NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[TheRadicalModerate]

Anyway, that was the situation when CxP was canned in 2010. To prevent outright cancellation of Orion in the years afterwards, NASA brought ESA into the game in late 2011. They handed the Orion service module to them. That is, they handed the specifications of the Orion 606 / 607 service module to ESA, and told ESA: "build us something that meets those specs". Mind you, those 606 / 607 specs were for the anemic Orion that exists today.

I couldn't find the specs for 607, but this article from 2007 says that 606 was targeted to have a GLOW of 28.9t, of which 22.4t was CM+ESM+prop+SCA. 

Stop right there please. The mass figure for CM+SM(not ESM, which didn't exist back then)+prop+SCA, which you assign to the 606 configuration, are not actually mentioned in that article.
The mass break-down figures in that article are for the earlier 605 configuration, and you cannot derive the 606 mass break-down figures from them.
Read the article again please:

The actual 605 design masses are 6,579kg for the launch abort system 10,202kg for the crew module 4,045kg for a dry service module 9,186kg of propellant and 650kg for the spacecraft adaptor. The 605 Orion's GLOW is 30,664kg.

So,

- 605 GLOW: 30.66 metric tons
- 605 LAS: 6.58 metric tons
- 605 CM: 10.20 metric tons
- 605 SM (dry): 4.05 metric tons
- 605 Prop load: 9.19 metric tons
- 605 Spacecraft adaptor: 0.65 metric tons.

How did you get to your mass break-down figures for the 606 configuration? The only mass number mentioned in that article, for the 606 configuration, is the GLOW (28.93 metric tons).

I did indeed cheat by taking the 606 GLOW and subtracting the 605 LAS mass from it.  Seems unlikely that the LAS changed radically between 605 and 606.  However, I realized I should have also reduced it by about 400kg, to account for the ESM fairings. So the real 606 mass to TLI should be 22.0t.

So, let’s review:

- I argued that Orion was as heavy as it could be and still be launched on SLS.

- You argued that was ahistorical, and the ESM was implemented to 606 specs.

- I showed that total Orion mass increased substantially after the ESM contract was executed, and was right up against Block 1’s mass to TLI limit.

- You argued that my numbers were wrong.

- If anything, the part of the 606 that separated after TLI was even lighter than I estimated.

If you went solely by GLOW, the 606 was targeted for 28.9t. The Arty 2 Orion has a GLOW of 35.5t, almost 7t heavier. So it’s almost impossible that the ESM was built off of 606 specs. It was designed to take maximum advantage of Block 1.

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Discussion shall remain on-topic.

[yg1968]

And this was perfectly fine, since until the very final months of the Obama administration, it was not permitted to consider a landing on the Moon — as President Obama himself put it, “I just have to say pretty bluntly — we’ve been there before.”

Obama in general was not interested in NASA and particularly he was not interested in returning to the Moon (or going to Mars). Both Obama administrations had other priorities; NASA was the least of their worries. And that was IMO, in hindsight, actually a good thing. Without a "nosey" president around it had the benefit of the President not paying attention to "senators and House representatives" complaining about changes happening at NASA. So when those changes came (Firm Fixed Price Contracts and a new way of doing things like COTS, CRS and Commercial Crew), they were not hindered by the President paying attention. Both Obama administrations simply didn't care, which gave higher-up management at NASA somewhat of a free hand to enact "change".

Having a President or a Vice-President that cares about space makes a huge difference. That is one of the reasons that Bolden accomplished very little (other than commercial crew) whereas Bridenstine accomplished a lot more.

Enlighten us. Except for the Artemis Accords (which is a paper tiger given that neither Russia, nor China have bothered to sign them)... what was the "a lot more" that Bridenstine accomplished?
Be specific please. Thank you.

CLPS, HLS, the Commercial LEO Destinations program, private ISS missions were all initiated during that time. PPE and HALO contracts were also awarded during that time.

I disagree that the Artemis Accords are a paper tiger. It would have been surprising if China and Russia had signed them but 60 countries have now signed them.

P.S. Having said that, Commercial crew was a very big accomplishment during the Obama Administration. I don't want to minimize that as its success made the HLS program possible.

[woods170]

Maybe the misconception arises in part, because in exchange for supplying the ESM, ESA was released from ISS resupply commitments (actually a clever move on NASA's part: shifting Orion expenses to ISS and creating more demand for commercial cargo).

You just voiced another misconception. ESA was not released from ISS resupply commitments, in exchange for supplying the ESM.

What happened was this: ESA never had any ISS resupply commitments whatsoever.

What ESA DID HAVE was an obligation to offset its use of the ISS by supplying to-be-determined services, materials and goods in support of the ISS program. That's called bartering.

After negotiations took place between ESA and the other ISS partners, an initial agreement was reached in 1995 where ESA would fly no less than five cargo delivery missions to the ISS, in exchange for ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS until (but not including) 2016.
There was an option for flying a sixth cargo delivery mission, in exchange for extending ESA astronaut crew time to (but not including) 2020. But in 2010 ESA decided not to make use of that option. ESA however did not publically announce that decision until April 2012. Anyone who had paid attention to the ESA Ministerial Council of 2008 (in The Hague) however, knew that termination of ATV (after flight five) was coming. So when the actual decision was made two years later, at the ministerial level meeting, nobody who was paying attention was surprised. Neither was I, because I was one of those people paying attention.

In the mean time the international partners had agreed to keep using the ISS to well beyond 2016. Which created the situation where ESA would have to seek a new barter for continued ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS. Several options were looked into, including one where ESA would deliver an additional module for the ISS, which had originally been canceled: the much fabled but never completed Habitation Module (HAB). Other options that were looked into would see ESA deliver addtional research facilities and instruments.

Shortly after ESA had decided NOT to fly a sixth ATV mission, NASA's Constellation Program was canceled by the first Obama administration. The result was that the Orion program was put on hold, right at the time that main contractor Lockheed-Martin was trying to wrap-up the design-trade phase for the Orion Service Module. Orion went into limbo for several months, before it was officially reinstated through the NASA authorization act of 2010.

But there was a catch: the budget for Orion had taken a hit, meaning that stuff would have to be delayed. NASA also understood that under the Obama administration, Orion would NOT be facing a certain future. Which led to NASA to deploy a tool they had used before to make programs "cancelation-resistant": include international partners.

So, in early 2011, NASA and the U.S. State Department approached ESA with a bold idea: ESA should provide Orion with a European-developed service module, in exchange for continued ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS until 2021.
ESA, which was still looking for ways to fulfill their barter commitments, jumped at the idea offered by NASA.

And so it happened: in January 2013 NASA and ESA formally struck a deal wherein ESA would supply one (1) flight service module for Orion, in exchange for continued ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS until 2021. Three years later, in 2016, this barter arrangement was expanded to include a second ESM to be supplied to NASA, in exchange for ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS until 2024. Another two years later, the barter arrangement was expanded yet again: ESA would supply a third ESM, in exchange for ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS until 2028.

Next in 2020, ESA and NASA entered into a parallel barter agreement in which ESA would supply a fourt and a fifth ESM for Orion, in exchange for three flights of European astronauts to the Lunar Gateway.

And then finally in 2021, the ISS barter arrangement was expanded yet one more time: ESA would supply a sixth ESM for Orion, in exchange for ESA astronaut crew time on the ISS until 2030.


OK, so that was a long story, but the main point is that ESA had barter commitments. But none of those ever said that ESA had "cargo supply" commitments.
Supplying cargo was only one of many possible ways to fulfill ESA's ISS barter commitments. And in fact, the vast majority of ESA's barter agreements for the ISS do not involve "cargo supply" at all: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/ESA_s_International_Space_Station_barter_agreements

So, there never was a case of "releasing ESA of ISS cargo supply commitments in exchange for delivering service modules for Orion". It's a misconception.

[StraumliBlight]

KASA: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration continues to collaborate with the United States on lunar exploration. [Dec 17, translated]

The Korea Aerospace Research Institute is continuing consultations with the United States through various channels* to link Korea's space exploration plan with the U.S. Artemis plan.
* 'Artemis Research Agreement (October 24)', 'KASA-NASA Cooperation Area Proposal (February 25), '4th Korea-U.S. Civilian Space Dialogue (April 25)', 'Republic of Korea Space Science Exploration Roadmap Sharing Meeting (August 25)', etc.

From the planning stage, Korea's space science exploration roadmap and lunar exploration plan considered linkages with the Artemis program.
Furthermore, Korea plans to participate in the Artemis International Lunar Base Construction Project, fully leveraging its strengths in mobility, communications, and power technologies.

[yg1968]

OK, so that was a long story, but the main point is that ESA had barter commitments. But none of those ever said that ESA had "cargo supply" commitments.
Supplying cargo was only one of many possible ways to fulfill ESA's ISS barter commitments. And in fact, the vast majority of ESA's barter agreements for the ISS do not involve "cargo supply" at all: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/ESA_s_International_Space_Station_barter_agreements

So, there never was a case of "releasing ESA of ISS cargo supply commitments in exchange for delivering service modules for Orion". It's a misconception.

Thanks for the informative post. Either way, ESA made a mistake by not continuing ATV and getting ESA involved in the Orion service module was also a mistake by both NASA and ESA. I remember at the time, I believe that Gerst and others at NASA even admitted that the ESA cooperation for the Orion SM would make Orion much harder to cancel which was seen as a good thing.

[woods170]

OK, so that was a long story, but the main point is that ESA had barter commitments. But none of those ever said that ESA had "cargo supply" commitments.
Supplying cargo was only one of many possible ways to fulfill ESA's ISS barter commitments. And in fact, the vast majority of ESA's barter agreements for the ISS do not involve "cargo supply" at all: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/ESA_s_International_Space_Station_barter_agreements

So, there never was a case of "releasing ESA of ISS cargo supply commitments in exchange for delivering service modules for Orion". It's a misconception.

Thanks for the informative post. Either way, ESA made a mistake by not continuing ATV and getting ESA involved in the Orion service module was also a mistake by both NASA and ESA. I remember at the time, I believe that Gerst and others at NASA even admitted that the ESA cooperation for the Orion SM would make Orion much harder to cancel which was seen as a good thing.

Making Orion harder to cancel was THE reason why NASA brought in ESA to deliver the service module.

In fact, this action side-tracked the LockMart efforts for the Orion service module. NASA paid LockMart an undisclosed sum of money to reimburse LockMart for missed service module profits.

However, LockMart remained the main contractor for the entire Orion vehicle. It's Airbus Defence & Space, in its role as ESM main contractor, that formally delivers the ESM to the Orion main contractor: Lockheed-Martin.
Seen from the perspective of LockMart, Airbus Defence & Space is a sub-contractor, on the hook to supply the ESM.
The role of ESA is similar to that of NASA: ESA pays for development and construction of the ESMs. NASA pays for development and construction of all other elements of Orion.

[thespacecow]

The usual suspects are still trying to give a lander contract to Lockheed Martin:

The U.S. race to the moon: Why Plan B cannot wait

To Win New Moon Race, U.S. Could Launch National Emergency Campaign

The 2nd op-ed is hilariously over the top, but we did get to hear from LM's Chief Architect for Human Exploration what we've known all along: They can't guarantee a LM lander would be able to beat China to the Moon:

Over the course of a sweeping interview, I asked Tim Cichan if this improvised Moon racer could be launched in time to beat Chinese explorers to the lunar version of Antarctica.

“That is a difficult challenge," he says, but quickly adds: "We could.”

“It would depend on how the [NASA] program was set up, with the focus on speed."

“You know it would need to be a national emergency kind of program, but there’s a chance.”

So we're suppose to hand over tens of billions of dollars just for "a chance"? No deal.

[hektor]

The objective is now officially 2028

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Launches a New Age of American Space Achievement

The Order calls for Americans’ return to the Moon by 2028, and the establishment of initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030.

The Order directs the deployment of nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit, including a lunar surface reactor ready for launch by 2030.

[catdlr]

The objective is now officially 2028

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Launches a New Age of American Space Achievement

The Order calls for Americans’ return to the Moon by 2028, and the establishment of initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030.

Warning: The Order directs the deployment of nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit, including a lunar surface reactor ready for launch by 2030.

A dedicated thread was created for discussion on this Executive Order:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=64068.msg2744534#msg2744534

Keep this thread free of this and pointed to Artemis' discussion.  Any deviation (non-technical) will be moved to that thread.

[hektor]

Why would you think he would get rid of Orion, he does not even says that in the Athena report, which is probably the limit of what he would consider doing.

[Proponent]

How would you rank these five goals in order of plausibility of realization:

    1. In 2011, SLS and Orion having "initial operational capability" to LEO by 2016 (implying at least one earlier test flight);

    2. In early 2017, flying a crewed circumlunar mission (Artemis II) by 2019;

    3. As of early 2019, a crewed lunar landing (Artemis III) by 2028;

    4. In 2019, a lunar landing by 2024;

    5. In late 2025, a lunar landing by 2028?

[yg1968]

Why would you think he would get rid of Orion, he does not even says that in the Athena report, which is probably the limit of what he would consider doing.

In the Athena report, Isaacman mentions that perhaps Orion could be used with New Glenn. Ideally, you would ask companies to decide what proposal that they want to make. LM could offer Orion on a commercial rocket as a BLEO commercial crew transportation system.

[DanClemmensen]

How would you rank these five goals in order of plausibility of realization:

    1. In 2011, SLS and Orion having "initial operational capability" to LEO by 2016 (implying at least one earlier test flight);

    2. In early 2017, flying a crewed circumlunar mission (Artemis II) by 2019;

    3. As of early 2019, a crewed lunar landing (Artemis III) by 2028;

    4. In 2019, a lunar landing by 2024;

    5. In late 2025, a lunar landing by 2028?

#5 has higher plausibility than #3. The contract for a lunar lander was awarded in April 2021. Any landing projection prior to an actual contract award has low plausibility. Using the generally-infallible retrospectoscope, #1, #2 and #4 are implausible.

Can SpaceX complete development of Tanker/Depot/HLS before mid-2028 and fly the uncrewed demo mission? I think it's plausible, but plausible is a squishy concept. That's about 30 months, and likely not more than about 40 total Starship flights to complete the development of the three Ship variants.

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:
Wow 👌 👏
Someone (else) deleted 17 space policy or political posts from this thread.  Why?  Because this isn't Space Policy Discussion, or because the posts were general politics, which isn't allowed on this forum.

[thespacecow]

Why would you think he would get rid of Orion, he does not even says that in the Athena report, which is probably the limit of what he would consider doing.

Because President's Budget Request proposed cancelling Orion after Artemis III.

[thespacecow]

Jared Isaacman clarifies "establish an enduring presence" aka the "permanent lunar outpost" in the EO means a lunar base:

https://x.com/mmealling/status/2004993398672093290

@rookisaacman Can you please describe what "an enduring presence" looks like? Most Americans don't understand what that means.

https://x.com/NASAAdmin/status/2005017621746590205

We are going to build a Moon base

[catdlr]

Why would you think he would get rid of Orion, he does not even says that in the Athena report, which is probably the limit of what he would consider doing.

Because the President's Budget Request proposed cancelling Orion after Artemis III.

Is SpaceX extensively engaged in contributing to this (Artemis IV and beyond) with its own launch vehicle (LV)? Is the relocation of Falcon 9 (F9) from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) perhaps part of a plan to modify it for F9H permanent usage?

This video clip may be a speculative hint. You did not see this.

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxn2eyk3kJM2tRKsYBBrZKQXrEW8noxs7w?si=acbHBPmdAVoAdHb4

[TheRadicalModerate]

Is SpaceX extensively engaged in contributing to this (Artemis IV and beyond) with its own launch vehicle (LV)? Is the relocation of Falcon 9 (F9) from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) perhaps part of a plan to modify it for F9H permanent usage?

This video clip may be a speculative hint. You did not see this.

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxn2eyk3kJM2tRKsYBBrZKQXrEW8noxs7w?si=acbHBPmdAVoAdHb4

PAFs don't work for Orion, or any other capsule.  They attach things inside the fairing, which would defeat Orion's escape capabilities.

Since it's been long enough since Ted Cruz made me depressed, I do think it's likely we'll see a Cislunar Commercial Crew Transport BAA sometime in the not-too-distant future, with at least SpaceX and Blue bidding on it.  SpaceX can bid the D2+HLS combo we've talked about ad nauseam, and Blue can bid... something.

Up until the advent of New Glenn 9x4, I expected Blue to launch a crewed Orion (bought from LockMart or provided as government-furnished equipment) on the 7x2, then dock a cislunar transport to haul the Orion, eyeballs-out, to TLI, and possibly through LOI, which would allow the Orion to be used in LLO.

However, with 9x4, you could launch the Orion and a TLI kick-stage, and get the thing directly to NRHO, no RPODs with CTs required.  Then everything is eyeballs-in, as God and LockMart intended.  But you can't get to LLO with this conops.

[StraumliBlight]

Up until the advent of New Glenn 9x4, I expected Blue to launch a crewed Orion (bought from LockMart or provided as government-furnished equipment) on the 7x2, then dock a cislunar transport to haul the Orion, eyeballs-out, to TLI, and possibly through LOI, which would allow the Orion to be used in LLO.

However, with 9x4, you could launch the Orion and a TLI kick-stage, and get the thing directly to NRHO, no RPODs with CTs required.  Then everything is eyeballs-in, as God and LockMart intended.  But you can't get to LLO with this conops.

Interview with Tony Byers (Director of Orion Commercial Services at Lockheed)

“We launch Orion on one commercial launch vehicle, and then we launch an in-space transfer stage or a kick stage or boost stage on a separate launch vehicle.”
“They mate in low Earth orbit and that transfer stage does the translunar injection burn that pushes us to the Moon.”
“There are upper stages that are currently available on the market that could be easily modified to support this mission,” he says, “and then we are also exploring a Lockheed Martin variant.”

He says he was impressed by Blue Origin’s recent picture-perfect launch of its New Glenn booster: “We’re absolutely open to working with Blue Origin and exploring the New Glenn.”