NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[DanClemmensen]

With that said: I never admitted that Gateway is useless. I said that Gateway is an "idiocy". The two are NOT mutually exclusive. I'll explain why:

Gateway is IMO an "idiocy" because it is an inefficient "solution" for a problem that should have been fixed in 2010, when CxP was canceled. In the wake of that cancelation the Orion service module should have been upscaled to something that could handle both LOI and TEI. It was the logical thing to do given that a lunar lander doing LOI (like Altair was supposed to) never made any sense and ceased to exist even before CxP was canned.

However, history shows that Orion's service module didn't get upscaled. Instead of taking advantage of the situation to improve Orion, and thus its suitability for a range of possible missions, NASA basically sat on its @ss and did nothing. Which severely reduced to number of missions Orion could be repurposed for. Oh sure, NASA did try to find "suitable" missions for anemic Orion. Remember ARM? We all know how that went.

Anyway... courtesy of the Orion service module remaining anemic NASA was faced with a problem: how to do lunar surface missions with Orion? Well, they came up with a "brilliant" solution: repurpose the Deep Space Habitat as a mini space station in NRHO. So, in a sense, Lunar Gateway is "useful", in that it facilitates crewed missions to the lunar surface. (Starship negating the need for Lunar Gateway was still years off into the future when NASA was confronted with the problem) But despite that "usefulness" it remains a fact that Lunar Gateway was never actually necessary if NASA had had the gonads to take advantage of a fluid situation (in the wake of CxP cancelation).

So yeah, Lunar Gateway is IMO both an "idiocy" and useful at the same time.
But regardless of how I feel: if you (NASA) actively invites other countries to join the Lunar Gateway project, and you (NASA) then proceed to consider cancelation of that same project several years later, then it ain't all that surprising that your (NASA's) international partners come to view you as unreliable. Entirely justified because NASA has a bit of a history of pulling out of international cooperations, to the detriment of the international partners.

Thanks for your detailed response. Well, if you cancel Orion, Gateway becomes useless. Unfortunately, international partnerships can't be a reason to not cancel expensive useless programs. It seems that international partnerships are sometimes used to make programs hard to cancel (e.g., the service module for Orion) but that should never be the reason to enter into them. It's OK for countries to push back on some of these bad ideas. A country can say no to cooperating on a project that makes no sense, like Gateway.

The lack of usefulness of Gateway shows that it's time to rethink how international partnerships are done. An example of a much better approach is Italy's lunar surface habitat or JAXA's pressurized rover, those are a lot more useful and can be delivered to the Moon via lunar Starship or Blue Moon's lander.

We absolutely need to cancel Gateway as an NRHO station. We need to then mitigate the damage done to our credibility by offering our international partners some alternatives. I think the least damage will be done by repurposing Gateway as the core of an ISS replacement, plus offering our partners actual rides to the lunar surface for extended stays at a surface station. This entire change in direction can be presented as a great new Artemis replacement architecture based on the new and much more capable LVs, which will allow for much larger landing crews starting with Artemis VI.  LEO Gateway becomes the transfer point where Large crewed Earth ships meet large crewed Lunar ships.

[yg1968]

We absolutely need to cancel Gateway as an NRHO station. We need to then mitigate the damage done to our credibility by offering our international partners some alternatives. I think the least damage will be done by repurposing Gateway as the core of an ISS replacement, plus offering our partners actual rides to the lunar surface for extended stays at a surface station. This entire change in direction can be presented as a great new Artemis replacement architecture based on the new and much more capable LVs, which will allow for much larger landing crews starting with Artemis VI.  LEO Gateway becomes the transfer point where Large crewed Earth ships meet large crewed Lunar ships.

I think that it's important for the Commercial LEO Destinations to remain commercial.

[yg1968]

NASA switches to Boeing for Artemis astronaut transport vans after Canoo goes bankrupt:
https://mynews13.com/fl/orlando/space/2025/12/12/nasa-canoo-evs-artemis-mission-bankruptcy

[DanClemmensen]

We absolutely need to cancel Gateway as an NRHO station. We need to then mitigate the damage done to our credibility by offering our international partners some alternatives. I think the least damage will be done by repurposing Gateway as the core of an ISS replacement, plus offering our partners actual rides to the lunar surface for extended stays at a surface station. This entire change in direction can be presented as a great new Artemis replacement architecture based on the new and much more capable LVs, which will allow for much larger landing crews starting with Artemis VI.  LEO Gateway becomes the transfer point where Large crewed Earth ships meet large crewed Lunar ships.

I think that it's important for the Commercial LEO Destinations to remain commercial.

I'm looking for the least-bad solution. In this case, moving Gateway to LEO and then connecting it to modules provided by commercial providers might work.

I actually think that modular CLDs will not be as cost-effective as a CLD based on Starship, but that's a different topic.

[woods170]

However, history shows that Orion's service module didn't get upscaled. Instead of taking advantage of the situation to improve Orion, and thus its suitability for a range of possible missions, NASA basically sat on its @ss and did nothing. Which severely reduced to number of missions Orion could be repurposed for. Oh sure, NASA did try to find "suitable" missions for anemic Orion. Remember ARM? We all know how that went.

Orion is just a victim of the original sin of SLS.  Once it was mandated to use RS-25s for the SLS core, which can't restart in microgravity, then Orion was condemned to be put into TLI by some kind of second stage.  Then they decided to turn the DCSS into the ICPS, and that precisely limited the mass that could be put into TLI.  So the ESM is the size it is because it can't be any bigger.

No offense RadicalModerate, but you really need to read up on history.

The reason why the current Orion ESM is the size (and power output) it is today, goes all the way back to the CxP (Constellation Program) days. Under the CxP conops it was the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) of Ares V that would handle Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) of the Orion-Altair stack (Altair being the lander that was intended for CxP, but was never actually developed).
Altair would launch to a LEO parking orbit on top of the Ares V, mounted on top of the EDS.

Orion would launch to LEO parking orbit on top of Ares I. Orion would meet up with the Ares V EDS-Altair stack, dock to it and then the EDS would handle TLI.

But here's the thing: the performance of Ares 1 was severely lacking, even after switching out the originally intended 4-segment SRB for a larger 5-segment SRB (that's how SLS eventually got its 5-segment SRBs; it inherited them from Ares I). But instead of fixing the fundamental issue with the Ares I launcher (like switching Orion to a different launcher such as Delta IV Heavy), NASA instead did an unbelievably backwards thing: they put Orion on a severe diet.
Most of the "gains" of this diet came from the service module: it shrank to an ever smaller size, becoming less capable in the process. Look up "Orion 606" on Google to get an idea just how small the (then still) Lockheed-conceived service module for Orion was. Look familiar?
Also see the attached image. It shows very well how much the Orion service module shrank in size between the 604 and 606 configurations. First it shrank in length (reducing the amount of available prop), and then it shrank in diameter (further reducing the amount of prop).

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.
And ESA did exactly that: they built a service module that met the (anemic) 606 / 607 specifications and requirements.

The size of the Orion service module was therefore never determined by the anemic upper stage of Block 1 SLS (the glorified Delta IV DCSS that is iCPS), but was set in stone thru the performance failings of Ares I.

[hektor]

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.”

[Hadley Delta]

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.”

Which was a gob-smacking thing to hear from a president who had previously been so pro-science as to be nicknamed Spock.

[Vultur]

It seems odd that there's not more updates and PR about Artemis II. I mean, it's the first Beyond LEO human mission in over 50 years, launching maybe as soon as two months from now ... Why aren't there daily updates to build public awareness? It's been so long since Artemis I...

[woods170]

It seems odd that there's not more updates and PR about Artemis II. I mean, it's the first Beyond LEO human mission in over 50 years, launching maybe as soon as two months from now ... Why aren't there daily updates to build public awareness? It's been so long since Artemis I...

I can think of a few reasons, but the main thing IMO is that it has to do with current leadership in the White House, and by extension, the current interim leadership at NASA. Neither of them like to be embarrassed. And on this mission, the likelyhood of embarrassment is not zero:

- Artemis II is flying the same flawed heatshield design that flew on Artemis I (we've all seen the damage to the Artemis I heatshield). Duffy likely wouldn't want to answer nasty questions from some pesky reporters about risking the lives of four American astronauts by flying them on a spacecraft with a flawed heat shield.

- Artemis II is flying an unproven ECLSS for the first time, while having a full crew onboard. Duffy likely wouldn't want to answer nasty questions from some pesky reporters about risking the lives of four American astronauts by flying them all the way to the Moon (instead of close-by in LEO) on a spacecraft with an unproven ECLSS.

- Artemis II is flying the very first fully active Orion LAS (Artemis I flew a LAS with an inerted abort motor). More nasty questions from pesky reporters.

- Artemis II is flying with a not fully redundant European Service Module. Full redundancy doesn't enter the picture until the Artemis III ESM flies. More potential for nasty questions from pesky reporters.

Do I need to go on...?

[woods170]

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".

[woods170]

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.”

Which was a gob-smacking thing to hear from a president who had previously been so pro-science as to be nicknamed Spock.

Oh you sweet summer child... conflating being pro-science with being pro-spaceflight.

The current administration is proof of how naive you are. They are downright anti-science yet want NASA to land an American on the Moon before the current President's term is over.

[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.

[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.”

Which was a gob-smacking thing to hear from a president who had previously been so pro-science as to be nicknamed Spock.

Oh you sweet summer child... conflating being pro-science with being pro-spaceflight.

The current administration is proof of how naive you are. They are downright anti-science yet want NASA to land an American on the Moon before the current President's term is over.

The current Administration is not anti-science but when they decided to cut 25% of the discretionary budget and decided that exploration was a priority, they were obviously forced to cut science. Ideally, the administration should have tried to freeze NASA's budget but not cut it by 25%. It was always unlikely for Congress to accept a 25% cut in discretionary spending in FY26.

Obama lost interest in NASA (except for commercial crew) after he didn't get what he wanted in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill.

[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.  It's absolutely true that the 60x series got feebler and feebler to fit on the feebler and feebler Ares I.

But the Artemis II Orion separates from the ICPS at a mass of 25.9t,¹ so it got considerably bigger.  Block 1 is supposed to put >27t of payload into TLI, and the SCA weighs 1.3t, for a total payload of 27.2t.  That sounds like it's right at the upper limit for Block 1.²

Add to that the the ESM is based on the ATV bus, and it's pretty clear that the current Orion system is sized for Block 1.  It didn't shrink down to Ares 1 size and stay there:  it got as big as it could for its new launch vehicle.  That launch vehicle would have been well-understood by January 2013, when the ESM contract was executed.

Still anemic, but as non-anemic as they could make it, just as I said up-thread. 

Update: Edits for clarity (hopefully). Added column to table for Orion GLOW.

_____________
¹35.5t GLOW, with SCA, LAS and ESM panels.  Note that SCA goes to TLI, but no farther.

²The Orion Stage Adapter weighs 0.8t.  I assume that this mass is charged to the ICPS.  Either way, we're well into the ">27t" territory.

Note also that I'm omitting the mass of the ESM fairing panels (0.5t) and the LAS, both of which are gone early in the flight, and don't degrade performance very much.  I assume that all of the SLS numbers are quoted with Orion as the payload.

[sdsds]

It seems reasonable to guess there's still a lunar architecture design cabal that wants Orion loitering in LLO with a full load of prop for TEI. Perhaps they envision slapping BOLE 'Black Knights' onto a core with 5xRS-25 engines, and rejiggering the stages above that to make the architecture close with a single launch. (Larger EUS; added cryo stage for LOI.) So why resize Orion at all?

[woods170]

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).

[hektor]

Where did you get that the ESM is based on the ATV bus ?

[woods170]

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.

[woods170]

Where did you get that the ESM is based on the ATV bus ?

Yeah, that's a common misconception. And therefore hardly surprising that RadicalModerate made the mistake of assuming that the ESM is based on the ATV bus.

To be clear: literally nothing was ported one-on-one from ATV to ESM. At best it can be stated that the ESM is making use of improved versions of technologies that were originally developed for ATV. But a lot of stuff on ESM is all new-development and doesn't have technology roots in ATV.

The structure itself for example: that's radically different between ATV and ESM.
Propellant tanks are different size, different volume, different materials and produced differently
Avionics: all-new developed
Electrical power generation systems: all-new developed
Radiators: all-new developed
Solar arrays: much improved versions of the ones on ATV, with different panel shapes, different photovoltaic cells, different SADMs, you name it.
RCS thruster quads: all-new design compared to the RCS thruster quads on ATV. Also uses an improved version of the original RCS thrusters
ESM features a main engine, which ATV never had.
ESM features eight auxilliary engines of the same type used by ATV as "the main engines". ATV carried only four of those though.

Stating that the ESM is "derived from" or "based on" the ATV vehicle is like saying that Ariane 5 was derived from Ariane 4 (because it carried a common engine and common propollants on the upper stage).

[Proponent]

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).