Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/13/2021 02:27 pmThe Shuttle was perceived to be a failure from a cost standpoint because during the design phase it was designed to be a vehicle that could do everything. And the Shuttle was not modified into different variants, they were all the same.They weren't all the same. Some had features the others lacked.
The Shuttle was perceived to be a failure from a cost standpoint because during the design phase it was designed to be a vehicle that could do everything. And the Shuttle was not modified into different variants, they were all the same.
SEC. 615. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS.....(b) EXPLORATION UPPER STAGE.—To meet the capability requirements under section 302(c)(2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18322(c)(2)), the Administrator shall continue development of the Exploration Upper Stage for the Space Launch System with a scheduled availability sufficient for use on the third launch of the Space Launch System
From reading the proposed bill (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Cantwell_1-as-modified-2.pdf) There's this section:QuoteSEC. 615. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS.....(b) EXPLORATION UPPER STAGE.—To meet the capability requirements under section 302(c)(2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18322(c)(2)), the Administrator shall continue development of the Exploration Upper Stage for the Space Launch System with a scheduled availability sufficient for use on the third launch of the Space Launch SystemDoes that mean, if passed, that Artemis III (first crewed landing w/HLS) MUST use the EUS and would be therefore delayed until the EUS is ready ? Or could it launch without it, if SpaceX is ready before the EUS is.
Quote from: JayWee on 05/13/2021 07:45 pmFrom reading the proposed bill (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Cantwell_1-as-modified-2.pdf) There's this section:QuoteSEC. 615. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS.....(b) EXPLORATION UPPER STAGE.—To meet the capability requirements under section 302(c)(2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18322(c)(2)), the Administrator shall continue development of the Exploration Upper Stage for the Space Launch System with a scheduled availability sufficient for use on the third launch of the Space Launch SystemDoes that mean, if passed, that Artemis III (first crewed landing w/HLS) MUST use the EUS and would be therefore delayed until the EUS is ready ? Or could it launch without it, if SpaceX is ready before the EUS is.The way that I read it, the EUS has to be ready for Artemis III but it doesn't have to be used for Artemis III.
South Korea is in last-minute negotiations with the United States to join NASA’s Artemis program, a news outlet here reported May 18, citing government sources.
It was great speaking with senior officials from the government of Japan tonight. @mextjapan and @JAXA_en are terrific partners to @NASA and the US in human spaceflight, science, and aeronautics. I hope to see NASA and JAXA astronauts working together on the Moon and beyond!
A Canadian rover on the MoonThe CSA is preparing for a Canadian rover to explore a polar region of the Moon within the next five years. The mission will demonstrate key technologies and accomplish meaningful science. The rover will be carrying at least two science instruments, Canadian and American. The mission will aim to gather imagery and measurements and data of the surface the moon, as well as to have the rover survive an entire night on the Moon. Lunar nights, which last about 14 Earth‑days, are extremely cold and dark, posing a significant technological challenge.
Lisa Campbell, president of the space agency, says it will put out a request for proposals on design and development from two companies in the coming months.
Dupuis said CSA has negotiated a ride to the moon on a NASA Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) lander mission. “In exchange for launching us, we are providing accommodations for a U.S. instrument on our rover,” he said. He said that the agreement with NASA also includes flying additional Canadian lunar science payloads on CLPS missions, fixed to landers.
“The GAO report released today should serve as a clear wake-up call both to NASA’s leadership and to Members of Congress that NASA’s Artemis Moon-Mars initiative is in serious trouble, and strong corrective actions will be needed if it is to succeed, “said Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). “It is particularly sobering that the problems highlighted by the GAO team are not primarily budgetary in nature, but reflect organizational weaknesses, reliance on immature technologies, an unrealistic timetable and acquisition approach, and lack of commitment to a rigorous systems engineering & integration capability, among other concerns. I urge Administrator Nelson to carry out an independent review of the entire Artemis initiative as soon as possible so that he can determine what will be needed to put this important national undertaking on an executable path. I want to see NASA get the resources it will need to carry out a successful Moon-Mars initiative, but Administrator Nelson first needs to take all necessary steps to identify and address the problems afflicting Artemis and develop an executable Moon-Mars plan, or we will not just be wasting money—we will be putting our astronauts and our nation’s standing at risk.”
NASA Lunar Programs: Significant Work Remains, Underscoring Challenges to Achieving Moon Landing in 2024:https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-330Link to the report:https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-330.pdfhttps://twitter.com/USGAO/status/1397591256008699912
NASA indicated that for future acquisitions, including subsequent Artemis missions to the Moon or to Mars, the agency plans to utilize service-type contracts.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/26/2021 08:28 pmNASA Lunar Programs: Significant Work Remains, Underscoring Challenges to Achieving Moon Landing in 2024:https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-330Link to the report:https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-330.pdfhttps://twitter.com/USGAO/status/1397591256008699912Not much news, but this part caught my eyes:Quote from: Page 25NASA indicated that for future acquisitions, including subsequent Artemis missions to the Moon or to Mars, the agency plans to utilize service-type contracts.Shows NASA intends to use service type contractors for future Mars missions.
NASA has awarded $500,000 to seven winning teams in Phase 1 of the agency's Watts on the Moon Challenge. The technology design competition challenged U.S. innovators, from garage tinkerers to university researchers and startup entrepreneurs, to imagine a next-generation energy infrastructure on the Moon.Sixty teams submitted original design concepts aimed at meeting future needs for robust and flexible technologies to power human and robotic outposts on the Moon. After evaluation by a judging panel, NASA announced the winners during a private awards ceremony May 20.The winning teams are:Astrobotic Technology, Inc. of Pittsburgh: $100,000Planetary Surface Technology Development Lab at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan: $100,000Skycorp Inc. of Santa Clara, California: $100,000Astrolight of Rochester, New York: $50,000KC Space Pirates of Kansas City, Missouri: $50,000Moonlight from the University of California, Santa Barbara: $50,000Team FuelPod of Johnstown, Colorado: $50,000
We found, however, that the directorate (1) has not finalized documentation of Artemis roles and responsibilities, (2) has not documented the extent to which NASA plans to apply program and technical management practices and tools for managing programs to Artemis missions, and (3) is in the process of establishing an integrated systems engineering function.
Regarding the NASA LUNAR PROGRAMS GAO report, I found this pretty interesting:QuoteWe found, however, that the directorate (1) has not finalized documentation of Artemis roles and responsibilities, (2) has not documented the extent to which NASA plans to apply program and technical management practices and tools for managing programs to Artemis missions, and (3) is in the process of establishing an integrated systems engineering function.Artemis has been around for what, 1.5 years now, and no clear roles and responsibilities in the program? And NASA wants to manage the development of a brand new human-rated lander and get it operational in three years?Legitimate concern about whether NASA has got their hands around this program. That from top to bottom, there is a lack of cohesive program management.Why didn't Bridenstine put all of this in place once he got his marching orders from V.P. Pence regarding Artemis?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2021 03:48 amRegarding the NASA LUNAR PROGRAMS GAO report, I found this pretty interesting:QuoteWe found, however, that the directorate (1) has not finalized documentation of Artemis roles and responsibilities, (2) has not documented the extent to which NASA plans to apply program and technical management practices and tools for managing programs to Artemis missions, and (3) is in the process of establishing an integrated systems engineering function.Artemis has been around for what, 1.5 years now, and no clear roles and responsibilities in the program? And NASA wants to manage the development of a brand new human-rated lander and get it operational in three years?Legitimate concern about whether NASA has got their hands around this program. That from top to bottom, there is a lack of cohesive program management.Why didn't Bridenstine put all of this in place once he got his marching orders from V.P. Pence regarding Artemis?This isn't incredibly surprising. It's hard to finalize roles and responsibilities, document what management practices are to be used, or establish integrated system engineer when you don't know what half of the architecture looks like. Artemis was just an arm-wave until the HLS was nailed down.
So we really need to look at former V.P. Pence and former NASA Administrator Bridenstine, and ask why isn't NASA better prepared for Artemis this close to the first operational mission starting? Was the 2024 date wrong, or was the management of NASA programs (i.e. Bridenstine) not doing a good job? Or both?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2021 05:00 amSo we really need to look at former V.P. Pence and former NASA Administrator Bridenstine, and ask why isn't NASA better prepared for Artemis this close to the first operational mission starting? Was the 2024 date wrong, or was the management of NASA programs (i.e. Bridenstine) not doing a good job? Or both?Isn't it widely know that the 2024 landing date came solely from Trump in order to coincide with the end of his hypothetical second term? Everybody else just went along with it because *it's their job* to accommodate political goals.There is also an understanding that if the 2024 date slips everybody will accept it. Even a 2026 landing should be considered a major success, it would be an accomplishment that nobody expected in 2016.The surprising thing is that the 2024 date is still holding after Trump lost the election. It's now up to Administrator Senator Bill Nelson to rearrange the programs inherited from the previous administration into a coherent whole.
