Your preferences on SLS/Orion

[Narnianknight]

Cancel After A3, start commercial cislunar procurement now, whether Orion stays or not is up to commercial procurement process (can Lockheed and partners find a cost effective way that stands up to competition). Also start work for a backup possibility of A3 using the commercial cislunar solution once it's downselected, you never have too many backup if things go wrong.


I personally do not understand the logic of cancelling AII, except from an ideological one (either from a purely small government one or from a Sinophile/Anti-American perspective).

Speaking personally, the main reason to cancel Artemis II and Artemis III is to reduce risk to crew. If SLS/Orion will never be flown after Artemis III, then there is no reason for these, Artemis II is solely a crew qualification test, and Artemis III is still testing elements (like the docking port) that are crew-critical.

If it is contractually cheaper to fly these missions than it is to terminate them, then fly them uncrewed.

NOTE: I'm referring to SLS/Orion here. I feel that we still need a landing mission on alternative hardware called "Artemis III" and it may require and earlier uncrewed mission called "Artemis II", but neither of these should have any connection to SLS or Orion.

The point of Artemis is the lunar surface, not the journey there. The reason for SLS/Orion on Artemis III is to get them to the lander. If there is no landing mission flown on SLS, it means several more years of the HLS and surface operations teams putzing about with no real mission data.

"If it is contractually cheaper to fly these missions than it is to terminate them, then fly them uncrewed." I can't imagine why anyone would want to delay a landing just because it's the last flight of the transfer vehicle. If they can make it safe enough with the current plan, they can make it safe enough with Block 1B canceled. An uncrewed SLS flight (not to mention two) would not only be as mockingly useless as Ares I-X, but also demoralizing to the entire program.

[DanClemmensen]

Cancel After A3, start commercial cislunar procurement now, whether Orion stays or not is up to commercial procurement process (can Lockheed and partners find a cost effective way that stands up to competition). Also start work for a backup possibility of A3 using the commercial cislunar solution once it's downselected, you never have too many backup if things go wrong.


I personally do not understand the logic of cancelling AII, except from an ideological one (either from a purely small government one or from a Sinophile/Anti-American perspective).

Speaking personally, the main reason to cancel Artemis II and Artemis III is to reduce risk to crew. If SLS/Orion will never be flown after Artemis III, then there is no reason for these, Artemis II is solely a crew qualification test, and Artemis III is still testing elements (like the docking port) that are crew-critical.

If it is contractually cheaper to fly these missions than it is to terminate them, then fly them uncrewed.

NOTE: I'm referring to SLS/Orion here. I feel that we still need a landing mission on alternative hardware called "Artemis III" and it may require and earlier uncrewed mission called "Artemis II", but neither of these should have any connection to SLS or Orion.

The point of Artemis is the lunar surface, not the journey there. The reason for SLS/Orion on Artemis III is to get them to the lander. If there is no landing mission flown on SLS, it means several more years of the HLS and surface operations teams putzing about with no real mission data.

We have differing perceptions. I believe that there are several possible landing mission profiles that can fly as soon as Starsjip HLS can fly, by using hardware that is already operational (Crew Dragon to get crew to LEO) plus the three Starship types (HLS/Depot/Tanker) that must work anyway for a landing. terminating SLS/Orion has no negative effect on the schedule for these.

An uncrewed SLS flight (not to mention two) would not only be as mockingly useless as Ares I-X, but also demoralizing to the entire program.

Yes, mockingly useless. Only do this if it is fiscally responsible. The better choice would be to cancel them directly and immediately, claw back the termination fees if any, and spend that money by directly supporting the affected workers and communities instead of the corporations.

Not demoralizing to the entire program, only to the SLS and Orion folks. It's actually encouraging to the rest of program because it has a clear path forward to an actual sustainable human space program.

[Coastal Ron]

Cancel After A3, start commercial cislunar procurement now, whether Orion stays or not is up to commercial procurement process (can Lockheed and partners find a cost effective way that stands up to competition). Also start work for a backup possibility of A3 using the commercial cislunar solution once it's downselected, you never have too many backup if things go wrong.

Remember anything being built that isn't the SLS or Orion WILL BE the replacement for the Orion and SLS, not a backup.

I personally do not understand the logic of cancelling AII, except from an ideological one (either from a purely small government one or from a Sinophile/Anti-American perspective).

People seem to think that time is a factor in returning to the Moon. It isn't. We haven't been back there in over 50 years, and our republic has survived.

So if we decide to A) save money on each trip to the Moon, and B) create a space exploration system that can do more than one trip every two years, then it makes sense to cancel the SLS and Orion as quickly as possible and focus NASA's resources on the next generation of exploration systems.

[Narnianknight]

Cancel After A3, start commercial cislunar procurement now, whether Orion stays or not is up to commercial procurement process (can Lockheed and partners find a cost effective way that stands up to competition). Also start work for a backup possibility of A3 using the commercial cislunar solution once it's downselected, you never have too many backup if things go wrong.


I personally do not understand the logic of cancelling AII, except from an ideological one (either from a purely small government one or from a Sinophile/Anti-American perspective).

Speaking personally, the main reason to cancel Artemis II and Artemis III is to reduce risk to crew. If SLS/Orion will never be flown after Artemis III, then there is no reason for these, Artemis II is solely a crew qualification test, and Artemis III is still testing elements (like the docking port) that are crew-critical.

If it is contractually cheaper to fly these missions than it is to terminate them, then fly them uncrewed.

NOTE: I'm referring to SLS/Orion here. I feel that we still need a landing mission on alternative hardware called "Artemis III" and it may require and earlier uncrewed mission called "Artemis II", but neither of these should have any connection to SLS or Orion.

The point of Artemis is the lunar surface, not the journey there. The reason for SLS/Orion on Artemis III is to get them to the lander. If there is no landing mission flown on SLS, it means several more years of the HLS and surface operations teams putzing about with no real mission data.

We have differing perceptions. I believe that there are several possible landing mission profiles that can fly as soon as Starsjip HLS can fly, by using hardware that is already operational (Crew Dragon to get crew to LEO) plus the three Starship types (HLS/Depot/Tanker) that must work anyway for a landing. terminating SLS/Orion has no negative effect on the schedule for these.

We certainly do. My perception is that the D2/Starship architecture (while perhaps possible to develop before NG/Orion) has a near 0% chance of being considered by Congress. Congress seems fairly set on SLS at the moment, Block 1 at minimum, and Berger reports that the NG/Orion/Centaur architecture has actually been considered. It's still a stretch, but I know that at least it doesn't purely exist in the minds of us watching on the sidelines. I become much less interested in Artemis ideas for which political support seems implausible.

[TomH]

I didn't notice the thread until the poll had closed. POTUS may keep Artemis until the point we have made the 7th landing, because he wants that on his watch.

My opinion is to kill it right now. Throwing good money after bad has always been unwise. This thing is a cross between a leech and a vampire, sucking the lifeblood out of the space program. Kill it and embrace reusable vehicles. They are the future. When the Transcontinental Telegraph went live, the Pony Express was instantly dead. There is no reason to continue charging the taxpayers for an archaic system that costs a hundred times as much as the new alternative.