science missions this year, and the reductions may continue next year due to government spending caps in a deal reached between Congress and the Biden administration last year to suspend the federal debt ceiling.Congress and the White House have prioritized funding for NASA's human spaceflight programs, primarily the rockets, spacecraft, landers, spacesuits, and rovers needed for the Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon. Meanwhile, the funding level for NASA's science mission directorate has dropped.
An article on Ars Technica:“Not a bluff”—NASA’s budget would shut down long-lived Chandra telescope | Ars TechnicaRelevant quote:QuoteNASA says it can no longer afford to fund Chandra at the levels it has since the telescope launched in 1999. The agency has a diminished budget for science missions this year, and the reductions may continue next year due to government spending caps in a deal reached between Congress and the Biden administration last year to suspend the federal debt ceiling.Congress and the White House have prioritized funding for NASA's human spaceflight programs, primarily the rockets, spacecraft, landers, spacesuits, and rovers needed for the Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon. Meanwhile, the funding level for NASA's science mission directorate has dropped.So instead of trying to figure out how to address the big cost drivers for Artemis, they will just shrug, and eliminate science programs that are already operational and successful. Shades of what happened with the Constellation program prior to it being cancelled, when then NASA Administrator Michael Griffin raided science program budgets in order to cover for huge cost overruns on the Ares I/V and Orion CEV programs.
Quote from: page 163 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf
The Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.
The Senate is getting impatient with the cost of SLS! It seems to even suggest that NASA should perhaps start looking at commercial launch options! I am not joking, read the Senate CJS's Appropriations report below:Quote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 03:18 amQuote from: page 163 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 03:25 amThe Senate is getting impatient with the cost of SLS! It seems to even suggest that NASA should perhaps start looking at commercial launch options! I am not joking, read the Senate CJS's Appropriations report below:Quote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 03:18 amQuote from: page 163 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdfand an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy. Has NASA been considering this internally and preparing to explain this is the question. I suspect they have and that they may have some decent options laid out. I think key people in NASA do understand how unsustainable in just cost alone SLS is. "
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/25/2024 11:25 pmArtemis isn't to blame. This wouldn't have happened under Bridenstine. Agree that Bridenstine provided better leadership than Nelson, especially once the lunar return goal was accelerated to 2024.But the priorities of a program have to be set up to survive changes in leadership. VIPER or lunar ice or ISRU is not a clear, driving priority for Artemis so it’s falling between the cracks. The funding and management priorities remain Orion/SLS, doing something with allies at Gateway, and getting a few astronauts to show the flag on the lunar surface with the help of a couple badillionaires towards the end of the decade.
Artemis isn't to blame. This wouldn't have happened under Bridenstine.
Maybe enough of the legislative branch will start to unwind NASA from duplicating commercial capabilities wrt heavy lift launch. Hopefully the old Primes don't have quite the congressional bullying power they once did and we can have an orderly transition to Starship & New Glenn towards the end of the 2020s.
Maybe enough of the legislative branch will start to unwind NASA from duplicating commercial capabilities wrt heavy lift launch.
What difference does it make if Bezos and Musk are billionaires?
I’d just caution that any single appropriator or their staffer could have inserted this language. It probably represents one congress-critter’s passing interest, not any change in the viewpoint of a majority or even group of appropriators on this subcommittee. Heck, the issue could even have been raised by an SLS appropriator on the assumption that the institutional NASA response will be to put the kibosh on alternate heavy lifters.What could be telling from the executive side is how NASA responds. Does NASA pose alternate architectures and/or articulate potential savings? Or is the NASA response a boilerplate defense of SLS as good enough for the foreseeable future? The timing could be interesting with respect to the change in the White House. NASA’s response will have to go through OMB review. Depending on the exact timing, if the response is more along the lines of the former than the latter, it _could_ be an indication that the new administration wants to revisit SLS and/or Artemis.
The point is that Artemis can’t afford to develop crew landers on its own. Orion/SLS suck up too much of the budget, and multiple Administrations and Congresses have not provided the kind of budget increase needed to fully pay for Orion/SLS and a crew lander.It’s stating a fact. The nation’s flagship civil space effort to return astronauts to the Moon is subsidized by a couple badillionaires. Artemis would have no way to get boots on the lunar surface without their monetary support. Any judgement that you read into that statement of fact is your own. I did not intend any.
One thing that isn't mentioned in the Report is the cost of Orion. Does that mean that the Senate thinks that NASA should eventually launch Orion on a commercial rocket?Is Orion on New Glenn or FH a possibility?
For instance, what are the optics when Starship is sent to Mars while SLS spends 6 months just being stacked inside the VAB? It all becomes an untenable situation.
