NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[butters]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

The PPE+HALO stack can fly itself to NRHO, but is there any credible plan to assemble the rest of the Gateway without Orion co-manifest missions on SLS Block 1B?

Is it realistic for an Orion crew to install a Gateway module as part of an HLS mission? It's not a good idea to launch the crew before the lander is fueled, and the Gateway assembly phase of the mission would subtract from the endurance of the lander for the surface phase of the mission.

If the answers are both negatives, then each Gateway mission displaces an HLS mission on the SLS manifest. Gateway assembly requires Block 1B whereas HLS is fine with a Block 1.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of assembling and operating a space station beyond earth orbit. What's wrong is building a space station we can only access once a year, and only by sacrificing an opportunity for a lunar surface mission. We have so little capability with SLS/Orion, and either of these two programs alone -- Gateway or HLS -- would be excruciatingly limited by SLS cadence. Doing them simultaneously would be a big bummer for HLS, and the Gateway assembly timeline would be truly absurd, a futile race between assembly and depreciation.

International partners want to build modules, they want to send logistics vehicles like the ESA CTLV. Great. But not at the cost of an SLS Block 1B. That's not just a high price to pay, it's an opportunity cost of the lunar surface mission we could have done instead. We have to find a way to involve our partners and do the "ah, but not so much radiation in LEO!" stuff without consuming SLS manifest.

[Zed_Noir]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

The PPE+HALO stack can fly itself to NRHO, but is there any credible plan to assemble the rest of the Gateway without Orion co-manifest missions on SLS Block 1B?
<snip>

The folks from Hawthorne is flying their HLS lander up on the Super Heavy. Said lander's payload mass is much greater than any of the Gateway component AFAIK.


The Falcon Heavy, the Vulcan Centaur Heavy and the New Glenn should all be able to get Gateway components to NRHO. IIRC everything other then the Orion stack is manifested on commercial launchers so far. Confident that commercial launch providers can launched payloads to the Gateway multiple times annually.


Presuming a manipulator arm will be delivered to the Gateway. The assembly could be mostly robotically done.


IMO. Until the EUS upper stage is available, the SLS Block 1 will be the only variant flying by the time of the Artemis-4 mission.

[Khadgars]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

The PPE+HALO stack can fly itself to NRHO, but is there any credible plan to assemble the rest of the Gateway without Orion co-manifest missions on SLS Block 1B?

Is it realistic for an Orion crew to install a Gateway module as part of an HLS mission? It's not a good idea to launch the crew before the lander is fueled, and the Gateway assembly phase of the mission would subtract from the endurance of the lander for the surface phase of the mission.

If the answers are both negatives, then each Gateway mission displaces an HLS mission on the SLS manifest. Gateway assembly requires Block 1B whereas HLS is fine with a Block 1.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of assembling and operating a space station beyond earth orbit. What's wrong is building a space station we can only access once a year, and only by sacrificing an opportunity for a lunar surface mission. We have so little capability with SLS/Orion, and either of these two programs alone -- Gateway or HLS -- would be excruciatingly limited by SLS cadence. Doing them simultaneously would be a big bummer for HLS, and the Gateway assembly timeline would be truly absurd, a futile race between assembly and depreciation.

International partners want to build modules, they want to send logistics vehicles like the ESA CTLV. Great. But not at the cost of an SLS Block 1B. That's not just a high price to pay, it's an opportunity cost of the lunar surface mission we could have done instead. We have to find a way to involve our partners and do the "ah, but not so much radiation in LEO!" stuff without consuming SLS manifest.

NASA will move to SLS Block 1B irregardless, the ICPS production is winding down anyway so they have no choice.  EUS is beginning production this summer using SLS tooling so the additional cost isn't significantly higher. 

Gateway already has multiple international partners that are already in production for additional elements on top of the PPE/HALO elements NASA is in production with now.

With the recent contract for Moonship, HLS will now be in production soon.  So we will be getting Gateway and HLS and SLS and Orion and re-supply ships by JAXA and SpaceX.

Doing any of these activities is worthwhile, I don't see doing one instead of the other at any given point as a negative.  Give NASA some time on what a typical year BLEO will look like, I suspect you won't be disappointed.

[M.E.T.]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

The PPE+HALO stack can fly itself to NRHO, but is there any credible plan to assemble the rest of the Gateway without Orion co-manifest missions on SLS Block 1B?
<snip>

The folks from Hawthorne is flying their HLS lander up on the Super Heavy. Said lander's payload mass is much greater than any of the Gateway component AFAIK.


The Falcon Heavy, the Vulcan Centaur Heavy and the New Glenn should all be able to get Gateway components to NRHO. IIRC everything other then the Orion stack is manifested on commercial launchers so far. Confident that commercial launch providers can launched payloads to the Gateway multiple times annually.


Presuming a manipulator arm will be delivered to the Gateway. The assembly could be mostly robotically done.


IMO. Until the EUS upper stage is available, the SLS Block 1 will be the only variant flying by the time of the Artemis-4 mission.

I’m guessing butters meant that you need crew on Gateway to assist with the assembly process. And they can currently only get to Gateway via Orion - once a year.

The obvious alternative is Crew Dragon to LEO, docking with Starship, Starship flying crew to the Gateway, completing the assembly work and flying the work crew back to LEO where they transfer back to Dragon to return to Earth. This Starship can then hang in LEO until it needs to be refuelled for another Gateway trip, thus becoming a permanent Gateway “cycler”, so to speak.

This Starship would never land on the Moon, but only serve as a shuttle for crew between LEO and Gateway and back.

Seems like a simple and elegant solution to this problem.

[VSECOTSPE]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

Agreed.  Impedance matching was already off, and Starship HLS only makes it worse.  Like trying to fill a pool through a straw.

Not that I expect this to happen, but it would be best if NASA was relieved of the EUS earmarking and the Administration invested in alternate transport for Orion to be demo’d circa 2025.  Leave technical solution open (improved upper stage, tug, etc.), but increase the minimum flight rate at least to Apollo (2 missions/yr).  If smart about the requirements, there may be some military or commercial interest.  See what ULA/Vulcan, SX/FH, Blue/NG, and others can come up with.  Might be able to afford two dissimilar solutions at less cost than EUS development.  Phase out SLS after first few launches.

Eventually contract for lunar crew capsule/transport and phase out Orion circa 2030.  Modified Dragon or Starliner growth.  Starship may be in play for that function by then.  Maybe Blue will have its act together by then, too.

[yg1968]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

Agreed.  Impedance matching was already off, and Starship HLS only makes it worse.  Like trying to fill a pool through a straw.

Not that I expect this to happen, but it would be best if NASA was relieved of the EUS earmarking and the Administration invested in alternate transport for Orion to be demo’d circa 2025.  Leave technical solution open (improved upper stage, tug, etc.), but increase the minimum flight rate at least to Apollo (2 missions/yr).  If smart about the requirements, there may be some military or commercial interest.  See what ULA/Vulcan, SX/FH, Blue/NG, and others can come up with.  Might be able to afford two dissimilar solutions at less cost than EUS development.  Phase out SLS after first few launches.

Eventually contract for lunar crew capsule/transport and phase out Orion circa 2030.  Modified Dragon or Starliner growth.  Starship may be in play for that function by then.  Maybe Blue will have its act together by then, too.

I have mentioned this elsewhere but my understanding is that every mission that goes to Gateway will also go to the lunar surface. Some non-Artemis member astronauts (such as astronauts from France or Germany) may stay at Gateway but the rest of the astronauts will go on to the lunar surface. So there is no competition between Gateway and the Moon.

[trimeta]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

Agreed.  Impedance matching was already off, and Starship HLS only makes it worse.  Like trying to fill a pool through a straw.

Not that I expect this to happen, but it would be best if NASA was relieved of the EUS earmarking and the Administration invested in alternate transport for Orion to be demo’d circa 2025.  Leave technical solution open (improved upper stage, tug, etc.), but increase the minimum flight rate at least to Apollo (2 missions/yr).  If smart about the requirements, there may be some military or commercial interest.  See what ULA/Vulcan, SX/FH, Blue/NG, and others can come up with.  Might be able to afford two dissimilar solutions at less cost than EUS development.  Phase out SLS after first few launches.

Eventually contract for lunar crew capsule/transport and phase out Orion circa 2030.  Modified Dragon or Starliner growth.  Starship may be in play for that function by then.  Maybe Blue will have its act together by then, too.

I have mentioned this elsewhere but my understanding is that every mission that goes to Gateway will also go to the lunar surface. Some non-Artemis member astronauts (such as astronauts from France or Germany) may stay at Gateway but the rest of the astronauts will go on to the lunar surface. So there is no competition between Gateway and the Moon.

So which astronauts will assist in building the Gateway? Or is this the mythical "something for astronauts to do while waiting at Gateway": "build the Gateway"?

[VSECOTSPE]

I have mentioned this elsewhere but my understanding is that every mission that goes to Gateway will also go to the lunar surface. Some non-Artemis member astronauts (such as astronauts from France or Germany) may stay at Gateway but the rest of the astronauts will go on to the lunar surface. So there is no competition between Gateway and the Moon.

There’s three issues:

1) Gateway needs a population to get data on deep space effects on human physiology.  Can’t do that effectively with one ESA astronaut every now and then.

2) Architecture is goofily lopsided.  It’s ridiculously capable on the lunar orbit to lunar surface and back segment but highly and artificially constrained by a sub-Apollo flight rate on the Earth to lunar orbit and back segment.  (Starship HLS could literally put the entire astronaut corps on the lunar surface, but Orion/SLS will only deliver a few astronauts a year.)

3) There’s little money in the budget to develop the surface payloads and capabilities that could really take advantage of Starship HLS.

There was already an impedance matching issue between Gateway and lunar surface crew needs on one hand and Orion/SLS launch rate on the other.  Adding Starship HLS has made it worse.  (This comes on top of a poor LOC figure for Orion/SLS.)

Near-term solution would be to transition Orion off SLS by procuring development and services of new upper stages and/or tugs.  Longer-term would be to transition off Orion by procuring crew transport to lunar orbit.

If not, we’ll likely have an Artemis program that does less than Apollo, despite the enormously capable lander that’s been selected for Artemis.

[yg1968]

I have mentioned this elsewhere but my understanding is that every mission that goes to Gateway will also go to the lunar surface. Some non-Artemis member astronauts (such as astronauts from France or Germany) may stay at Gateway but the rest of the astronauts will go on to the lunar surface. So there is no competition between Gateway and the Moon.

There’s three issues:

1) Gateway needs a population to get data on deep space effects on human physiology.  Can’t do that effectively with one ESA astronaut every now and then.

2) Architecture is goofily lopsided.  It’s ridiculously capable on the lunar orbit to lunar surface and back segment but highly and artificially constrained by a sub-Apollo flight rate on the Earth to lunar orbit and back segment.  (Starship HLS could literally put the entire astronaut corps on the lunar surface, but Orion/SLS will only deliver a few astronauts a year.)

3) There’s little money in the budget to develop the surface payloads and capabilities that could really take advantage of Starship HLS.

There was already an impedance matching issue between Gateway and lunar surface crew needs on one hand and Orion/SLS launch rate on the other.  Adding Starship HLS has made it worse.  (This comes on top of a poor LOC figure for Orion/SLS.)

Near-term solution would be to transition Orion off SLS by procuring development and services of new upper stages and/or tugs.  Longer-term would be to transition off Orion by procuring crew transport to lunar orbit.

If not, we’ll likely have an Artemis program that does less than Apollo, despite the enormously capable lander that’s been selected for Artemis.

These problems exists with or without Gateway. In terms of the radiation, I don't think that the idea was to use astronauts as test subjects, it was more like, while you are there might as well test for the effects of radiation and for ways to reduce it.

[yg1968]

It seems to me that Gateway is competing with HLS and the rest of Artemis for a pathetic SLS/Orion mission cadence.

Agreed.  Impedance matching was already off, and Starship HLS only makes it worse.  Like trying to fill a pool through a straw.

Not that I expect this to happen, but it would be best if NASA was relieved of the EUS earmarking and the Administration invested in alternate transport for Orion to be demo’d circa 2025.  Leave technical solution open (improved upper stage, tug, etc.), but increase the minimum flight rate at least to Apollo (2 missions/yr).  If smart about the requirements, there may be some military or commercial interest.  See what ULA/Vulcan, SX/FH, Blue/NG, and others can come up with.  Might be able to afford two dissimilar solutions at less cost than EUS development.  Phase out SLS after first few launches.

Eventually contract for lunar crew capsule/transport and phase out Orion circa 2030.  Modified Dragon or Starliner growth.  Starship may be in play for that function by then.  Maybe Blue will have its act together by then, too.

I have mentioned this elsewhere but my understanding is that every mission that goes to Gateway will also go to the lunar surface. Some non-Artemis member astronauts (such as astronauts from France or Germany) may stay at Gateway but the rest of the astronauts will go on to the lunar surface. So there is no competition between Gateway and the Moon.

So which astronauts will assist in building the Gateway? Or is this the mythical "something for astronauts to do while waiting at Gateway": "build the Gateway"?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer but I would guess that you would build the Gateway first and go to the Moon after (as part of the same mission).

[VSECOTSPE]

These problems exists with or without Gateway.

Reread posts.  Wasn’t arguing for Gateway termination.  Arguing for changes in crew transport.

In terms of the radiation, I don't think that the idea was to use astronauts as test subjects, it was more like, while you are there might as well test for the effects of radiation and for ways to reduce it.

Need NASA astros to sign off on their medical data.  Occasional ESA astro doesn’t hack it.

[trimeta]

These problems exists with or without Gateway. In terms of the radiation, I don't think that the idea was to use astronauts as test subjects, it was more like, while you are there might as well test for the effects of radiation and for ways to reduce it.

But what are they doing other than being test subjects? I mean, I guess you could give them random experiments which could just as (in fact, more) easily be done aboard ISS, to give them something to do while getting irradiated. But ultimately, testing the effects of deep-space radiation is the only reason they're there.

As Costal Ron said in another comment, what is the goal of Gateway other than getting radiation data for a Mars mission that doesn't exist? I suppose there may be some potential use cases for a minimal lifeboat Gateway, but that would obviate Ron's other suggested goal, lock international partners into providing modules to ensure that no one can cancel the program. (The idea of "the purpose of Gateway is to build Gateway" ties into this second goal.)

[tbellman]

As Costal Ron said in another comment, what is the goal of Gateway other than getting radiation data for a Mars mission that doesn't exist? I suppose there may be some potential use cases for a minimal lifeboat Gateway, but that would obviate Ron's other suggested goal, lock international partners into providing modules to ensure that no one can cancel the program. (The idea of "the purpose of Gateway is to build Gateway" ties into this second goal.)

I'm not exactly a fan of the Lunar Gateway, but it does have some uses in the current architecture:

• Communications relay for the landed lunar mission (Earth is very low on the horizon from the poles, which can make direct communication difficult).

• "Life support" for Orion.  Orion has limited lifetime as a free-flyer, so for long lunar sorties, it will need to stay docked to something else, or the astronauts may meet a dead Orion when they come back from the lunar surface and want to go home.

• Possibly similar "life support", and station keeping, for landers inbetween sorties.

The "life support" tasks are of course only needed for architectures where you use one vehicle for shuttling crew between Earth and lunar orbit, and a separate vehicle for going between lunar orbit and lunar surface (which is left in lunar orbit between missions), and it is also possible to design those vehicles to not need a support vehicle, but it isn't entirely unreasonable to have such a support vehicle either.

I'm certainly not arguing that the Lunar Gateway is the perfect solution to those tasks.  A small constellation of dedicated satellites with inter-satellite links would be much better for relaying communications, for example, and could cover the entire Moon.  And a "life support" vehicle doesn't necessarily have to be able to house crew.

[trimeta]

As Costal Ron said in another comment, what is the goal of Gateway other than getting radiation data for a Mars mission that doesn't exist? I suppose there may be some potential use cases for a minimal lifeboat Gateway, but that would obviate Ron's other suggested goal, lock international partners into providing modules to ensure that no one can cancel the program. (The idea of "the purpose of Gateway is to build Gateway" ties into this second goal.)

I'm not exactly a fan of the Lunar Gateway, but it does have some uses in the current architecture:

• Communications relay for the landed lunar mission (Earth is very low on the horizon from the poles, which can make direct communication difficult).

• "Life support" for Orion.  Orion has limited lifetime as a free-flyer, so for long lunar sorties, it will need to stay docked to something else, or the astronauts may meet a dead Orion when they come back from the lunar surface and want to go home.

• Possibly similar "life support", and station keeping, for landers inbetween sorties.

The "life support" tasks are of course only needed for architectures where you use one vehicle for shuttling crew between Earth and lunar orbit, and a separate vehicle for going between lunar orbit and lunar surface (which is left in lunar orbit between missions), and it is also possible to design those vehicles to not need a support vehicle, but it isn't entirely unreasonable to have such a support vehicle either.

I'm certainly not arguing that the Lunar Gateway is the perfect solution to those tasks.  A small constellation of dedicated satellites with inter-satellite links would be much better for relaying communications, for example, and could cover the entire Moon.  And a "life support" vehicle doesn't necessarily have to be able to house crew.

I agree that for certain mission architectures, it's useful to have something in NRHO to relay communications and to provide power and station-keeping for docked vehicles. It's mostly the crewed part that I have a hard time understanding. And even for that, there may be some "emergency lifeboat" use cases -- I suppose the advantage of a lifeboat in NRHO is you don't need to deal with two-week lunar nights, for example. But as for tasks which would have a crew staying in NRHO intentionally, other than understanding the radiation environment I see nothing to justify a multi-module international space station.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1387787460097232897

During a meeting of the Lunar Surface Science Workshop this morning, NASA acting administrator Steve Jurzcyk said the agency is studying:

• Lunar Terrain Vehicle to explore South Pole
• Mobile habitat to extend surface stays to 45 days
• A larger habitat for even longer stays

[kevinof]

Interesting. You're gonna need a whopping great big lander to do all that. Oh wait...

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1387787460097232897

During a meeting of the Lunar Surface Science Workshop this morning, NASA acting administrator Steve Jurzcyk said the agency is studying:

• Lunar Terrain Vehicle to explore South Pole
• Mobile habitat to extend surface stays to 45 days
• A larger habitat for even longer stays

[AU1.52]

Interesting. You're gonna need a whopping great big lander to do all that. Oh wait...

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1387787460097232897

During a meeting of the Lunar Surface Science Workshop this morning, NASA acting administrator Steve Jurzcyk said the agency is studying:

• Lunar Terrain Vehicle to explore South Pole
• Mobile habitat to extend surface stays to 45 days
• A larger habitat for even longer stays

I wonder if Starship HLS could be a mobile habitat? How long could it stay on the surface at one time? What would it need? Extra solar power?


Also, why would it need to be mobile to stay longer?

[Zed_Noir]

Interesting. You're gonna need a whopping great big lander to do all that. Oh wait...

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1387787460097232897

During a meeting of the Lunar Surface Science Workshop this morning, NASA acting administrator Steve Jurzcyk said the agency is studying:

• Lunar Terrain Vehicle to explore South Pole
• Mobile habitat to extend surface stays to 45 days
• A larger habitat for even longer stays

Jurzcyk is just toying with us. The apartment tower size lander is a semi-mobile base habitat that make any near term alternative habitats look like pygmies plus very little additional development cost. NASA will just need to acquired a few more apartment tower size landers.


This brings up the issue of funding actual ground exploration of the Moon versus developing additional landers from other vendors. The new NASA administrator might get to choose before the current WH administration term ends. We live in an interesting time.


P.S. lander is semi-mobile since it can do short hops

[b0objunior]

Interesting. You're gonna need a whopping great big lander to do all that. Oh wait...

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1387787460097232897

During a meeting of the Lunar Surface Science Workshop this morning, NASA acting administrator Steve Jurzcyk said the agency is studying:

• Lunar Terrain Vehicle to explore South Pole
• Mobile habitat to extend surface stays to 45 days
• A larger habitat for even longer stays

I wonder if Starship HLS could be a mobile habitat? How long could it stay on the surface at one time? What would it need? Extra solar power?


Also, why would it need to be mobile to stay longer?

Because you need to move to look at different targets.

[tbellman]

Also, why would it need to be mobile to stay longer?

I assume it is about justifying a longer stay.

The mobile habitat is probably meant to be something akin to the Space Exploration Vehicle, i.e. a surface vehicle with a largish pressurized cabin, where astronauts can spend several days in a shirt-sleave environment.  If they only have an unpressurized rover (the Lunar Terrain Vehicle), exploration would be limited to whatever is reachable with a ~four hour drive from the lander, and there is only so much exploration and science to be done within that area.  You might be more or less finished with that area after, say, 15 days, so staying longer wouldn't just be wasting time.

With something SEV-like, you could investigate a much larger area around the lander, and thus justify a significantly longer surface stay.