Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 705064 times)

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1057
  • USA
  • Liked: 928
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3020 on: 08/11/2022 01:42 pm »
nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints....
Reads more like: so it doesn't end up just being a flags/footprints program.
Thats exactly what I said. Trying to stop Artimis from only being flags and footprints

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • California
  • Liked: 1907
  • Likes Given: 742
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3021 on: 08/11/2022 02:10 pm »
nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints....
Reads more like: so it doesn't end up just being a flags/footprints program.
Thats exactly what I said. Trying to stop Artimis from only being flags and footprints
It's not exactly what you said, and I think what you actually said is more correct:
   "nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints...."
They worry about the perception first, not the reality. The reality is that Artemis as originally structured had no chance of being more than an Apollo rerun. It now has a chance, but only because they accidentally ended up with Starhip HLS instead of the HLS they wanted and would have accepted. So now, they at least have a start on the hardware they need to go beyond "flags and footprints". Even now, Congress is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube by funding the Appendix P HLS.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15311
  • Liked: 5755
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3022 on: 08/11/2022 05:04 pm »
nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints....
Reads more like: so it doesn't end up just being a flags/footprints program.
Thats exactly what I said. Trying to stop Artimis from only being flags and footprints
It's not exactly what you said, and I think what you actually said is more correct:
   "nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints...."
They worry about the perception first, not the reality. The reality is that Artemis as originally structured had no chance of being more than an Apollo rerun. It now has a chance, but only because they accidentally ended up with Starhip HLS instead of the HLS they wanted and would have accepted. So now, they at least have a start on the hardware they need to go beyond "flags and footprints". Even now, Congress is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube by funding the Appendix P HLS.

I disagree that HLS Starship was by accident. Bridenstine worked hard to ensure that HLS would be commercial. Representatives Kendra Horn and Chairmanwoman Johnson tried to pass a NASA Authorization bill at the time that would have forced NASA to have a governmental lander. The Trump Administration deserves credit for pushing for a commercial HLS (they deserve as much credit for it as the Obama Administration did for commercial crew). Remember that the thinking that is behind the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was that LEO would be commercial and that BLEO would be governmental. Bridenstine pushed against that narrative which frankly made no sense. I am convinced that if Bridenstine and the Trump Administration hadn't been successful in making HLS commercial, there would be no Artemis (and no lunar Starship), we would instead have SLS going to Gateway and no where else.

In terms of NASA wanting a particular HLS. NASA kept the requirements in the HLS BAA broad on purpose. NASA listened to what the providers were telling them. The fact that the notional HLS had three stages didn't mean that NASA necessarily wanted that. Notional really meant notional.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2022 05:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • California
  • Liked: 1907
  • Likes Given: 742
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3023 on: 08/11/2022 05:39 pm »
nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints....
Reads more like: so it doesn't end up just being a flags/footprints program.
Thats exactly what I said. Trying to stop Artimis from only being flags and footprints
It's not exactly what you said, and I think what you actually said is more correct:
   "nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints...."
They worry about the perception first, not the reality. The reality is that Artemis as originally structured had no chance of being more than an Apollo rerun. It now has a chance, but only because they accidentally ended up with Starhip HLS instead of the HLS they wanted and would have accepted. So now, they at least have a start on the hardware they need to go beyond "flags and footprints". Even now, Congress is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube by funding the Appendix P HLS.

I disagree that HLS Starship was by accident. Bridenstine worked hard to ensure that HLS would be commercial. Representatives Kendra Horn and Chairmanwoman Johnson tried to pass a NASA Authorization bill at the time that would have forced NASA to have a governmental lander. The Trump Administration deserves credit for pushing for a commercial HLS (they deserve as much credit for it as the Obama Administration did for commercial crew). Remember that the thinking that is behind the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was that LEO would be commercial and that BLEO would be governmental. Bridenstine pushed against that narrative which frankly made no sense. I am convinced that if Bridenstine and the Trump Administration hadn't been successful in making HLS commercial, there would be no Artemis (and no lunar Starship), we would instead have SLS going to Gateway and no where else.

In terms of NASA wanting a particular HLS. NASA kept the requirements in the HLS BAA broad on purpose. NASA listened to what the providers were telling them. The fact that the notional HLS had three stages didn't mean that NASA necessarily wanted that. Notional really meant notional.
The requirement was for a down mass of about 2 tonnes. The BO and Dynetics landers could have been made to work at a cost of $6B and $9B respectively. The easiest way for SpaceX to bid was to base its HLS on Starship, with a potential downmass of 200 tonne in a one-way cargo mode. That's a factor of 100, and that is the accident I am talking about. It's the difference between a real lunar program and an Apollo reprise.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15311
  • Liked: 5755
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3024 on: 08/11/2022 05:48 pm »
nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints....
Reads more like: so it doesn't end up just being a flags/footprints program.
Thats exactly what I said. Trying to stop Artimis from only being flags and footprints
It's not exactly what you said, and I think what you actually said is more correct:
   "nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints...."
They worry about the perception first, not the reality. The reality is that Artemis as originally structured had no chance of being more than an Apollo rerun. It now has a chance, but only because they accidentally ended up with Starhip HLS instead of the HLS they wanted and would have accepted. So now, they at least have a start on the hardware they need to go beyond "flags and footprints". Even now, Congress is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube by funding the Appendix P HLS.

I disagree that HLS Starship was by accident. Bridenstine worked hard to ensure that HLS would be commercial. Representatives Kendra Horn and Chairmanwoman Johnson tried to pass a NASA Authorization bill at the time that would have forced NASA to have a governmental lander. The Trump Administration deserves credit for pushing for a commercial HLS (they deserve as much credit for it as the Obama Administration did for commercial crew). Remember that the thinking that is behind the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was that LEO would be commercial and that BLEO would be governmental. Bridenstine pushed against that narrative which frankly made no sense. I am convinced that if Bridenstine and the Trump Administration hadn't been successful in making HLS commercial, there would be no Artemis (and no lunar Starship), we would instead have SLS going to Gateway and no where else.

In terms of NASA wanting a particular HLS. NASA kept the requirements in the HLS BAA broad on purpose. NASA listened to what the providers were telling them. The fact that the notional HLS had three stages didn't mean that NASA necessarily wanted that. Notional really meant notional.
The requirement was for a down mass of about 2 tonnes. The BO and Dynetics landers could have been made to work at a cost of $6B and $9B respectively. The easiest way for SpaceX to bid was to base its HLS on Starship, with a potential downmass of 200 tonne in a one-way cargo mode. That's a factor of 100, and that is the accident I am talking about. It's the difference between a real lunar program and an Apollo reprise.

Yes but bear in mind that the requirements in the BAA are minimums, NASA is very happy if you exceed them. The reason for having these relatively low minimum requirements is to ensure that more than one company can bid. NASA listens to the potential providers when setting up these requirements.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • California
  • Liked: 1907
  • Likes Given: 742
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3025 on: 08/11/2022 06:03 pm »

Yes but bear in mind that the requirements in the BAA are minimums, NASA is very happy if you exceed them. The reason for having these relatively low minimum requirements is to ensure that more than one company can bid. NASA listens to the potential providers when setting up these requirements.
That's why I said that they got a capable system by chance and not by design. If SpaceX had not decided to bid Starship, then NASA would have been left with an HLS that barely met the grossly inadequate requirements. If SpaceX had chosen to bid an HLS based on Crew Dragon (or something) that was closer to the NASA reference design, then same result. But by happenstance the economics and time frames aligned, and SpaceX bid an HLS with ten to a hundred times the capability and half the cost of the alternate bids, and in my opinion (yours may differ) gives Artemis a chance to evolve into a meaningful program.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15311
  • Liked: 5755
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3026 on: 08/11/2022 07:12 pm »

Yes but bear in mind that the requirements in the BAA are minimums, NASA is very happy if you exceed them. The reason for having these relatively low minimum requirements is to ensure that more than one company can bid. NASA listens to the potential providers when setting up these requirements.
That's why I said that they got a capable system by chance and not by design. If SpaceX had not decided to bid Starship, then NASA would have been left with an HLS that barely met the grossly inadequate requirements. If SpaceX had chosen to bid an HLS based on Crew Dragon (or something) that was closer to the NASA reference design, then same result. But by happenstance the economics and time frames aligned, and SpaceX bid an HLS with ten to a hundred times the capability and half the cost of the alternate bids, and in my opinion (yours may differ) gives Artemis a chance to evolve into a meaningful program.

I agree with everything you said except that I don't think that's it's by accident. If you open up the process to all commercial companies, you are likely to have proposals that exceed your expectations but you are right than the timing was perfect.

The only problem now is that NASA doesn't seem to be taking full advantage of Starship's capability. I expect that is partly because Option A is only a demo flight. Hopefully, this will be fixed once that NASA is confident that Starship will work. One opportunity for Starship would to bid for the foundation surface habitat. Starship could probably be used as a habitat.

Online JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Liked: 705
  • Likes Given: 1147
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3027 on: 08/11/2022 07:48 pm »
...
I agree with everything you said except that I don't think that's it's by accident. If you open up the process to all commercial companies, you are likely to have proposals that exceed your expectations but you are right than the timing was perfect.
Which means it would be benefical for the 2nd HLS lander RFP to go out close to NG/Terran R flying, no?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • California
  • Liked: 1907
  • Likes Given: 742
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3028 on: 08/11/2022 08:10 pm »

Yes but bear in mind that the requirements in the BAA are minimums, NASA is very happy if you exceed them. The reason for having these relatively low minimum requirements is to ensure that more than one company can bid. NASA listens to the potential providers when setting up these requirements.
That's why I said that they got a capable system by chance and not by design. If SpaceX had not decided to bid Starship, then NASA would have been left with an HLS that barely met the grossly inadequate requirements. If SpaceX had chosen to bid an HLS based on Crew Dragon (or something) that was closer to the NASA reference design, then same result. But by happenstance the economics and time frames aligned, and SpaceX bid an HLS with ten to a hundred times the capability and half the cost of the alternate bids, and in my opinion (yours may differ) gives Artemis a chance to evolve into a meaningful program.

I agree with everything you said except that I don't think that's it's by accident. If you open up the process to all commercial companies, you are likely to have proposals that exceed your expectations but you are right than the timing was perfect.

The only problem now is that NASA doesn't seem to be taking full advantage of Starship's capability. I expect that is partly because Option A is only a demo flight. Hopefully, this will be fixed once that NASA is confident that Starship will work. One opportunity for Starship would to bid for the foundation surface habitat. Starship could probably be used as a habitat.
If Starship actually works (which it has not done yet) and lives up to its potential, then It can do many things as part of a real lunar program. But as long as NASA is forced to use SLS/Orion for all crew to cislunar space, Artemis will remain crippled. I think our best hope is for a commercial alternative to be permitted to fly independently of SLS/Orion, while SLS/Orion continues to stumble along at one mission every one or two years.

Offline lykos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Greece
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3029 on: 08/12/2022 03:56 pm »
Yes, best thing would be a commercial moon-station, and NASA will rent it, like the planned LEO-spacestations.
But unfortunately I don't see anything like that going on right now.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • California
  • Liked: 1907
  • Likes Given: 742
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3030 on: 08/12/2022 04:10 pm »
...
I agree with everything you said except that I don't think that's it's by accident. If you open up the process to all commercial companies, you are likely to have proposals that exceed your expectations but you are right than the timing was perfect.
Which means it would be benefical for the 2nd HLS lander RFP to go out close to NG/Terran R flying, no?
How would New Glenn or Terran R contribute to a an HLS? Starship contributed because it of its BLEO aspirations, which included Tanker, Depot, and a second stage that is also a large, crewed, long-duration spacecraft, and the Starship system as a whole dramatically simplifies the design of variants. New Glenn and Terran R may become capable and cost-effective launchers, but the entire rest of an Appendix P HLS that uses them will need to be designed from scratch.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15311
  • Liked: 5755
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3031 on: 08/12/2022 04:24 pm »
Yes, best thing would be a commercial moon-station, and NASA will rent it, like the planned LEO-spacestations.
But unfortunately I don't see anything like that going on right now.

Jim Free and Bob Cabana have said that a commercial lunar destinations program is a possibility in the future. But they made it sound like this would only be done towards the late 2030s when NASA shifts its focus on missions to Mars. Interestingly, as mentioned upthread, the HEO NAC Committee has recently made recommendations that NASA should have more specific plans as to how it sets to achieve a lunar economy (and I agree with them on this). Hopefully, something will come out of this.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2022 10:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5837
  • Liked: 8381
  • Likes Given: 798
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3032 on: 08/14/2022 04:45 am »
John Grunsfeld (former NASA astronaut/chief scientist/associate admin of SMD) did a FISO presentation recently: Humans and Robotics in Space Exploration (right now the FISO website is down)

Besides talking about humans and robots and his experience in HST servicing, he also touched the HSF related recommendation from planetary decadal survey and Artemis science planning.

In Q&A someone asked him about his opinion about Gateway, he basically said there's little science value in Gateway due to its orbit and such, it's mainly there for Orion, and that we may be able to design a useful gateway but the current one is not it.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5837
  • Liked: 8381
  • Likes Given: 798
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3033 on: 08/14/2022 05:16 am »
Interesting conversation between Dennis Wingo and Wayne Hale:

https://twitter.com/wingod/status/1557434020228726786

Quote from: NASAWatch
If you thought that the #Artemis Generation was going to enjoy - and be inspired by - the same cadence of lunar landings and exploration that the Apollo Generation witnessed - think again. Artemis lunar landings are only going to happen every couple of years throughout the decade

Quote from: Dennis Wingo
How about no.  This is antithetical to any rational exploration plan.

Quote from: Wayne Hale
We would all like more frequent flights. The advent of new super heavy launch vehicles certainly would give the opportunity to mount a more aggressive campaign.

Time will tell.

Quote from: Dennis Wingo
Wayne, what do you think of the idea of persistent presence? There is no sense at all in six day camping trips to the Moon for that many billions of dollars.  With CLPS landers and cargo starships we should be able to easily sustain a crew on the surface.

Quote from: Wayne Hale
I like the idea but donít share your enthusiasm about a supply system. If CLPS demonstrates a robust capability it is worth thinking about. Also note it is only the first landing that is limited to 6 days. The LETS landers will have a 30+ day capability if I recall correctly

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 3229
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3034 on: 08/14/2022 06:20 am »
Quote from: Wayne Hale
We would all like more frequent flights. The advent of new super heavy launch vehicles certainly would give the opportunity to mount a more aggressive campaign.

Time will tell.

Artemis really canít wait for time to tell.  Like COTS, the program needs to be proactive now to shape the future it wants.  It will take at least a couple years before Congress starts funding new HLV launches in earnest, another year to run the solicitation, and at least a couple more years qualify said HLVs.  Add in a belligerent Congress, a court challenge, and technical modifications or developments, and weíre looking at a decade.  Artemis may not have that long to prove itself.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4261
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1267
  • Likes Given: 1132
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3035 on: 08/14/2022 11:36 am »
Quote from: Wayne Hale
We would all like more frequent flights. The advent of new super heavy launch vehicles certainly would give the opportunity to mount a more aggressive campaign.

Time will tell.
Artemis really canít wait for time to tell.  Like COTS, the program needs to be proactive now to shape the future it wants.  It will take at least a couple years before Congress starts funding new HLV launches in earnest, another year to run the solicitation, and at least a couple more years qualify said HLVs.  Add in a belligerent Congress, a court challenge, and technical modifications or developments, and weíre looking at a decade.  Artemis may not have that long to prove itself.
There is the possibility that SpaceX might offer cis-Lunar logistics and Lunar basing services to paying customers after the flight hardware is available. If NASA (Congress) continues to follow the SLS/Orion/Gateway method of getting people to the Lunar surface.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 3229
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3036 on: 08/14/2022 01:39 pm »
There is the possibility that SpaceX might offer cis-Lunar logistics and Lunar basing services to paying customers after the flight hardware is available. If NASA (Congress) continues to follow the SLS/Orion/Gateway method of getting people to the Lunar surface.

Yeah, my comments are focused on Artemis and NASA activities, not what private sector may or may not fund on its own.

Personally, based on the two Apollo 8 joy rides that a couple bazillionaires have purchased and a smattering of CLPS payloads, I donít think weíll see much private sector funding of lunar activities.  (I would love to be wrong.)

I think NASA either figures out how to turn Artemis into a robust and vibrant program that draws in private sector investment, or we get another short-run, mostly government, Apollo-style program (and maybe a second one from China next decade.)

YMMV...

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 534
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3037 on: 08/14/2022 04:38 pm »

Quote from: Wayne Hale
I like the idea but donít share your enthusiasm about a supply system. If CLPS demonstrates a robust capability it is worth thinking about. Also note it is only the first landing that is limited to 6 days. The LETS landers will have a 30+ day capability if I recall correctly

No offense to Wayne, but for the money involved, 30 days once every 12-18 months is hardly much better.
« Last Edit: 08/14/2022 04:41 pm by Athelstane »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15311
  • Liked: 5755
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3038 on: 08/14/2022 05:45 pm »
Quote from: Wayne Hale
I like the idea but donít share your enthusiasm about a supply system. If CLPS demonstrates a robust capability it is worth thinking about. Also note it is only the first landing that is limited to 6 days. The LETS landers will have a 30+ day capability if I recall correctly

No offense to Wayne, but for the money involved, 30 days once every 12-18 months is hardly much better.

Not that this contradicts your point but the 30 days missions do not start until Artemis VIII since they require the foundation surface habitat which is scheduled to launch on Artemis VIII (per page 7 of the FY23 Budget request slides).

All the missions before Artemis VIII are likely to be 6 days since the sustainable HLS requirement is only for 6.5 days on the Moon: "The HLS shall be capable of operating on the lunar surface for a minimum of 6.5 Earth days, when pre-emplaced surface assets are not available."

For Artemis VIII and after, they could be more than 30 days. The sustainable HLS requirements also provide the following: "The HLS shall be capable of operating on the lunar surface for a minimum of 32 (TBR) Earth days, including up to 28 (TBR) days in uninhabited standby mode, when pre-emplaced surface assets are available."

See page 29 of the sustainable HLS requirements:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53708.msg2306057#msg2306057
« Last Edit: 08/14/2022 09:21 pm by yg1968 »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1057
  • USA
  • Liked: 928
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #3039 on: 08/15/2022 01:37 pm »
nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints....
Reads more like: so it doesn't end up just being a flags/footprints program.
Thats exactly what I said. Trying to stop Artimis from only being flags and footprints
It's not exactly what you said, and I think what you actually said is more correct:
   "nasa working hard to make it not actually seem like flags and footprints...."
They worry about the perception first, not the reality. The reality is that Artemis as originally structured had no chance of being more than an Apollo rerun. It now has a chance, but only because they accidentally ended up with Starhip HLS instead of the HLS they wanted and would have accepted. So now, they at least have a start on the hardware they need to go beyond "flags and footprints". Even now, Congress is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube by funding the Appendix P HLS.
Why do you want to fight? It seems pretty clear what I meant. I can't help how you read into what I wrote, but this shouldn't be about scoring points and "winning".
« Last Edit: 08/15/2022 02:14 pm by deadman1204 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0