NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[TheRadicalModerate]

If NASA rejects crewed EDL Starship in favor of SLS/Orion after that, we have no hope of a viable long-term Artemis, or any other rational decisions from NASA.

If they reject crewed EDL Starship in favor of D2+HLS and whatever Blue puts together, long-term Artemis will be viable just fine.  As you said, even with the expense of tying up a second D2, the system is still about 25% the cost of SLS/Orion.

That is probably a rational decision, a lot safer than SLS/Orion+HLS. The irrational decision is a different case, where they declare EDL Starship to be unsafe because it has only launched 40 times while SLS/Orion is safe because it has launched four times.

SLS/Orion has a PRA model that hasn’t changed since the 60’s, populated with a lot of subsystems that haven’t changed since the 70’s. Starship… doesn’t.  PRA is the one area where the legacy flight systems argument actually makes sense.

[DanClemmensen]

If NASA rejects crewed EDL Starship in favor of SLS/Orion after that, we have no hope of a viable long-term Artemis, or any other rational decisions from NASA.

If they reject crewed EDL Starship in favor of D2+HLS and whatever Blue puts together, long-term Artemis will be viable just fine.  As you said, even with the expense of tying up a second D2, the system is still about 25% the cost of SLS/Orion.

That is probably a rational decision, a lot safer than SLS/Orion+HLS. The irrational decision is a different case, where they declare EDL Starship to be unsafe because it has only launched 40 times while SLS/Orion is safe because it has launched four times.

SLS/Orion has a PRA model that hasn’t changed since the 60’s, populated with a lot of subsystems that haven’t changed since the 70’s. Starship… doesn’t.  PRA is the one area where the legacy flight systems argument actually makes sense.

I'm an amateur outsider: What is "PRA"? Does it apply to the Orion heat shield, which has never flown twice the same way?

[Robotbeat]

If NASA rejects crewed EDL Starship in favor of SLS/Orion after that, we have no hope of a viable long-term Artemis, or any other rational decisions from NASA.

If they reject crewed EDL Starship in favor of D2+HLS and whatever Blue puts together, long-term Artemis will be viable just fine.  As you said, even with the expense of tying up a second D2, the system is still about 25% the cost of SLS/Orion.

That is probably a rational decision, a lot safer than SLS/Orion+HLS. The irrational decision is a different case, where they declare EDL Starship to be unsafe because it has only launched 40 times while SLS/Orion is safe because it has launched four times.

SLS/Orion has a PRA model that hasn’t changed since the 60’s, populated with a lot of subsystems that haven’t changed since the 70’s. Starship… doesn’t.  PRA is the one area where the legacy flight systems argument actually makes sense.

There wasn’t proper Probabilistic Risk Assessment until after Shuttle was developed. It didn’t exist in the modern form in Apollo.

[sdsds]

I'm hoping that as the Artemis II countdown clock approaches T-0 we can enter a voluntary "quiet period" on discussion of crew risk and simply wish them 'Godspeed!'

We'll have a whole lot more data after the mission ends.

[Vultur]

If NASA rejects crewed EDL Starship in favor of SLS/Orion after that, we have no hope of a viable long-term Artemis, or any other rational decisions from NASA.

If they reject crewed EDL Starship in favor of D2+HLS and whatever Blue puts together, long-term Artemis will be viable just fine.  As you said, even with the expense of tying up a second D2, the system is still about 25% the cost of SLS/Orion.

That is probably a rational decision, a lot safer than SLS/Orion+HLS. The irrational decision is a different case, where they declare EDL Starship to be unsafe because it has only launched 40 times while SLS/Orion is safe because it has launched four times.

I wouldn't think it was a crazy decision in that case, due to the different development modes.

But if Starship has only launched 40 times by SLS's fourth launch, something has gone badly wrong. I doubt Artemis IV is sooner than 2030, and Starship is currently at 11 launches.

I think I'm fairly pessimistic about Starship cadence increase, and I still wouldn't guess that low. Even if this year is slow and problematic, I think 2027 and on will see a pretty dramatic increase with multiple pads available.

[DanClemmensen]

If NASA rejects crewed EDL Starship in favor of SLS/Orion after that, we have no hope of a viable long-term Artemis, or any other rational decisions from NASA.

If they reject crewed EDL Starship in favor of D2+HLS and whatever Blue puts together, long-term Artemis will be viable just fine.  As you said, even with the expense of tying up a second D2, the system is still about 25% the cost of SLS/Orion.

That is probably a rational decision, a lot safer than SLS/Orion+HLS. The irrational decision is a different case, where they declare EDL Starship to be unsafe because it has only launched 40 times while SLS/Orion is safe because it has launched four times.

I wouldn't think it was a crazy decision in that case, due to the different development modes.

But if Starship has only launched 40 times by SLS's fourth launch, something has gone badly wrong. I doubt Artemis IV is sooner than 2030, and Starship is currently at 11 launches.

Sorry, I misstated this. For a fair comparison, we need 40 successful landings, not just launches. But like you I expect that to happen by then.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I'm an amateur outsider: What is "PRA"? Does it apply to the Orion heat shield, which has never flown twice the same way?

I'm an amateur outsider, too.  PRA = probabilistic risk assessment.  Develop a failure tree, assign probabilities of failure to each node, and then monte carlo the bejeezus out of it.  The sticky part is making the topology of the tree reflect a decent representation of reality, complete with dependent failures and plain ol' failures of imagination.

There wasn’t proper Probabilistic Risk Assessment until after Shuttle was developed. It didn’t exist in the modern form in Apollo.

Not in modern form, no.  But certainly all the folklore and institutional wisdom existed during Apollo, which in turn had been informed by Mercury, Gemini, and Voskhod and Soyuz.  The point is that we understand capsules with escape systems and parachutes really, really well.  But very little of that applies to Starship.

[Vultur]

If NASA rejects crewed EDL Starship in favor of SLS/Orion after that, we have no hope of a viable long-term Artemis, or any other rational decisions from NASA.

If they reject crewed EDL Starship in favor of D2+HLS and whatever Blue puts together, long-term Artemis will be viable just fine.  As you said, even with the expense of tying up a second D2, the system is still about 25% the cost of SLS/Orion.

That is probably a rational decision, a lot safer than SLS/Orion+HLS. The irrational decision is a different case, where they declare EDL Starship to be unsafe because it has only launched 40 times while SLS/Orion is safe because it has launched four times.

I wouldn't think it was a crazy decision in that case, due to the different development modes.

But if Starship has only launched 40 times by SLS's fourth launch, something has gone badly wrong. I doubt Artemis IV is sooner than 2030, and Starship is currently at 11 launches.

Sorry, I misstated this. For a fair comparison, we need 40 successful landings, not just launches. But like you I expect that to happen by then.

Also, given that the idea seems to be major investment in manufacturing & GSE capacity, the rate will probably increase quickly. Not nearly as quickly as Elon Musk hopes, IMO, but still... If 40 isn't enough, the time gap from 40 to 80 will probably not be large, the gap from 80 to 120 even smaller, etc.

Unless something really major interferes.

[thespacecow]

Confirmation of a funding wedge in the budget which could be used for commercial Mars (or commercial Moon): https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-faces-a-crucial-choice-on-a-mars-spacecraft-and-it-must-decide-soon/

Even so, sources said Isaacman has yet to decide whether the orbiter should include scientific instruments. NASA could also tap into other funding in its fiscal year 2026 budget, which included $110 million for unspecified “Mars Future Missions,” as well as a large wedge of funding that could potentially be used to support a Mars commercial payload delivery program.

[thespacecow]

Regarding the accelerated HLS plans: https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-halts-new-shepard-flights/

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said Jan. 30 that the agency is prepared to support those efforts. “We are going to do everything we can to enable the acceleration plans that were submitted by both HLS providers,” he said in an interview with SpaceNews.

“We are willing to rethink a lot of our requirements in order to achieve the objective on time,” he said. “We are willing to make available any resources and expertise that we have in order to better set those missions up for success.

Asked about the acceleration plans during a Jan. 17 news conference tied to the Artemis 2 rollout, Isaacman praised both companies’ proposals without providing details.

“These are both very good plans. I would say they both reduce technical risk from where we were before,” he said. He added that a key factor will be increased launch rates to demonstrate technologies such as in-space propellant transfer, which is critical for both the Blue Moon Mark 2 lander and SpaceX’s Starship.

“So, I’d say if we’re on track, we should be watching an awful lot of New Glenns and Starships launch in the years ahead.”

[yg1968]

Scott Pace says that NASA's should use commercial options to replace SLS:

https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/2018120751002386889

[yg1968]

Confirmation of a funding wedge in the budget which could be used for commercial Mars (or commercial Moon): https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-faces-a-crucial-choice-on-a-mars-spacecraft-and-it-must-decide-soon/

Even so, sources said Isaacman has yet to decide whether the orbiter should include scientific instruments. NASA could also tap into other funding in its fiscal year 2026 budget, which included $110 million for unspecified “Mars Future Missions,” as well as a large wedge of funding that could potentially be used to support a Mars commercial payload delivery program.

I saw that. I hope that Isaacman does make the telecom orbiter mission part of a Mars equivalent to CLPS (CMPS).

[Coastal Ron]

Confirmation of a funding wedge in the budget which could be used for commercial Mars (or commercial Moon): https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-faces-a-crucial-choice-on-a-mars-spacecraft-and-it-must-decide-soon/

Even so, sources said Isaacman has yet to decide whether the orbiter should include scientific instruments. NASA could also tap into other funding in its fiscal year 2026 budget, which included $110 million for unspecified “Mars Future Missions,” as well as a large wedge of funding that could potentially be used to support a Mars commercial payload delivery program.

I saw that. I hope that Isaacman does make the telecom orbiter mission part of a Mars equivalent to CLPS (CMPS).

It is clear from the article that the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (MTO) is to support current missions, and ANY future missions.

Oh, and the only thing related to a Mars CLPS is that Isaacman could make a justification for taking funding AWAY from such a specific effort in order to help fund science oriented payloads on a possible MTO.

So no, this is nothing to do with current Artemis, or some Mars version of it.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I saw that. I hope that Isaacman does make the telecom orbiter mission part of a Mars equivalent to CLPS (CMPS).

If they're issuing JOFOCs (even for a few minutes before they scrub it off the website--oops), then they really, really can't modify the appropriation for anything other than what the appropriations language specifies.

CMPS will have to wait for another day.  And I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to go straight to the martian equivalent of HDL.

[yg1968]

Confirmation of a funding wedge in the budget which could be used for commercial Mars (or commercial Moon): https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-faces-a-crucial-choice-on-a-mars-spacecraft-and-it-must-decide-soon/

Even so, sources said Isaacman has yet to decide whether the orbiter should include scientific instruments. NASA could also tap into other funding in its fiscal year 2026 budget, which included $110 million for unspecified “Mars Future Missions,” as well as a large wedge of funding that could potentially be used to support a Mars commercial payload delivery program.

I saw that. I hope that Isaacman does make the telecom orbiter mission part of a Mars equivalent to CLPS (CMPS).

It is clear from the article that the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (MTO) is to support current missions, and ANY future missions.

Oh, and the only thing related to a Mars CLPS is that Isaacman could make a justification for taking funding AWAY from such a specific effort in order to help fund science oriented payloads on a possible MTO.

So no, this is nothing to do with current Artemis, or some Mars version of it.

I know the article doesn't say that but CLPS was born to give Resource Prospector (which later became VIPER), a ride to the Moon. So I am hoping that they could do the same for the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (i.e., make it part of CMPS). MTO obviously isn't going to the surface, so that may not work.

In any event, it does confirm what I was saying about CMPS, being funded in the FY26 CJS appropriations bill.

[yg1968]

CMPS will have to wait for another day.  And I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to go straight to the martian equivalent of HDL.

That is possible and I am OK with either Mars-HDL or CMPS. But I think that Isaacman should still try to start one of these programs this fiscal year. 

[TheRadicalModerate]

CMPS will have to wait for another day.  And I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to go straight to the martian equivalent of HDL.

That is possible and I am OK with either Mars-HDL or CMPS. But I think that Isaacman should still try to start one of these programs this fiscal year.

I would much prefer that Isaacman dealt with a cislunar commercial crew program before setting up Mars programs.

[yg1968]

CMPS will have to wait for another day.  And I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to go straight to the martian equivalent of HDL.

That is possible and I am OK with either Mars-HDL or CMPS. But I think that Isaacman should still try to start one of these programs this fiscal year.

I would much prefer that Isaacman dealt with a cislunar commercial crew program before setting up Mars programs.

I agree but I think that they go hand in hand. I think that SpaceX will have a commercial lunar alternative to SLS and Orion, once that their crewed Starship for Mars is ready. So starting CMPS and/or Mars-HDL program as soon as possible should help in that respect.

[DanClemmensen]

CMPS will have to wait for another day.  And I wouldn't be surprised if NASA decides to go straight to the martian equivalent of HDL.

That is possible and I am OK with either Mars-HDL or CMPS. But I think that Isaacman should still try to start one of these programs this fiscal year.

I would much prefer that Isaacman dealt with a cislunar commercial crew program before setting up Mars programs.

I agree but I think that they go hand in hand. I think that SpaceX will have a commercial lunar alternative to SLS and Orion, once that their crewed Starship for Mars is ready. So starting CMPS and/or Mars-HDL program as soon as possible should help in that respect.

But you can reasonably use Crew Dragon as an interim solution for Earth->LEO and LEO->Earth of an SLS/Orion replacement, even before the EDL crewed Starship is available, so waiting for it keeps NASA wasting money on the inadequate SLS/Orion/Gateway based missions to the Moon.

It's not clear that a NASA CMPS program would cause SpaceX to accelerate development of a Crewed Mars architecture. It might even distort the SpaceX architecture and slow development if NASA's architectural concept differs.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I agree but I think that [CMPS and cislunar commercial crew] go hand in hand. I think that SpaceX will have a commercial lunar alternative to SLS and Orion, once that their crewed Starship for Mars is ready. So starting CMPS and/or Mars-HDL program as soon as possible should help in that respect.

Even if crew-certifying Starship for launch and EDL wasn't going to take a long time,¹ the crew modules used for cislunar commercial crew need to support something like 50 crew-days, while any crewed Mars mission likely needs >6500 crew-days.

Similar arguments can be made for massive increases in mission life requirements for every aspect of a Mars Starship.  The two have almost nothing to do with one another.

__________
¹My bet on the date for Starship launch/EDL crew-certification by NASA:  2033.  I guess it's possible that SpaceX could privately fly crews by 2031, but the consequences of killing a crew on a Starship that NASA wouldn't have certified are too terrible to contemplate, especially once they've gone public.  Elon may not know that, but I'll bet Gwynne does.