NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Missions To The Moon (HSF) => Topic started by: Lar on 07/27/2019 02:32 pm

Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 07/27/2019 02:32 pm
This is a continuation of discussion of the Artemis program

Prior threads
Thread 1: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48159 (locked when it got too political)
Thread 2: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48539 (locked when it got too political)

Stick to the technical and program details.
Avoid politics. Avoid discussing motivations (which, guess what, is politics). Avoid bashing SLS or SpaceX or glorifying SLS or SpaceX.

Third time is either the charm or it's a strikeout.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: speedevil on 07/27/2019 04:30 pm
When would approval have to be granted to spend money on the recently announced lander component contract?
That's obviously one long pole in the mission.
(Skimmed the thread, did not find)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 07/27/2019 04:40 pm
When would approval have to be granted to spend money on the recently announced lander component contract?
That's obviously one long pole in the mission.
(Skimmed the thread, did not find)

The lander contracts go out in November, so the FY2020 funding has to be authorised by then for the timetable to stick,
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 07/27/2019 07:59 pm
So just to clarify, Lar, where's the boundary of political talk?

For example, let's say the Senate releases a budget bill with the funding for Artemis tucked in it, would that be okay to talk about? Is the dividing line talking about individual politicians and their motives?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/27/2019 08:11 pm
So just to clarify, Lar, where's the boundary of political talk?

For example, let's say the Senate releases a budget bill with the funding for Artemis tucked in it, would that be okay to talk about? Is the dividing line talking about individual politicians and their motives?

Budget stuff is usually in the Space Policy Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=44.0) section. That's also the section for talking about politicians.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 07/28/2019 01:25 pm
So just to clarify, Lar, where's the boundary of political talk?

For example, let's say the Senate releases a budget bill with the funding for Artemis tucked in it, would that be okay to talk about? Is the dividing line talking about individual politicians and their motives?

Budget stuff is usually in the Space Policy Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=44.0) section. That's also the section for talking about politicians.
You can talk about what the bill has in it. You can talk about proposed bills and what happened to them. You just can't talk about why, if it has anything to do with getting votes by anyone.. 

So for example... talking about how much funding SLS gets (in an SLS thread)? sure. Talking about which centers get how much of the work? Sure. Talking about the various studies showing how much money has been wasted so far? Sure. Talking about why SLS is a terrifically bad idea technically? Sure. Talking about how other solutions are far more cost effective and likely to be completed sooner (IF you can find the right thread)? Sure.

Talking about why it desperately needs to be cancelled so we can stop wasting money and move on with actual useful things? That starts to veer into politics. Talking about why it has so many clueless rabid supporters? Again, politics. Talking about why Senator Shelby supports it in the face of reality? Again, politics.

I hope these examples clarify this for you.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/28/2019 02:09 pm
I hope these examples clarify this for you.

Actually, that does clarify it for me.    I keep overlooking that it is opinion which sets policy and math which determines the success or failure of those policies.  Thanks for the reminder.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 07/28/2019 11:52 pm
Talking about why it desperately needs to be cancelled so we can stop wasting money and move on with actual useful things? That starts to veer into politics. Talking about why it has so many clueless rabid supporters? Again, politics. Talking about why Senator Shelby supports it in the face of reality? Again, politics.

I hope these examples clarify this for you.
Thank you for clarifying where the boundary is
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 07/29/2019 02:42 am
Talking about why it desperately needs to be cancelled so we can stop wasting money and move on with actual useful things? That starts to veer into politics. Talking about why it has so many clueless rabid supporters? Again, politics. Talking about why Senator Shelby supports it in the face of reality? Again, politics.

I hope these examples clarify this for you.
Thank you for clarifying where the boundary is.

Though I do have to point out the irony of you throwing massive shade at SLS in the exact manner you're telling us not to do. That's behavior I don't find very becoming of a mod.
I'm sure those examples were entirely hypothetical...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 07/29/2019 02:55 am
There's some questions on how the 3 elements lander will work in the other thread, here's a diagram from the HLS BAA (draft) which may clear things up.

Quote
General Concept of Operations for Lunar Landing Missions
The nominal HLS mission will be to pick up the crew and mission materials at the Gateway, transport them to the lunar surface, provide surface and EVA support, then return the crew and surface samples to the Gateway. The crew will be flown to the Gateway in an Orion spacecraft, where the Gateway will be used to support the transfer of crew and supplies into the HLS. Figure 1 provides a generic concept of operations diagram for the initial mission capability, outlining the various waypoints in the HLS mission. While figure 1 shows a three-element architecture, that is for reference only, and is one of many possible design solutions.

BTW, now that thread 2 is moved to space policy as a policy thread, maybe mods can move some of the non-policy posts back to this thread?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 07/29/2019 02:56 am
Do we know what date we're getting the responses back from the RFI? It's going to be very interesting reading.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 07/29/2019 03:21 am
I'm sure those examples were entirely hypothetical...
Absolutely.   
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: speedevil on 07/29/2019 06:15 am
There's some questions on how the 3 elements lander will work in the other thread, here's a diagram from the HLS BAA (draft) which may clear things up.
Noting of course the small print in the text, offerers are free to bid one or ten element lander, if they can make it work.
The leadup text also makes this clear.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 07/30/2019 05:58 am
There's some questions on how the 3 elements lander will work in the other thread, here's a diagram from the HLS BAA (draft) which may clear things up.

Quote
General Concept of Operations for Lunar Landing Missions
The nominal HLS mission will be to pick up the crew and mission materials at the Gateway, transport them to the lunar surface, provide surface and EVA support, then return the crew and surface samples to the Gateway. The crew will be flown to the Gateway in an Orion spacecraft, where the Gateway will be used to support the transfer of crew and supplies into the HLS. Figure 1 provides a generic concept of operations diagram for the initial mission capability, outlining the various waypoints in the HLS mission. While figure 1 shows a three-element architecture, that is for reference only, and is one of many possible design solutions.

Not sure I'm reading this diagram properly... please confirm: in the 'Disposal' column, second from the right, does that show the ascent stage being disposed of?

Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 07/30/2019 06:27 am
The original approach was reusable.

Now with 2024 objective expendable is allowed for a Mark I version of the architecture, the sustainable, reusable version coming later.

With the usual risk to be stuck with the first one. How to justify to develop a new architecture when you have one which works?

As a European I could provide the example of Ariane 5 ECA which was supposed to be an interim solution waiting for the Vinci engine but I am sure there are many in the US.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 07/30/2019 07:14 am
Well, I mean, you have to develop another lander since you're throwing the first one away. If the contractors take the reusability component seriously and future-proof the initial design for it, then it shouldn't be too hard to make the changes neccessary in the next one.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/30/2019 08:12 am
{snip}
Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?

The Gateway will allow reuse of the very expensive lunar lander ascent stages (including the cabins). To support refuelling the Minimal Habitat Modules (MHM) will have to have temperature controlled plumbing and wiring joining the 4 docking ports together.

To be included in the MHM development contract the plumbing requirements will have to be finalised within the next 2 months. We are talking about spending a few thousand dollars to save millions of dollars. The do it order needs to come down from NASA HQ within days.

All of the first lander stages are going to be throw away because the refuelling pumps and fuel tanks will not have been installed in the Gateway for the first crewed lunar landing in 2024. Hopefully they will have been installed by 2028.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 07/30/2019 09:12 am
{snip}
Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?

The Gateway will allow reuse of the very expensive lunar lander ascent stages (including the cabins). To support refuelling the Minimal Habitat Modules (MHM) will have to have temperature controlled plumbing and wiring joining the 4 docking ports together.

To be included in the MHM development contract the plumbing requirements will have to be finalised within the next 2 months. We are talking about spending a few thousand dollars to save millions of dollars. The do it order needs to come down from NASA HQ within days.

All of the first lander stages are going to be throw away because the refuelling pumps and fuel tanks will not have been installed in the Gateway for the first crewed lunar landing in 2024. Hopefully they will have been installed by 2028.

It's not obvious that a gateway is needed to permit reuse.  It might help, but it needs to be established that it would help enough to offset its own cost.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/30/2019 12:44 pm
Talking about why ...

... is, in my mind, the most important feature of this site.  Why are the policies as they are?  Why [your question here.]
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 07/30/2019 01:19 pm
In the document above (first page) it is great to see for the launching of the gateway, ppe, tug, descent, and ascent stages, "CLI" - commercial launch vehicle - denoted by two outlines of Falcon Heavy.

Business for SX - Falcon Heavy Contracts in the offing...
As others have said, there are likely to be 2 FH launches to set up Gateway, and 1 or more likely 2 for the hardware for every manned mission! Even if NASA attempts to include other launchers, the price, and payload of a FH means they will get several contracts.
Also SX could be contracted to have a FH standing by, (or prepared early) in case of any kind of rescue, or emergency delivery. (I have not considered the details). Because of their manufacturing speed, number of cores in circulation, multiple storage (easy to increase) locations and ease of re-assigning cores - oh and price! ISTM they could provide such a backup at a much lower cost than anyone else - and again with the largest payloads.

As an SX believer! I expect SS to get to the Moon (surface)(unmanned) "around" the same time as a no-upsets NASA mission. But planning and contracts for FH to Gateway will need to be in place before SS is sufficiently fixed, saleable, and considered safe. (The extremely likely SS delivery of extra items to the surface or orbit is not the point of this post.)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/30/2019 02:27 pm
{snip}
Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?

The Gateway will allow reuse of the very expensive lunar lander ascent stages (including the cabins). To support refuelling the Minimal Habitat Modules (MHM) will have to have temperature controlled plumbing and wiring joining the 4 docking ports together.

To be included in the MHM development contract the plumbing requirements will have to be finalised within the next 2 months. We are talking about spending a few thousand dollars to save millions of dollars. The do it order needs to come down from NASA HQ within days.

All of the first lander stages are going to be throw away because the refuelling pumps and fuel tanks will not have been installed in the Gateway for the first crewed lunar landing in 2024. Hopefully they will have been installed by 2028.

It's not obvious that a gateway is needed to permit reuse.  It might help, but it needs to be established that it would help enough to offset its own cost.

Cost justification of lunar Gateway.

I am sticking to lunar operations so the science laboratories along with construction and maintenance of Mars Transfer Vehicles will need their own justification.

I am allowing for supporting landing a woman on the Moon and building a lunar base missions.




ItempriceReference
Launching a Falcon 9 $62 million https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
launching a Falcon 9 with crew Dragon $140-$175 million https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2endx6/cost_of_dragon_v2_vs_soyuz/
Launching a Falcon Heavy $90 million https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
launching a Space Launch System (SLS) including Orion estimated $2,000 million or less https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/how-much-will-sls-and-orion-cost-to-fly-finally-some-answers
CLPS million to the lunar surface about $100 million https://spacenews.com/commercial-lunar-lander-company-terminates-nasa-contract
Buying the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) $375 million https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/24/nasa-chooses-maxar-to-build-keystone-module-for-lunar-gateway-station
Buying the Minimal Habitat Module (MHM) (redacted)
Robotic Arm a few $hundred million paid by the Canadian Government
Gateway resupply mission (unknown)
Buying a Lander Ascent Stage (unknown)
Buying a Lander Transfer Stage (unknown)
Buying a lander Descent Stage (unknown)
Buying a fuelling module (unknown) guess $50 million
Development of a fuelling module (unknown)
Refuelling mission to Gateway (unknown) say Falcon Heavy + fuelling module = $90M + $50M = $140 million
Refuelling mission to free floating Ascent Stage (unknown) may involve an SLS
Cost of Lander Ascent Stage doing own station keeping (unknown)
Getting a fuelled three stage lander to lunar orbit without using the Gateway say $2 billion since probably only an SLS can transport any thing that heavy in one go


The Gateway provides station keeping facilities to the Ascent stage between missions and station keeping to the Orion during missions. Cargo is transfer from a Falcon Heavy to the cargo lander.

A mini Gateway consisting of PPE, MHM equipped to refuel the lander and robotic arm = $375M + (reacted) + a few $hundred million + crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy to assemble ($140M-$62M+$90M) say $1-$1.5 billion.

So the whole space station will cost less than a single SLS launch.

The transfer and descent stages of the lander are about the same complexity as an upper stage. Unfortunately the lander ascent stage will be as complex as an Orion or crew Dragon, use the development cost of the CST-100 as an estimation.

Refuelling a lander ascent stage at the Gateway = $112 million.

Refuelling a free flying lander ascent stage using an Orion and SLS around $2 billion.

Station keeping fuel need by reusable Ascent Stage for 6 months (needs calculating)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 07/30/2019 02:43 pm
{snip}
Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?

The Gateway will allow reuse of the very expensive lunar lander ascent stages (including the cabins). To support refuelling the Minimal Habitat Modules (MHM) will have to have temperature controlled plumbing and wiring joining the 4 docking ports together.

To be included in the MHM development contract the plumbing requirements will have to be finalised within the next 2 months. We are talking about spending a few thousand dollars to save millions of dollars. The do it order needs to come down from NASA HQ within days.

I don't know how this would work, NASA doesn't know who will provide the lander and what kind of fuel the lander will use yet, seems difficult to write requirement in this situation.

I'm in the camp that says NASA needs to let companies design the architecture, if a company thinks they need a propellant depot at Gateway they can include it in their lander proposal, there are many ways to optimize this, let's not put restrictions on the architecture this early.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: butters on 07/30/2019 04:02 pm
{snip}
Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?

The Gateway will allow reuse of the very expensive lunar lander ascent stages (including the cabins). To support refuelling the Minimal Habitat Modules (MHM) will have to have temperature controlled plumbing and wiring joining the 4 docking ports together.

To be included in the MHM development contract the plumbing requirements will have to be finalised within the next 2 months. We are talking about spending a few thousand dollars to save millions of dollars. The do it order needs to come down from NASA HQ within days.

I don't know how this would work, NASA doesn't know who will provide the lander and what kind of fuel the lander will use yet, seems difficult to write requirement in this situation.

I'm in the camp that says NASA needs to let companies design the architecture, if a company thinks they need a propellant depot at Gateway they can include it in their lander proposal, there are many ways to optimize this, let's not put restrictions on the architecture this early.

This is the crux of the challenge facing NASA HSF: NASA doesn't want to be prescriptive about the architecture, but they must insist on NRHO staging to ensure a role for Orion, and they must insist that the lander elements cannot be assembled and refueled without being docked to the Gateway. NASA doesn't want to have to dictate that the ascent module and transfer stage both use hypergolic propulsion, they want the contractors to come to that conclusion themselves. NASA is not ready to turn over major architectural decisions to the contractors. They want the contractors to fill in the blanks in the provided Mad Lib with what they perceive to be the obvious solutions.

We've seen Lockheed's single-stage and two-stage lunar lander proposals. We know what SpaceX has in mind. We've seen a piece of Blue Origin's plans. We know that ULA/parents are interested in hydrolox refueling with ACES. I don't think NASA would have much success incentivizing various contractors to agree on an architecture where they can all play nicely with each other. SpaceX would take their methalox Starship ball and go home. A BlueBoeMart alliance could form around a hydrolox refueling architecture which could be problematic for Gateway as well as overall budget and schedule constraints.

It's likely that within 5-10 years, America will have two commercial space transportation systems with service to the lunar surface, representing two very different approaches to the problem, neither of which involves a space station in NRHO. NASA will have their choice of end-to-end transport solutions, and it will be up to them to design missions, rather than this asinine "if we builds the transportation, the demand for missions will come from elsewhere" nonsense.

Until then, we have to get through this Artemis phase, where NASA tries to build a horse by committee by hinting to the various contractors that the solution should have humps.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/30/2019 04:15 pm
{snip}
Am I the only one under the delusion that Gateway would allow for reuse of this component?

The Gateway will allow reuse of the very expensive lunar lander ascent stages (including the cabins). To support refuelling the Minimal Habitat Modules (MHM) will have to have temperature controlled plumbing and wiring joining the 4 docking ports together.

To be included in the MHM development contract the plumbing requirements will have to be finalised within the next 2 months. We are talking about spending a few thousand dollars to save millions of dollars. The do it order needs to come down from NASA HQ within days.

I don't know how this would work, NASA doesn't know who will provide the lander and what kind of fuel the lander will use yet, seems difficult to write requirement in this situation.

I'm in the camp that says NASA needs to let companies design the architecture, if a company thinks they need a propellant depot at Gateway they can include it in their lander proposal, there are many ways to optimize this, let's not put restrictions on the architecture this early.

We are describing pipes and connectors. A simple option is for the Gateway to have connectors for hydrogen, lox, methane and at least one form of hypergolic propellant.

There is no excuse for failure to define the shape of the drinking water and breathable oxygen connectors plus where about they go on the docking ports. These supply tanks inside the spacecraft.

If no liquid connectors are fitted to the Gateway's IDSS docking ports then a high level architectural decision has been taken that the space station is not the propellant depot. Having a second lunar space stations gets expensive.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 07/30/2019 04:38 pm
Two questions:

1. Do there exist sound technical decisions for Gateway hardware to be directly involved in refueling? Specifically, would a tug/depot connecting to and refueling the ascent stage work equally well, and why or why not?

2. Regarding NRHO: I wish to know the extent to which it is necessitated, and by what exactly. I understand that it's a crutch for SLS+Orion shortcomings in the current block 1 configuration. Would moving to block 1b (EUS) plus, possibly, a larger SM obviate the need for NRHO? What about CLV resupply: do those transits require Gateway to be in NRHO, given it's only a one-way trip?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Toast on 07/30/2019 05:43 pm
2. Regarding NRHO: I wish to know the extent to which it is necessitated, and by what exactly. I understand that it's a crutch for SLS+Orion shortcomings in the current block 1 configuration. Would moving to block 1b (EUS) plus, possibly, a larger SM obviate the need for NRHO? What about CLV resupply: do those transits require Gateway to be in NRHO, given it's only a one-way trip?

I believe the limiting factor is the Orion service module. It has the Delta-V to make the lunar transfer/return, but only to the higher NHRO orbit and not LLO. So yes, a larger SM would solve the problem, but I don't believe that is currently in the works.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woog on 07/30/2019 07:41 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-us-industry-partnerships-to-advance-moon-mars-technology
NASA announces a partnership with companies in the industry for the Artemis program.
I find it interesting that it mentions both blue moon and starship.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 07/30/2019 07:49 pm
2. Regarding NRHO: I wish to know the extent to which it is necessitated, and by what exactly. I understand that it's a crutch for SLS+Orion shortcomings in the current block 1 configuration. Would moving to block 1b (EUS) plus, possibly, a larger SM obviate the need for NRHO? What about CLV resupply: do those transits require Gateway to be in NRHO, given it's only a one-way trip?

I believe the limiting factor is the Orion service module. It has the Delta-V to make the lunar transfer/return, but only to the higher NHRO orbit and not LLO. So yes, a larger SM would solve the problem, but I don't believe that is currently in the works.

Copy that, this was my understanding as well. Is the currently size of the SM a result of the ICPS-based limbo SLS is currently in?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: RonM on 07/30/2019 07:55 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-us-industry-partnerships-to-advance-moon-mars-technology
NASA announces a partnership with companies in the industry for the Artemis program.
I find it interesting that it mentions both blue moon and starship.

These industry partnerships will benefit BLEO exploration plans whether they're Artemis or commercial. Good move by NASA.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 07/30/2019 08:04 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48706.msg1972678#msg1972678

Brilliant.... NASA to work with SX to deliver fuel in orbit!!!

And I kept resisting saying this about the refuelling for Gateway and refuelling the lunar ascent stage - and if not refuelled then thrown away.... Now to read what it says!!!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 07/30/2019 08:11 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48706.msg1972678#msg1972678

Brilliant.... NASA to work with SX to deliver fuel in orbit!!!

And I kept resisting saying this about the refuelling for Gateway and refuelling the lunar ascent stage - and if not refuelled then thrown away.... Now to read what it says!!!
even more relevant!!!
Quote
SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, will work with NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to advance their technology to vertically land large rockets on the Moon. This includes advancing models to assess engine plume interaction with lunar regolith.
edit: The other key point: (and put the quotes in quotes)
Quote
SpaceX will work with Glenn and Marshall to advance technology needed to transfer propellant in orbit, an important step in the development of the company’s Starship space vehicle.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 07/30/2019 08:20 pm
Yep, this is really quite excellent. And let's hope that Glenn and Marshall share all that is learned about prop transfer with other players, too.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 07/31/2019 02:02 am
Talking about why ...

... is, in my mind, the most important feature of this site.  Why are the policies as they are?  Why [your question here.]
We have another thread for that now, in space policy. This thread is for what and how, not why.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/31/2019 12:08 pm
Talking about why ...

... is, in my mind, the most important feature of this site.  Why are the policies as they are?  Why [your question here.]
We have another thread for that now, in space policy. This thread is for what and how, not why.

NOticed that yesterday.  Thx.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/31/2019 05:53 pm
2. Regarding NRHO: I wish to know the extent to which it is necessitated, and by what exactly. I understand that it's a crutch for SLS+Orion shortcomings in the current block 1 configuration. Would moving to block 1b (EUS) plus, possibly, a larger SM obviate the need for NRHO? What about CLV resupply: do those transits require Gateway to be in NRHO, given it's only a one-way trip?

I believe the limiting factor is the Orion service module. It has the Delta-V to make the lunar transfer/return, but only to the higher NHRO orbit and not LLO. So yes, a larger SM would solve the problem, but I don't believe that is currently in the works.

It took me a while before I had the "Duh!" moment on this, but everything makes sense when you realize that the "70 tonnes to LEO" number that's cited for Block 1 SLS means that the SRBs and core can get 70 tonnes to LEO, with no upper stage contribution at all.  That turns out to be close to what ICPS+OSA+ESM+fairings+CM+LAS weighs.  (That stack actually weighs 67 t, and 9 t of LAS and ESM fairings come off halfway through the launch, but that's made up for by the fact that the core puts the stack into an 80 x 1100 km orbit, which has about 320 m/s more specific energy than a standard 200 x 200 LEO.)

Then the ICPS can get about 27 tonnes to TLI, and that becomes your limit for how heavy the full on-orbit Orion stack can be.  (Again, a bit of a fudge, because TLI is lower because of the eccentric LEO, and the ICPS has to spend about 20 m/s to raise the perigee to about 150 km.)

The Orion CM is a relic from the Constellation days, and therefore the 10.7 tonne wet mass with crew is a given.  That means that the ESM must be the size that it is, which is 15.5 t.  Throw in a half tonne for the Orion Stage Adapter and you're close to your 27 t limit.

So there's no point in even thinking about a heavier ESM until Block 1B comes along with the EUS.  Given that EUS has been sent to perpetual limbo, it explains why everybody is pretty much resigned to NRHO for the foreseeable future.

Edit:  I left out the mass of the SLS core-to-ICPS interstage, which is likely about 2 tonnes.  That brings the GLOM of the stuff above the core to 69 t.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 07/31/2019 05:58 pm
2. Regarding NRHO: I wish to know the extent to which it is necessitated, and by what exactly. I understand that it's a crutch for SLS+Orion shortcomings in the current block 1 configuration. Would moving to block 1b (EUS) plus, possibly, a larger SM obviate the need for NRHO? What about CLV resupply: do those transits require Gateway to be in NRHO, given it's only a one-way trip?

I believe the limiting factor is the Orion service module. It has the Delta-V to make the lunar transfer/return, but only to the higher NHRO orbit and not LLO. So yes, a larger SM would solve the problem, but I don't believe that is currently in the works.

It took me a while before I had the "Duh!" moment on this, but everything makes sense when you realize that the "70 tonnes to LEO" number that's cited for Block 1 SLS means that the SRBs and core can get 70 tonnes to LEO, with no upper stage contribution at all.  That turns out to be close to what ICPS+OSA+ESM+fairings+CM+LAS weighs.  (That stack actually weighs 67 t, and 9 t of LAS and ESM fairings come off halfway through the launch, but that's made up for by the fact that the core puts the stack into an 80 x 1100 km orbit, which has about 320 m/s more specific energy than a standard 200 x 200 LEO.)

Then the ICPS can get about 27 tonnes to TLI, and that becomes your limit for how heavy the full on-orbit Orion stack can be.  (Again, a bit of a fudge, because TLI is lower because of the eccentric LEO, and the ICPS has to spend about 20 m/s to raise the perigee to about 150 km.)

The Orion CM is a relic from the Constellation days, and therefore the 10.7 tonne wet mass with crew is a given.  That means that the ESM must be the size that it is, which is 15.5 t.  Throw in a half tonne for the Orion Stage Adapter and you're close to your 27 t limit.

So there's no point in even thinking about a heavier ESM until Block 1B comes along with the EUS.  Given that EUS has been sent to perpetual limbo, it explains why everybody is pretty much resigned to NRHO for the foreseeable future.

And now you see why sinking all that time and effort into supersizing the core stage instead of building a real upper stage was such a waste.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/31/2019 06:06 pm

And now you see why sinking all that time and effort into supersizing the core stage instead of building a real upper stage was such a waste.

Look on the bright side:  nobody had to suffer through a Lagrange multiplier calculation to determine optimal staging.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 07/31/2019 08:22 pm
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/31/2019 08:46 pm
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.


That's because they smartened up and started using an apples-to-apples comparison, where all the prop in the ICPS went to putting a payload into the reference 200 x 200 LEO.

If you work out the math for just the SRBs and core, it comes out almost perfectly at 70 t.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 07/31/2019 08:48 pm
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.

95 t to LEO assumes the ICPS is depleted to reach 200 km circular LEO. I haven't seen any evidence that the Block 0 version can do 95 t without ICPS. It would be about 75 t but very sensitive to final burnout mass because the core stage is extremely large.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 07/31/2019 09:05 pm
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.

95 t to LEO assumes the ICPS is depleted to reach 200 km circular LEO. I haven't seen any evidence that the Block 0 version can do 95 t without ICPS. It would be about 75 t but very sensitive to final burnout mass because the core stage is extremely large.

It's also pretty sensitive to gravity drag.  After SRB jettison, the core + 70 t payload still has a T/W of not quite 1.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Mammutti on 07/31/2019 09:19 pm
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1156655836514738177

Quote
Farther and faster: The next stage of America’s Moon rocket is taking shape to dramatically reduce travel time in space and carry more on a single flight. The Boeing-built @NASA_SLS Exploration Upper Stage will fly on Artemis-3.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 08/01/2019 12:04 am
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1156655836514738177

Quote
Farther and faster: The next stage of America’s Moon rocket is taking shape to dramatically reduce travel time in space and carry more on a single flight. The Boeing-built @NASA_SLS Exploration Upper Stage will fly on Artemis-3.

Wow, so Boeing got it back. Good job.

This means EUS will be man-rated for its first flight.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 08/01/2019 03:59 am
The original approach was reusable.

Now with 2024 objective expendable is allowed for a Mark I version of the architecture, the sustainable, reusable version coming later.

With the usual risk to be stuck with the first one. How to justify to develop a new architecture when you have one which works?

As a European I could provide the example of Ariane 5 ECA which was supposed to be an interim solution waiting for the Vinci engine but I am sure there are many in the US.

As someone who worked in for several years in what was supposed to be a temporary Marine Corps building in Mojave that was built during WWII, I can tell you that there are few things more permanent than a temporary solution...

IOW, I totally agree with your concern. If we skip reusability for speed, it'll just make things easier to cancel down the road. Lander reusability doesn't have to be that hard either. There are several ways to get it from day one without requiring a lot of headache.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/01/2019 07:59 am
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.

My simulations show 89.0 t payload to LEO. If you include the empty iCPS at 5.2 t, that gives an IMLEO of 94.2 t, close to your 95 t figure.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 08/01/2019 08:02 am
My simulations show 89.0 t payload to LEO. If you include the empty iCPS at 5.2 t, that gives an IMLEO of 94.2 t, close to your 95 t figure.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/
Well now I don't know who to believe.

To clarify, you're getting both of those figures with an empty ICPS?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 08/01/2019 08:07 am
The original approach was reusable.

Now with 2024 objective expendable is allowed for a Mark I version of the architecture, the sustainable, reusable version coming later.

With the usual risk to be stuck with the first one. How to justify to develop a new architecture when you have one which works?

As a European I could provide the example of Ariane 5 ECA which was supposed to be an interim solution waiting for the Vinci engine but I am sure there are many in the US.

As someone who worked in for several years in what was supposed to be a temporary Marine Corps building in Mojave that was built during WWII, I can tell you that there are few things more permanent than a temporary solution...

IOW, I totally agree with your concern. If we skip reusability for speed, it'll just make things easier to cancel down the road. Lander reusability doesn't have to be that hard either. There are several ways to get it from day one without requiring a lot of headache.

~Jon
If NASA starts relaxing the requirements for later landers: start worrying. Otherwise I think we're fine. If the engineers know it's going to be a part of the design from the get-go, they'll factor that into the initial design, so that they're not having to re-do the whole thing a few years afterwards.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/01/2019 08:14 am
Well now I don't know who to believe.

To clarify, you're getting both of those figures with an empty ICPS?

Payload mass does not include the empty mass of the iCPS (89.0 t). The IMLEO includes the empty mass of the iCPS (89.0+5.2 = 94.2 t).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 08/01/2019 11:46 am
Well now I don't know who to believe.

To clarify, you're getting both of those figures with an empty ICPS?

Payload mass does not include the empty mass of the iCPS (89.0 t). The IMLEO includes the empty mass of the iCPS (89.0+5.2 = 94.2 t).

That's with a full duration burn off the ICPS to reach LEO, correct?

Have you run the Block 0 version with no ICPS?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/01/2019 02:07 pm
It took me a while before I had the "Duh!" moment on this, but everything makes sense when you realize that the "70 tonnes to LEO" number that's cited for Block 1 SLS means that the SRBs and core can get 70 tonnes to LEO, with no upper stage contribution at all.  That turns out to be close to what ICPS+OSA+ESM+fairings+CM+LAS weighs.  ...

Then the ICPS can get about 27 tonnes to TLI, and that becomes your limit for how heavy the full on-orbit Orion stack can be...

The Orion CM is a relic from the Constellation days...  Throw in a half tonne for the Orion Stage Adapter and you're close to your 27 t limit. ...

And now you see why sinking all that time and effort into supersizing the core stage instead of building a real upper stage was such a waste.

Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/01/2019 02:08 pm
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.

It's not about the age, it's about the throw weight.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/01/2019 02:09 pm
Except I'm not sure your calculations are right because that "70t to LEO" number is old, old, old and has not been used in any SLS materials for the past 2 years. The modern figure is 95t to LEO.

95 t to LEO assumes the ICPS is depleted to reach 200 km circular LEO. I haven't seen any evidence that the Block 0 version can do 95 t without ICPS. It would be about 75 t but very sensitive to final burnout mass because the core stage is extremely large.

It's close enough!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 08/01/2019 02:42 pm
It took me a while before I had the "Duh!" moment on this, but everything makes sense when you realize that the "70 tonnes to LEO" number that's cited for Block 1 SLS means that the SRBs and core can get 70 tonnes to LEO, with no upper stage contribution at all.  That turns out to be close to what ICPS+OSA+ESM+fairings+CM+LAS weighs.  ...

Then the ICPS can get about 27 tonnes to TLI, and that becomes your limit for how heavy the full on-orbit Orion stack can be...

The Orion CM is a relic from the Constellation days...  Throw in a half tonne for the Orion Stage Adapter and you're close to your 27 t limit. ...

And now you see why sinking all that time and effort into supersizing the core stage instead of building a real upper stage was such a waste.

Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.

Use it for what? There are no 70 ton payloads going to LEO. SLS is pointless without an upper stage.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/01/2019 03:33 pm
Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.

Use it for what? There are no 70 ton payloads going to LEO. SLS is pointless without an upper stage.

Use it for going to the Moon?  Am I missing something from the thread above?  That 70 tons in LEO is pretty useful?  Which is not to suggest that the gateway, the lander, the transfer vehicle, the lunar base, yada yada yada comes in at 70 tons.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 08/01/2019 04:28 pm
Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.

Use it for what? There are no 70 ton payloads going to LEO. SLS is pointless without an upper stage.

Us it for going to the Moon?  Am I missing something from the thread above?  That 70 tons in LEO is pretty useful?  Which is not to suggest that the gateway, the lander, the transfer vehicle, the lunar base, yada yad yada comes in at 70 tons.

All of that requires an upper stage, because none of it is actually going to LEO. The 70 tons to LEO with no upper stage spec is pointless, which is why NASA didn't even bother with Block 0.

The only reason to use a HLV to get to LEO is so Orion can do ISS crew rotations. But that's an exorbitantly expensive waste of Orion's BLEO capabilities, and also only requires a 35 t to LEO launcher, not a 70 t launcher.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2019 04:46 pm
Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.

Use it for what? There are no 70 ton payloads going to LEO. SLS is pointless without an upper stage.

Us it for going to the Moon?  Am I missing something from the thread above?  That 70 tons in LEO is pretty useful?  Which is not to suggest that the gateway, the lander, the transfer vehicle, the lunar base, yada yad yada comes in at 70 tons.

All of that requires an upper stage, because none of it is actually going to LEO. The 70 tons to LEO with no upper stage spec is pointless, which is why NASA didn't even bother with Block 0.

The only reason to use a HLV to get to LEO is so Orion can do ISS crew rotations. But that's an exorbitantly expensive waste of Orion's BLEO capabilities, and also only requires a 35 t to LEO launcher, not a 70 t launcher.

To move stuff from LEO to lunar orbit an upper stage is not needed since a reusable space tug can do that job. A couple of RL-10 or methane burning Broadsword engines could power the tug.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/01/2019 05:00 pm
Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.

Use it for what? There are no 70 ton payloads going to LEO. SLS is pointless without an upper stage.

Us it for going to the Moon?  Am I missing something from the thread above?  That 70 tons in LEO is pretty useful?  Which is not to suggest that the gateway, the lander, the transfer vehicle, the lunar base, yada yad yada comes in at 70 tons.

Here's my guess at how this got so confusing:

In the beginning, nobody at MSFC could imagine SLS ever being used in a pure LEO mission.  They assumed (quite correctly) that all viable SLS profiles were for BEO missions.  So when they were initially asked for payload to LEO, they assumed that what they were really being asked was, "How big is the stack that you're putting into a parking orbit prior to TLI?"  And so they said, "70 tonnes," and that was that.

Then SpaceX came along with FH, and advertised 63 t to LEO.  An obvious criticism of SLS Block 1 was then, "You're going to spend north of $2B a launch and your megarocket only puts 7 tonnes more into LEO than the SpaceX dealywhobber that costs $150M a launch????"

So MSFC realized they had a PR problem, and they fixed it by coming up with a pure LEO number, which is somewhere in the >90 t range if you get all the way to ICPS burnout.  Never mind that there's no fairing for such a launch, and no plans ever to do one.  Now they have a number to fend off SpaceX.

Does it matter how much SLS can throw to your standard 200 x 200 x 28.5 LEO?  Absolutely not--the parking orbit is all we care about.  But that doesn't mean that the SLS guys don't have to measure their... rockets... against all the other guys'... rockets.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/01/2019 05:10 pm
The SLS's parking orbit is 200 km x 1800 km (or so)

For a 1-1 comparison, what could Falcon Heavy put into such an orbit?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/01/2019 05:18 pm

To move stuff from LEO to lunar orbit an upper stage is not needed since a reusable space tug can do that job. A couple of RL-10 or methane burning Broadsword engines could power the tug.

You're basically describing Block 1B, where EUS is a combination of "tug" and "real live second stage like the big boys use on their rockets".

Now, if you're talking about a real reusable tug that does earth-orbit rendezvous with its payload and hauls it somewhere interesting (i.e., a piece of hardware that doesn't currently exist), I can't think of a reason to use SLS.  If you can dream up a 95-tonne payload that a tug can actually handle, you can likely dream up a way of dividing that payload into two pieces and launching it on something that costs vastly less than >$2B a pop.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TheRadicalModerate on 08/01/2019 05:30 pm
The SLS's parking orbit is 200 km x 1800 km (or so)

For a 1-1 comparison, what could Falcon Heavy put into such an orbit?

200 x 1800 is about 410 m/s more energy than 200 x 200.  By my model, an FHE could put 55 t into that orbit.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2019 05:47 pm
{snip}
Now, if you're talking about a real reusable tug that does earth-orbit rendezvous with its payload and hauls it somewhere interesting (i.e., a piece of hardware that doesn't currently exist), I can't think of a reason to use SLS.  If you can dream up a 95-tonne payload that a tug can actually handle, you can likely dream up a way of dividing that payload into two pieces and launching it on something that costs vastly less than >$2B a pop.

New hardware design. Ten years ago the the Falcon 1 could not get 70 tonne payloads to LEO so a Direct lower stage would have had a monopoly on heavy payloads. Getting a space station based on Skylab to lunar orbit could have used Direct plus a tug.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/02/2019 10:01 am
That's with a full duration burn off the ICPS to reach LEO, correct?

That's with iCPS with a partial load of propellant (16,880 kg propellant compared to a full load of 24,017 kg). I found that a greater propellant load decreased the amount of payload. I believe this is mainly due to the very low thrust of the iCPS to handle very large payloads.

Quote
Have you run the Block 0 version with no ICPS?

No.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/02/2019 02:16 pm
Did I say "build the 70 ton version and start using it"?  Did I?  Why yes, yes I did.

Use it for what? There are no 70 ton payloads going to LEO. SLS is pointless without an upper stage.

Us it for going to the Moon?  Am I missing something from the thread above?  That 70 tons in LEO is pretty useful?  Which is not to suggest that the gateway, the lander, the transfer vehicle, the lunar base, yada yad yada comes in at 70 tons.

Here's my guess at how this got so confusing:

{snip}

Does it matter how much SLS can throw to your standard 200 x 200 x 28.5 LEO?  Absolutely not--the parking orbit is all we care about.  But that doesn't mean that the SLS guys don't have to measure their... rockets... against all the other guys'... rockets.

I've been following this for a decade now.  They continute to play numbers games.  One of the posters above made it sound like 70 tons of buck shot to LEO was all that SLS could accomplish.  Several years ago I did a BOTE with some help from a SpaceX employee, which roughly 'proved' that F9 could have landed about a one ton payload on the lunar surface.  Now, 70 tons of buckshot isn't going from LEO to a lunar landing, but 70 tons of properly designed and configured "payload" could get a few tons to the lunar surface in one shot.  Just sayin'.

Anyhow, the Artemis program has to put a lot of useful things in space at several useful locations, such as the Gateway and its ancillary support stuff;  you know, landers, prop tanks, yada yada.  SLS could be very useful, but for some reason, NASA management continues to slow walk the program.  The part of your post above, which I snipped out for clarity only, is one way of "explaining" what's going on with SLS.

Did I mentions that sometimes I flat out don't get it?  Why yes, yes I did.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: svlu on 08/02/2019 03:04 pm

{snip}
 SLS could be very useful, but for some reason, NASA management continues to slow walk the program.  {snip}

It could be useful if the cost was less, a lot less. As things currently seams to be playing out, others will provide the heavy lifting way to cheap for SLS to be relevant.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Toast on 08/02/2019 03:31 pm
SLS could be very useful, but for some reason, NASA management continues to slow walk the program.
SLS has a lot of problems, but I don't think NASA management slow-walking things is one of them.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 08/02/2019 03:45 pm

{snip}
 SLS could be very useful, but for some reason, NASA management continues to slow walk the program.  {snip}

It could be useful if the cost was less, a lot less. As things currently seams to be playing out, others will provide the heavy lifting way to cheap for SLS to be relevant.

For commercial use that applies, but doesn't necessarily for a program like Artemis where capability is more useful (long as Congress continues to fund it).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: svlu on 08/02/2019 03:56 pm

{snip}
 SLS could be very useful, but for some reason, NASA management continues to slow walk the program.  {snip}

It could be useful if the cost was less, a lot less. As things currently seams to be playing out, others will provide the heavy lifting way to cheap for SLS to be relevant.

For commercial use that applies, but doesn't necessarily for a program like Artemis where capability is more useful (long as Congress continues to fund it).
Both SLS and Starship are aiming to launch in the same time frame and we obviously do not know the exact capabilities or cost yet, but one of them do seams to be more cost effective than the other...
Capabilities matter for Artemis and hopefully cost will matter for Congress...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 08/02/2019 08:55 pm
Both SLS and Starship are aiming to launch in the same time frame and we obviously do not know the exact capabilities or cost yet, but one of them do seams to be more cost effective than the other...
Capabilities matter for Artemis and hopefully cost will matter for Congress...
One claims it will be more cost-effective than the other. Considering it's at such an early stage of development that their only hardware are vaguely Starship-shaped pieces made by a water tower company, I take those claims with a grain of salt. The same was claimed for the Shuttle, after all.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 08/02/2019 10:18 pm
Both SLS and Starship are aiming to launch in the same time frame and we obviously do not know the exact capabilities or cost yet, but one of them do seams to be more cost effective than the other...
Capabilities matter for Artemis and hopefully cost will matter for Congress...
One claims it will be more cost-effective than the other. Considering it's at such an early stage of development that their only hardware are vaguely Starship-shaped pieces made by a water tower company, I take those claims with a grain of salt. The same was claimed for the Shuttle, after all.

On the other hand, Starship avoids what seems to me are the two fundamental flaws in the Shuttle.  For one, though the Shuttle was meant to be all about economical access to space, it was managed by and organization that had never shown (and to this day still has not shown) much of a knack for cost control.  SpaceX, on the other hand, has demonstrated the ability to greatly lower costs.

Secondly, though the Shuttle was an entirely new kind of vehicle, the first one off the production line (excepting the test articles OV-101 and -099) was supposed be operational.  The very same "vaguely Starship-shaped pieces made by a water tower company" that you deride serve as the test vehicles and prototypes that should have preceded the Shuttle. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 08/02/2019 11:49 pm
On the other hand, Starship avoids what seems to me are the two fundamental flaws in the Shuttle.  For one, though the Shuttle was meant to be all about economical access to space, it was managed by and organization that had never shown (and to this day still has not shown) much of a knack for cost control.  SpaceX, on the other hand, has demonstrated the ability to greatly lower costs.

Secondly, though the Shuttle was an entirely new kind of vehicle, the first one off the production line (excepting the test articles OV-101 and -099) was supposed be operational.  The very same "vaguely Starship-shaped pieces made by a water tower company" that you deride serve as the test vehicles and prototypes that should have preceded the Shuttle.
The biggest flaws of the Shuttle weren't just engineering in nature: they were economic as well.

SpaceX has undoubtedly learned from the engineering flaws of shuttle. Avoiding side-mount is a good call. The "pros" of doing that on the Shuttle proved to outweigh the cons. A tile TPS was probably unavoidable - hopefully the lack of sidemount means that any brittle-ness won't be a problem.

On the other hand, they're not avoiding the biggest flaw of the shuttle, IMO, which is predicating your entire craft's business case on a large expansion of the launch market well-above current rates. The freakin' US government couldn't do that, even using its largesse to try and kickstart the cycle by pooling demand for services onto the shuttle and eliminating domestic competitors.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 08/03/2019 12:26 am
My details here are a bit sketchy and inaccurate...

Wasn't it the many 100's of millions needed to refurbish the shuttle for every launch that effectively stopped a new launch market developing? In fact there was a launch market, for US satellites and servicing the space station, but the Shuttle was too expensive to keep going servicing those markets. ULA was able to hijack the US gov launches at a ridiculous price, and international launches went to Europe and Russia. Servicing the ISS went to Russia.
So SX with a drastic control of pricing have got the majority of the world's satellite launch market. (back) They have also got a chunk of ISS servicing, are about to start manned missions, and are not relying on these markets but generating another market of their own with Starlink. So no they are not "predicating your entire craft's business case on a large expansion of the launch market". And although NASA did that they blew it through the vast expense of the Shuttle.
- not well argued by me.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 08/03/2019 12:28 am
On the other hand, Starship avoids what seems to me are the two fundamental flaws in the Shuttle.  For one, though the Shuttle was meant to be all about economical access to space, it was managed by and organization that had never shown (and to this day still has not shown) much of a knack for cost control.  SpaceX, on the other hand, has demonstrated the ability to greatly lower costs.

Secondly, though the Shuttle was an entirely new kind of vehicle, the first one off the production line (excepting the test articles OV-101 and -099) was supposed be operational.  The very same "vaguely Starship-shaped pieces made by a water tower company" that you deride serve as the test vehicles and prototypes that should have preceded the Shuttle.
The biggest flaws of the Shuttle weren't just engineering in nature: they were economic as well.

SpaceX has undoubtedly learned from the engineering flaws of shuttle. Avoiding side-mount is a good call. The "pros" of doing that on the Shuttle proved to outweigh the cons. A tile TPS was probably unavoidable - hopefully the lack of sidemount means that any brittle-ness won't be a problem.

On the other hand, they're not avoiding the biggest flaw of the shuttle, IMO, which is predicating your entire craft's business case on a large expansion of the launch market well-above current rates. The freakin' US government couldn't do that, even using its largesse to try and kickstart the cycle by pooling demand for services onto the shuttle and eliminating domestic competitors.

Even if SpaceX has to expend the entire Starship stack every launch it would still be much cheaper than SLS. Nothing about SLS is optimized for cost. If Starship were simply a larger and proportionately more expensive Falcon 9, it would still work better for Artemis than SLS will.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/03/2019 12:37 am
My details here are a bit sketchy and inaccurate...

Wasn't it the many 100's of millions needed to refurbish the shuttle for every launch that effectively stopped a new launch market developing?

United Space Alliance, which included Boeing and Lockheed Martin employees, had a contract for about $100M per month to service all of the Shuttles. So it's hard to break down the exact cost for each Shuttle, but the standing army needed to maintain the Shuttle fleet cost over $1B per year.

As to markets, it's impossible for the private sector to compete against free government launches (crew), or heavily discounted ones (satellites). So unbeknownst to most of us, while we cheered each successful Shuttle flight, we were also cheering for a monopoly that was delaying the expansion of humanity out into space.

The proposed Artemis program is trying to mix commercial with government, which could help the commercial sector gain a foothold in space, but the Trump administration is doing it for budgetary reasons, not to enable the private sector to get a foothold in space. The two are not necessarily complementary.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/03/2019 02:43 am
On the other hand, Starship avoids what seems to me are the two fundamental flaws in the Shuttle.  For one, though the Shuttle was meant to be all about economical access to space, it was managed by and organization that had never shown (and to this day still has not shown) much of a knack for cost control.  SpaceX, on the other hand, has demonstrated the ability to greatly lower costs.

Secondly, though the Shuttle was an entirely new kind of vehicle, the first one off the production line (excepting the test articles OV-101 and -099) was supposed be operational.  The very same "vaguely Starship-shaped pieces made by a water tower company" that you deride serve as the test vehicles and prototypes that should have preceded the Shuttle.
The biggest flaws of the Shuttle weren't just engineering in nature: they were economic as well.

SpaceX has undoubtedly learned from the engineering flaws of shuttle. Avoiding side-mount is a good call. The "pros" of doing that on the Shuttle proved to outweigh the cons. A tile TPS was probably unavoidable - hopefully the lack of sidemount means that any brittle-ness won't be a problem.

On the other hand, they're not avoiding the biggest flaw of the shuttle, IMO, which is predicating your entire craft's business case on a large expansion of the launch market well-above current rates. The freakin' US government couldn't do that, even using its largesse to try and kickstart the cycle by pooling demand for services onto the shuttle and eliminating domestic competitors.

At the risk of going off topic, it's more complicated than that. Shuttle's business case assumed a high flight rate because they were desperate to show the cost saving can payback the R&D investment in 10 years, which is an insane criteria for a ground breaking government space project (for example, I'm pretty sure Boeing hasn't make back their investment in Delta IV or 787 yet, after more than 10 years).

If you read the Mathematica study, the total cost saving from operation is hugely positive for launch rate a lot lower than they projected, it's just at lower flight rate this total cost saving can no longer payback the R&D cost in 10 years.

And of course when Shuttle went into operation, they found out the limit to flight rate is not the lack of payload, it's their turnaround time, they just couldn't refurbish the vehicle fast enough. And pushing the flight rate ultimately led to Challenger which in all practical purposes ended the dream of reusability cost saving for Shuttle.

Ok, let me rewrite this last part to make it relevant to Artemis: In SpaceX's case, there won't be a need to justify investment in Starship by having it payback the money in 10 years, since they're funding the program using revenue and the owner of the company believes in what they're doing. The fact that SpaceX is investing in Starship no matter what make them the top candidate for lunar lander public private partnership, the same is true for Blue Origin. Both companies plan to spend resources on their landers with or without NASA, so it makes a lot of sense for NASA to partner with them and take advantage of the extra investment, especially since Congress doesn't seem to want to give more funding to Artemis.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/03/2019 12:18 pm
At the risk of going off topic...

And you did - completely. Come on, you have to tie your discussion into the Artemis program, otherwise you should move the conversation to a different thread.

Addendum: su27k revised his post to add Artemis related content - thanks!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/03/2019 01:40 pm

{snip}
 SLS could be very useful, but for some reason, NASA management continues to slow walk the program.  {snip}

It could be useful if the cost was less, a lot less. As things currently seams to be playing out, others will provide the heavy lifting way to cheap for SLS to be relevant.

Yahbut, the thing is, they've had enough money to have built and launched the 70 ton version by now.  IMO, natch.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/03/2019 01:42 pm
Both SLS and Starship are aiming to launch in the same time frame and we obviously do not know the exact capabilities or cost yet, but one of them do seams to be more cost effective than the other...
Capabilities matter for Artemis and hopefully cost will matter for Congress...

Bingo.  I've been following the Starship headlines also.  while Rocket science may be difficult, it is not as impossible as SLS makes it out to be.  BTW.  I gotta be careful about politix.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 08/03/2019 01:45 pm
Yahbut, the thing is, they've had enough money to have built and launched the 70 ton version by now.  IMO, natch.

The difference between the 70-tonne version and what's actually being built is just the ICPS, which is the cheapest and least troublesome part of the whole thing, because it's essentially a Delta IV upper stage.  Deleting the ICPS would have saved little money or time.

And then there's the point that the 70-tonne payload would cost a lot of money all by itself.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/03/2019 01:45 pm
The biggest flaws of the Shuttle weren't just engineering in nature: they were economic as well.

True.  Shuttle was originally promised to have a two week turnaround.  SpaceX's mods to 39A are being touted as having the ability to launch 24 times a year.  Do the math.  There's no law of nature that would be violated by a launch every fortnight.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/03/2019 01:47 pm
And then there's the point that the 70-tonne payload would cost a lot of money all by itself.

But of course. It should not be a surprise that the payload for Artemis will be expensive.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/17/2019 03:41 am
https://youtu.be/wOmrDnJnIac
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: RyanC on 08/18/2019 10:43 pm
Why Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?

It should start with Artemis 21; carrying the fire from the last of the Apollo Missions that was cancelled, 20.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/18/2019 10:50 pm
Why Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?

It should start with Artemis 21; carrying the fire from the last of the Apollo Missions that was cancelled, 20.

Isn't that also the year it's likely to fly? :P
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/19/2019 03:49 am
Why Artemis 1 and Artemis 2?

It should start with Artemis 21; carrying the fire from the last of the Apollo Missions that was cancelled, 20.

They're hoping Artemis would not be a repeat or continuation of Apollo, instead it would be more sustainable.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 08/19/2019 02:55 pm
Newt Gingrich trying to sell Trump on a cheap moon plan..

A general, Gingrich and Michael Jackson's publicist are proposing a $2 billion contest to return Americans to the moon.

By BRYAN BENDER 08/19/2019 05:02 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/newt-gingrich-michael-jackson-moon-1466853?fbclid=IwAR0ybi-HQvFavx7J4hNldKVwPWSYfuwwDGlTnf3q3Z31kUV-bECpWOZhF5A
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/19/2019 04:41 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1163489461566619649

Quote
Official rhetoric aside, I'm continuing to hear that NASA is still low-key considering launching Artemis-1 on a commercial rocket.

This will depend on the extent of delays for SLS, which in turn depend on assessment by the new AA for human spaceflight, whom has yet to be named.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/19/2019 06:00 pm
Newt Gingrich trying to sell Trump on a cheap moon plan..

A general, Gingrich and Michael Jackson's publicist are proposing a $2 billion contest to return Americans to the moon.

By BRYAN BENDER 08/19/2019 05:02 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/newt-gingrich-michael-jackson-moon-1466853?fbclid=IwAR0ybi-HQvFavx7J4hNldKVwPWSYfuwwDGlTnf3q3Z31kUV-bECpWOZhF5A

Artemis lands a woman on the Moon. The Gingrich plan builds a Moon base. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The president that follows Trump will need a Moon plan and a base is the obvious thing to build.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: speedevil on 08/19/2019 10:23 pm
Newt Gingrich trying to sell Trump on a cheap moon plan..

A general, Gingrich and Michael Jackson's publicist are proposing a $2 billion contest to return Americans to the moon.

By BRYAN BENDER 08/19/2019 05:02 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/newt-gingrich-michael-jackson-moon-1466853?fbclid=IwAR0ybi-HQvFavx7J4hNldKVwPWSYfuwwDGlTnf3q3Z31kUV-bECpWOZhF5A

Artemis lands a woman on the Moon. The Gingrich plan builds a Moon base. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Depending on the timing.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 08/19/2019 10:37 pm
The president that follows Trump will need a Moon plan and a base is the obvious thing to build.

When Lyndon Johnson became president, NASA was executing a program to land a man on the moon within 5 years. I don't think his successor saw any need for a Moon plan.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/20/2019 12:57 am
The president that follows Trump will need a Moon plan and a base is the obvious thing to build.

When Lyndon Johnson became president, NASA was executing a program to land a man on the moon within 5 years. I don't think his successor saw any need for a Moon plan.

Then we need to persuade Congress and the president-to-be that since they will be paying for NASA giving it a mission will form part of their legacy. Moon base or Mars trip or both are manned missions.

Nixon is not remember for any success.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 08/20/2019 02:39 am
The president that follows Trump will need a Moon plan and a base is the obvious thing to build.

When Lyndon Johnson became president, NASA was executing a program to land a man on the moon within 5 years. I don't think his successor saw any need for a Moon plan.

Then we need to persuade Congress and the president-to-be that since they will be paying for NASA giving it a mission will form part of their legacy. Moon base or Mars trip or both are manned missions.

Nixon is not remember for any success.
People who remember know Nixon approved the start of the Shuttle program.  It was what NASA sold him as the next step and he signed off on it.  You can decide for yourself if that was a success or not.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 08/20/2019 03:08 am
Veering into politics.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/20/2019 04:54 am
Not surprisingly Elon likes Newt’s proposal:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/newt-gingrich-proposes-a-2-billion-prize-for-a-human-moon-lander/

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1163674045050568707

Quote
This is a great idea

I could see the administration taking up the idea, as clearly they want Moon landings ASAP and I don’t think they really care how Artemis happens. But I think the vested interests in Congress wouldn’t support it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/20/2019 05:04 am
I could see the administration taking up the idea, as clearly they want Moon landings ASAP and I don’t think they really care how Artemis happens. But I think the vested interests in Congress wouldn’t support it.

Realistically I don't see this being able to happen by 2024 as a commercial contest. Certainly not for a measly $2B.

Of course I also think that Newt's goal for such a competition is the wrong one, since it's not getting to a distant location that is the goal, but being able to do it in a sustainable & repeatable way.

And in any case, the money for this new proposal would not be funded in the FY2020 appropriations, since it's too late in the process to get it included. So that means it would have to wait until FY2021, or have special legislation approved separately - which may not be easy, since the whole House and Senate would have to vote on it specifically, instead of it being included with lots of other "must-pass" legislation.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 08/20/2019 05:16 am
Seems to me the Gingrich proposal should have its own thread, it has nothing to do with Artemis, it is its own plan.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Tywin on 08/21/2019 04:53 pm
I don't wanna veering to politics, but the motivation for continued the Artemis program, after landing should be, that the Chinese, will have her own base in the Moon for 2030...

And that other countries space superpower , want to go, too...and with  the collaboration with this allies, the budget should be less for NASA-USA...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DreamyPickle on 08/21/2019 11:49 pm
I don't know where to place this but apparently Sierra Nevada recently presented a new prototype of an inflatable habitat (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/one-could-fly-to-mars-in-this-spacious-habitat-and-not-go-crazy/) developed under nextstep-2.

It's very interesting to see such direct competition to BA-330, I thought only Bigelow was looking at inflatables.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 08/22/2019 12:09 am
I don't know where to place this but apparently Sierra Nevada recently presented a new prototype of an inflatable habitat (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/one-could-fly-to-mars-in-this-spacious-habitat-and-not-go-crazy/) developed under nextstep-2.

It's very interesting to see such direct competition to BA-330, I thought only Bigelow was looking at inflatables.
Here is one thread with more related info from the SNC section. I remember seeing some more detailed discussion elsewhere, but it may have been in L2.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44738.0
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 08/22/2019 12:24 am
I don't wanna veering to politics, but the motivation for continued the Artemis program, after landing should be, that the Chinese, will have her own base in the Moon for 2030...

And that other countries space superpower , want to go, too...and with  the collaboration with this allies, the budget should be less for NASA-USA...
That's definitely a veer. It's also not a given that the Chinese will achieve their ambitions. Debating that is off topic.

Seems to me the Gingrich proposal should have its own thread, it has nothing to do with Artemis, it is its own plan.
If enough posts happen we'll carve out.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 08/30/2019 02:16 am
The ISS Multilateral Coordination Board Joint Statement:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/multilateral-coordination-board-joint-statement-august-2019

Quote from: the Statement
The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) recently launched a formal process seeking interested suppliers for Canadarm3 following the announcement in February 2019 that Canada would participate in the Gateway and contribute advanced robotics including external robotic interfaces and end-to-end external robotics operations. ESA will seek the approval of its Member States Ministers at the end of November 2019 to provide an international habitation module (I-HAB), enhanced lunar communication, refueling capability, a science airlock, and further Orion service modules. The State Space Corporation ROSCOSMOS anticipates providing a multi-purpose crew airlock module for Gateway.

The partnership will coordinate to ensure Gateway development continues in a timely manner to realize near and long-term goals, prepare for early utilization activities on Gateway, and consider opportunities for further cooperation related to lunar surface exploration – leading to the exploration of Mars.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/06/2019 06:48 am
https://twitter.com/wingod/status/1169779427699384320

Quote
This surfaced publicly yesterday... There are several variations.  I will post them all later.  I obtained them from a public website.

https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1169814752161234944

Quote
Artemis can get each crew to the Moon with just four launches, 6 rendezvous operations, and 5 mission critical flight elements (not counting the Gateway.)
What could possibly go wrong?
#Moon #Mars #NASA #Artemis #Space #MarsSociety
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 09/06/2019 08:58 am
And most if not all of these missions phases done for the first time on the first crewed mission. Nice.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/06/2019 10:11 am
Quote
    Artemis can get each crew to the Moon with just four launches, 6 rendezvous operations, and 5 mission critical flight elements (not counting the Gateway.)
    What could possibly go wrong?
    #Moon #Mars #NASA #Artemis #Space #MarsSociety

Not entirely correct. There are 5 rendezvous operations if the transfer element (TE) is expendable or is considered part of the next mission. For the 5 mission critical flight elements, presumable Zubrin is counting Orion as two elements, the capsule and ESM. The Gateway is another two elements. In comparison to Apollo and Dual SLS Block IB launches direct to low Lunar orbit.

Artemis 1st
Launches  6 (PPE,MHM,TE,DE,AE,Orion)
Elements  7 (PPE,MHM,TE,DE,AE,ESM,CM)
Dockings  6 (PPE+MHM, MHM+AE, AE+DE, DE+TE, MHM+Orion, MHM+AE)
Artemis 2nd...
Launches  4 (DE,Orion) and ((TE,AE) or (TE,PE) or (PE,PE))
Elements  5 (DE,ESM,CM) and ((TE,AE) or (TE,PE)) or (PE,AE) or (PE,PE))
Dockings  5-7 (MHM+AE, AE+DE, DE+TE, MHM+Orion, MHM+AE) and (() or (AE+PE) or
              (TE+PE) or (TE+PE, AE+PE))
Apollo
Launches  1 (LM-CSM)
Elements  4 (DS, AS, SM, CM)
Dockings  2 (LM+CSM, CSM+AS)

Dual Block IB
Launches 2 (LM, Orion)
Elements 4 (DS, AS, ESM, Orion)
Dockings 2 (LM+Orion, Orion+AS)

AE   Ascent Element
AS   Ascent Stage
CM   Command Module
CSM  Command Service Module
DE   Descent Element
DS   Descent Stage
ESM  European Service Module
LM   Lunar Module
MHM  Minimal Habitation Module
PE   Propellant Element
PPE  Power and Propulsion Module
SM   Service Module
TE   Transfer Element
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/06/2019 11:07 am
And most if not all of these missions phases done for the first time on the first crewed mission. Nice.

Full document containing the slides posted above can be found here:

Appendix H: Human Landing System Integrated Lander
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f (https://www.fbo.gov/notices/5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f))

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=bc898cadad42581b0aff4547d5eaa79d (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=bc898cadad42581b0aff4547d5eaa79d)

(copy attached)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/06/2019 02:33 pm

Quoting Zubrin:

Quote from: Zubrin
Artemis can get each crew to the Moon with just four launches, 6 rendezvous operations, and 5 mission critical flight elements (not counting the Gateway.)  What could possibly go wrong?

What am I missing here?

When a contractor builds a building, all the workers make a number of individual trips to the building, adding the various components.  When the building is constructed, the office worker takes one trip to the building, including transfers from the bus to the Metro or other transportation modes, to perform his "mission".

It will take a number of launches to build the gateway, landers, and assorted hardware.  I thought the astros would take one launch to the lunar surface, transfering to the various modes of transportation needed along the way.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/06/2019 03:00 pm

Quoting Zubrin:

Quote from: Zubrin
Artemis can get each crew to the Moon with just four launches, 6 rendezvous operations, and 5 mission critical flight elements (not counting the Gateway.)  What could possibly go wrong?

What am I missing here?
Not much.  It's not Zubrin's plan so he's pointing out what he doesn't like about it.

Dockings with the ISS have become common as to not be that big a deal anymore.  With multiple launches there is always a higher statistical total risk that one of the launches will fail.  But since the crew won't launch until all the other elements are in lunar orbit, the risk to the crew is no greater than the loss of one flight.  Even with Starship there will be more than one launch to build and visit a lunar base.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 09/06/2019 04:39 pm

Quoting Zubrin:

Quote from: Zubrin
Artemis can get each crew to the Moon with just four launches, 6 rendezvous operations, and 5 mission critical flight elements (not counting the Gateway.)  What could possibly go wrong?

What am I missing here?


I'm sure you already know that staging/docking events are a strong driver of mission risk.   All other things being equal it would be ideal to minimize them.   

Also, not just reliability, but mission cost is strongly driven by the number of elements in the design.   Minimize these, and you are minimizing cost.

It is difficult to test this architecture (driven mostly by the high cost of flying each piece).   This is driving flight operations decisions into the no mans land of crew-on-untested-first-flights.   Few pieces can mean fewer flights to properly test things.

Of course the counter point to my points above is the ISS.   Lots of flights, lots of different designers and suppliers all docked together in space.   So it is possible to work things out.   Note that everything did not work on the first go around ... so expect that this will be true on Artemis too ... I don't see redundancy in the Artemis design; I see the expectation that every piece will work, or the mission will fail.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 09/06/2019 08:33 pm
I love how the people in those tweets are acting like they stumbled across some big secret when this has been publicly available for days now. In fact, as far as I'm aware, I was actually the first person to link to that study on this site, over in the lander thread.

It's funny they're complaining about multiple launches adding complexity when one of the architectures presented in that paper reduces it with the replacement of two of the CLV launches with one SLS launch. But I suppose that would be admitting SLS can have an upside, and we can't have that.  ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/08/2019 11:39 am
It seems the Appendix H: Human Landing System Integrated Lander slides indicated that most of the Moon landing hardware is disposable. Somehow that doesn't seem to be a really sustainable way of going to the Moon and staying there.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/08/2019 01:57 pm

What am I missing here?
Not much.  It's not Zubrin's plan so he's pointing out what he doesn't like about it.

Dockings with the ISS have become [so] common as to not be that big a deal anymore.  With multiple launches there is always a higher statistical total risk that one of the launches will fail.  But since the crew won't launch until all the other elements are in lunar orbit, the risk to the crew is no greater than the loss of one flight.  Even with Starship there will be more than one launch to build and visit a lunar base.

Thanks.  That's what I thought.

I'm sure you already know that staging/docking events are a strong driver of mission risk.   All other things being equal it would be ideal to minimize them.

You posted this just after Eric's post above.

While us loonies are disappointed that all that NASA has been doing is going around in circles with ISS, they have been practicing docking for years.  There is no getting around docking/staging events.

Zubrin appears to be too proud to acknowledge that the Artemis program is designed to support a sustainable martian base at the appropriate time.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 09/08/2019 07:53 pm
It seems the Appendix H: Human Landing System Integrated Lander slides indicated that most of the Moon landing hardware is disposable. Somehow that doesn't seem to be a really sustainable way of going to the Moon and staying there.
The first version is allowed to be completely expendable. The later version is required to be at least partially reusable.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 09/09/2019 07:37 am
I love how the people in those tweets are acting like they stumbled across some big secret when this has been publicly available for days now. In fact, as far as I'm aware, I was actually the first person to link to that study on this site, over in the lander thread.

It's funny they're complaining about multiple launches adding complexity when one of the architectures presented in that paper reduces it with the replacement of two of the CLV launches with one SLS launch. But I suppose that would be admitting SLS can have an upside, and we can't have that.  ::)

Multiple elements requiring multiple dockings is IMO not a problem. The USA and its international partners have plenty of experience building manned spaceflight structures from many elements requiring many berthing/docking events. It's called the ISS. Docking is risky, but also mastered by both the USA and its international partners.

The reason Zubrin et al. are complaining is because their frame-of-reference is still Apollo. Which was nice-and-simple: just one big rocket and two spacecraft.

But getting something up there, that isn't just flags and footprints, requires a different approach. NASA is headed in one direction, requiring many different launches, basically reflecting how things were done building the ISS.
Others are headed in the opposite direction (one giganormous rocket to do it all).

Zubrin, for reasons known to Zubrin et al., is for the giganormous-rocket-method and against the ISS-repeat-method.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 09/09/2019 09:29 am
Multiple elements requiring multiple dockings is IMO not a problem. The USA and its international partners have plenty of experience building manned spaceflight structures from many elements requiring many berthing/docking events. It's called the ISS. Docking is risky, but also mastered by both the USA and its international partners.

The reason Zubrin et al. are complaining is because their frame-of-reference is still Apollo. Which was nice-and-simple: just one big rocket and two spacecraft.

But getting something up there, that isn't just flags and footprints, requires a different approach. NASA is headed in one direction, requiring many different launches, basically reflecting how things were done building the ISS.
Others are headed in the opposite direction (one giganormous rocket to do it all).

Zubrin, for reasons known to Zubrin et al., is for the giganormous-rocket-method and against the ISS-repeat-method.

That isn't accurate. Zubrin's own plan is based around multiple launches, too, but he'd prefer all elements transit directly to the moon's surface or possibly LLO. His criticism isn't of multiple launches, it's of the need for Gateway.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 09/09/2019 10:34 pm
That isn't accurate. Zubrin's own plan is based around multiple launches, too, but he'd prefer all elements transit directly to the moon's surface or possibly LLO. His criticism isn't of multiple launches, it's of the need for Gateway.

And he usually strawmans things a bit by talking about the long-term plans for Gateway, as opposed to the minimalist 2-piece Gateway that NASA is doing initially. I still have my quibbles about where they're placing Gateway -- I'd rather it were in a ~500km polar lunar orbit, but it's nowhere near as bad of a deal as Zubrin makes it out to be.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 09/09/2019 11:19 pm
That isn't accurate. Zubrin's own plan is based around multiple launches, too, but he'd prefer all elements transit directly to the moon's surface or possibly LLO. His criticism isn't of multiple launches, it's of the need for Gateway.

And he usually strawmans things a bit by talking about the long-term plans for Gateway, as opposed to the minimalist 2-piece Gateway that NASA is doing initially. I still have my quibbles about where they're placing Gateway -- I'd rather it were in a ~500km polar lunar orbit, but it's nowhere near as bad of a deal as Zubrin makes it out to be.

~Jon

Agreed. I too hope Gateway transitions to a more lunar-optimal orbit once the NRHO crutch is no longer needed (and when will that be?). But you're right, even such a shift would not satisfy Zubrin. His fear is that Gateway grows into a bureaucratic imperative for all NASA-aligned lunar missions.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: bombyx on 09/11/2019 04:51 pm
https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/1171815565742215169

Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/11/2019 07:10 pm
State of Artemis 1 Hardware...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdu1ROHLDrk

It is slightly out of date as it doesn't show either the forward join or the hydrogen tank join.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 09/17/2019 12:53 pm
Seems that Artemis has switched to Roman numerals

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 09/17/2019 03:34 pm
Seems that Artemis has switched to Roman numerals

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1
Blegh. There were some signs this was happening, but that basically confirms it.

Roman numerals look nice on mission patches, but I strongly prefer nice, proper, Arabic numerals for everyday use.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/17/2019 03:57 pm
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: e of pi on 09/17/2019 04:16 pm
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
It really drives home for me that while reusing the ascent cabin is nice, expending the descent stage seems like a big loss. I've been really interested in Jon Goff's "uncrasher" tug concepts, and it really seems like something like that would have value here.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/17/2019 04:21 pm
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
It really drives home for me that while reusing the ascent cabin is nice, expending the descent stage seems like a big loss. I've been really interested in Jon Goff's "uncrasher" tug concepts, and it really seems like something like that would have value here.

Something like that is among the wide range of mission profiles being studied.

The model is, well, "only a model."
I'm not even sure which company's concept that is.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 09/17/2019 04:27 pm
Something like that is among the wide range of mission profiles being studied.

The model is, well, just a model. I'm not even sure which company's concept that is.
From what I've heard, it's modeled after a NASA-internal concept design. Not sure how recent it is.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2019 04:46 pm
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
cough *Altair* cough...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/17/2019 07:31 pm
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
cough *Altair* cough...

It doesn't look anything like Altair, either.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2019 09:30 pm
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
cough *Altair* cough...

It doesn't look anything like Altair, either.
Why not, did you actually see one built? The proposals were all variations on the same theme and massive in size...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42WR8WsEqMI
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/18/2019 06:08 pm
Congressional Hearing on Artemis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFj67C0G6I
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/18/2019 07:00 pm
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1174343170462814209

Quote
Bowersox on confidence of getting to the Moon by 2024: "I wouldn't bet my oldest child's upcoming birthday present or anything like that."

So that’s a no to 2024 then ...

https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1174349710200586241

Quote
I think he may have started to say "I wouldn't bet my oldest child's life" but then realized that was inappropriate
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 09/18/2019 07:17 pm
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1174343170462814209

Quote
Bowersox on confidence of getting to the Moon by 2024: "I wouldn't bet my oldest child's upcoming birthday present or anything like that."

So that’s a no to 2024 then ...

https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1174349710200586241

Quote
I think he may have started to say "I wouldn't bet my oldest child's life" but then realized that was inappropriate

Everything is delayed in aerospace. So if you rush to land on the Moon by 2024, then it’ll slip to 2026. If you take it nice and slow, aiming to land by 2028, it’ll slip to 2032 and you’ll get to wave down to Mr and Mrs Chang from the Gateway before you make your descent.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: redliox on 09/18/2019 09:27 pm
https://twitter.com/collectSPACE/status/1174386482007744512

And (just like Altair/Constellation), we have a logo
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/18/2019 09:42 pm
https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1174343170462814209

Quote
Bowersox on confidence of getting to the Moon by 2024: "I wouldn't bet my oldest child's upcoming birthday present or anything like that."

So that’s a no to 2024 then ...


It's a really aggressive date, no questions there, and achieving it is going to be based on how willing Congress is to give out funding to support it.

However, I wouldn't rule it out based on that tweet.

So he wouldn't bet a birthday present on it, but what would he bet? That might be a good follow-up question :p
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/18/2019 09:49 pm
Something really dull, and non inspiring about that. Perhaps the mind all to quickly sees the central question of the "M" / "W" giving food to the thought that the "GATE" "MAY" not happen (in time). The half stolen MacDonald's "M" (in the wrong colour) reinforces this burgeoning thought, which is finally confirmed by there being no gateway whatsoever in the graphic! NONE, not a single hint!!! Just a small un-interesting red dot for the moon!!!!! - but RED is the colour of the distant - and from here - SMALL Mars!!!!! rocketed (red streak) well beyond the only white; the white orbit of the white Moon...  and there is the hidden "M" again.... M for Mars!
This must have been designed by someone who is a secret Mars first supporter! Analysis of Logo's isn't science!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 09/18/2019 09:52 pm
which is finally confirmed by there being no gateway whatsoever in the graphic! NONE, not a single hint!!!
Apart from the massive giant and obvious representation of the St Louis Gateway Arch you mean?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/18/2019 10:00 pm
which is finally confirmed by there being no gateway whatsoever in the graphic! NONE, not a single hint!!!
Apart from the massive giant and obvious representation of the St Louis Gateway Arch you mean?
Not being American I had to look that up. So yes, the St Louis Gateway Arch! ... which says that this GateMay is not a "thing", just an idea, a beautiful concept, a smooth continuous transition, un-needful of any discontinuity, or any stops in any orbiting craft.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/18/2019 10:06 pm
Something really dull, and non inspiring about that. Perhaps the mind all to quickly sees the central question of the "M" / "W" giving food to the thought that the "GATE" "MAY" not happen (in time). The half stolen MacDonald's "M" (in the wrong colour) reinforces this burgeoning thought, which is finally confirmed by there being no gateway whatsoever in the graphic! NONE, not a single hint!!! Just a small un-interesting red dot for the moon!!!!! - but RED is the colour of the distant - and from here - SMALL Mars!!!!! rocketed (red streak) well beyond the only white; the white orbit of the white Moon...  and there is the hidden "M" again.... M for Mars!
This must have been designed by someone who is a secret Mars first supporter! Analysis of Logo's isn't science!

The red circle is Mars. The gray arc beneath the white arch is the Moon.

It's no secret that NASA wants to ultimately use the Gateway to stage missions to Mars.

*edit* The Gateway's web page is in the "Moon to Mars" section

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/18/2019 10:24 pm
Something really dull, and non inspiring about that. Perhaps the mind all to quickly sees the central question of the "M" / "W" giving food to the thought that the "GATE" "MAY" not happen (in time). The half stolen MacDonald's "M" (in the wrong colour) reinforces this burgeoning thought, which is finally confirmed by there being no gateway whatsoever in the graphic! NONE, not a single hint!!! Just a small un-interesting red dot for the moon!!!!! - but RED is the colour of the distant - and from here - SMALL Mars!!!!! rocketed (red streak) well beyond the only white; the white orbit of the white Moon...  and there is the hidden "M" again.... M for Mars!
This must have been designed by someone who is a secret Mars first supporter! Analysis of Logo's isn't science!

The red circle is Mars. The gray arc beneath the white arch is the Moon.

It's no secret that NASA wants to ultimately use the Gateway to stage missions to Mars.

*edit* The Gateway's web page is in the "Moon to Mars" section

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway
OK that can make sense.... but for a Gateway patch, I repeat, there is NO Gateway at all in the graphic. Gateway is on the path TO the Moon. This is not supposed to be Moon as a Gateway to MARS, which would be closer to your description.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/18/2019 10:28 pm
Something really dull, and non inspiring about that. Perhaps the mind all to quickly sees the central question of the "M" / "W" giving food to the thought that the "GATE" "MAY" not happen (in time). The half stolen MacDonald's "M" (in the wrong colour) reinforces this burgeoning thought, which is finally confirmed by there being no gateway whatsoever in the graphic! NONE, not a single hint!!! Just a small un-interesting red dot for the moon!!!!! - but RED is the colour of the distant - and from here - SMALL Mars!!!!! rocketed (red streak) well beyond the only white; the white orbit of the white Moon...  and there is the hidden "M" again.... M for Mars!
This must have been designed by someone who is a secret Mars first supporter! Analysis of Logo's isn't science!

The red circle is Mars. The gray arc beneath the white arch is the Moon.

It's no secret that NASA wants to ultimately use the Gateway to stage missions to Mars.

*edit* The Gateway's web page is in the "Moon to Mars" section

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway
OK that can make sense.... but for a Gateway patch, I repeat, there is NO Gateway at all in the graphic. Gateway is on the path TO the Moon. This is not supposed to be Moon as a Gateway to MARS, which would be closer to your description.

I don't think that's a requirement.

Look at the Apollo program patch. Any Apollo capsule in it? Lunar lander? Not even a Saturn V? No? Huh. Weird.

Again, yes, NASA does want to stage Mars missions from the Gateway in the future.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 09/18/2019 10:57 pm
snip... see above posts ...
OK that can make sense.... but for a Gateway patch, I repeat, there is NO Gateway at all in the graphic. Gateway is on the path TO the Moon. This is not supposed to be Moon as a Gateway to MARS, which would be closer to your description.

I don't think that's a requirement.

Look at the Apollo program patch. Any Apollo capsule in it? Lunar lander? Not even a Saturn V? No? Huh. Weird.

Again, yes, NASA does want to stage Mars missions from the Gateway in the future.
I see your points.... valid but they do not disqualify mine. The gateway patch does not give me any impression of a staging place, or the concept of a gateway. Maybe it does give you or others such an impression.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/19/2019 01:31 am
This article from Doug Cooke featured prominently in the hearing:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/461299-getting-back-to-the-moon-requires-speed-and-simplicity

Quote
Those NASA pioneers were driven by urgency to achieve a lunar landing with simplicity in the number of developments (three), launches (one), and mission critical operations (seven).

...

NASA’s current approach requires eight new developments, eight launches, and approximately 17 mission critical operations to achieve the Artemis goals by 2024.

I don't really see how the number of launches gets derived. Artemis is eight launches: PPE, MHM/HALO, Artemis-1, Artemis-2, 3 lander launches and Artemis-3. But then Apollo wouldn't be 1 launch. You had Apollo 8, 9, 10 and other precursor flights similar to Artemis 1 and Artemis 2. Similarly, I don't get rep Johnson's criticism that the lunar landing would be only the 2nd BEO crewed flight and somehow this is a stark contrast with Apollo (where the landing flight was the 3rd BEO crewed flight).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/19/2019 04:25 am
This doesn't look good:

House stopgap funding bill includes no extra NASA funding (https://spacenews.com/house-stopgap-funding-bill-includes-no-extra-nasa-funding/)

Quote
A House version of a stopgap spending bill does not include any special provisions for NASA, which threatens to delay work on lunar landers needed for the agency to achieve its goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2024.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 09/19/2019 08:49 am
This doesn't look good:

House stopgap funding bill includes no extra NASA funding (https://spacenews.com/house-stopgap-funding-bill-includes-no-extra-nasa-funding/)

Quote
A House version of a stopgap spending bill does not include any special provisions for NASA, which threatens to delay work on lunar landers needed for the agency to achieve its goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2024.

It’s all up to the Senate now, I believe they will intervene to save Artemis. Also, anybody wanna email this article to Senator Shelby and ask him what will happen to the  lunar lander jobs at Marshall?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: CNRocketry on 09/19/2019 10:02 am
Was the lunar lander even going to be built/designed by NASA? I thought they were going to just open bidding for a commercial lander. Shelby wouldn't really care about that
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 09/19/2019 10:20 am
Was the lunar lander even going to be built/designed by NASA? I thought they were going to just open bidding for a commercial lander. Shelby wouldn't really care about that

The landers will be built by commercial companies, but Marshall will be responsible for oversight and management of the program as well as integrating the elements into NASA’s architecture. Also, some of the companies involved in the lander program have a heavy presence in Alabama.e.g. Blue Origin are testing BE-7 at Marshall.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/19/2019 12:23 pm
I saw the new logo.  They planning on flying under the St. Louis arch?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/19/2019 12:26 pm
The drawing is a launch pad not an interchange.

The Gateway will be the interchange between the return paths to Earth, Mars and the Moon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 09/19/2019 02:18 pm
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1156655836514738177

Quote
Farther and faster: The next stage of America’s Moon rocket is taking shape to dramatically reduce travel time in space and carry more on a single flight. The Boeing-built @NASA_SLS Exploration Upper Stage will fly on Artemis-3.

NASA appears to be saying otherwise:

Quote
"At this point, there is no path by which the Exploration Upper Stage will be ready for Artemis 3 in 2024," the NASA administration source told Ars. "Hence, it is not in the critical path (for the Moon landing)."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/some-nasa-contractors-appear-to-be-trying-to-kill-the-lunar-gateway/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/19/2019 02:43 pm
Do not be shocked or surprised when the Senate does not fund any of this. Nobody is interested.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 09/19/2019 02:52 pm
Do not be shocked or surprised when the Senate does not fund any of this. Nobody is interested.

The Senate is quite interested in funding EUS, and Boeing is lobbying hard for it. The Gateway is also partially funded already.

The only funding in question is for the lander elements.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 09/19/2019 02:59 pm
This article from Doug Cooke featured prominently in the hearing:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/461299-getting-back-to-the-moon-requires-speed-and-simplicity

From Cooke's article:
Quote from: Doug Cooke
Of these proposed commercial launchers, only Falcon Heavy exists today, and even it has not demonstrated the necessary 15 metric tons (MT) lift performance to lunar transfer orbit.

It's absurd that Cooke still promotes the idea that SLS is a real rocket but commercial alternatives are not.  It's true that Falcon Heavy has not demonstrated 15 tonnes to TLI, but 1) it has demonstrated a Tesla virtually to TMI, and 2) SLS is still two years away from demonstrating anything at all!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/19/2019 03:00 pm
I saw the new logo.  They planning on flying under the St. Louis arch?

The white arch represents the super elliptical NRHO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Tywin on 09/19/2019 03:14 pm
I saw the new logo.  They planning on flying under the St. Louis arch?

It's the new logo of the new soccer team of St. Louis  ;D for MLS...

What a disaster for funding this program...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Tywin on 09/19/2019 03:18 pm
Do not be shocked or surprised when the Senate does not fund any of this. Nobody is interested.

The Senate is quite interested in funding EUS, and Boeing is lobbying hard for it. The Gateway is also partially funded already.

The only funding in question is for the lander elements.

But the NASA is supposed to announce the 4 companies awards with the lander program in December...maybe they delay this..
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 09/19/2019 03:21 pm
If Boeing wants to use EUS and SLS to launch all of Boeing's lander elements in one "more cost efficient and low risk" launch then they can write it into their integrated lander proposal to NASA. Simple as that.

The fact that they are lobbying to force this says a lot about their faith in that proposal winning on it's own merit.

Edit: maybe there is even an avenue to tie EUS funding to lander funding so that if Congress insists on funding EUS they also have to agree to fund commercial landers at the same time  ???
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/19/2019 03:27 pm
This article from Doug Cooke featured prominently in the hearing:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/461299-getting-back-to-the-moon-requires-speed-and-simplicity

From Cooke's article:
Quote from: Doug Cooke
Of these proposed commercial launchers, only Falcon Heavy exists today, and even it has not demonstrated the necessary 15 metric tons (MT) lift performance to lunar transfer orbit.

It's absurd that Cooke still promotes the idea that SLS is a real rocket but commercial alternatives are not.  It's true that Falcon Heavy has not demonstrated 15 tonnes to TLI, but 1) it has demonstrated a Tesla virtually to TMI, and 2) SLS is still two years away from demonstrating anything at all!

Eric Berger's article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/some-nasa-contractors-appear-to-be-trying-to-kill-the-lunar-gateway/) pointed out that Boeing paid him $465,000 since 2017 (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY16/20190918/109938/HHRG-116-SY16-TTF-CookeD-20190918.pdf), with this kind of money I'm surprised he didn't claim SLS will bring world peace....

This and the fact that Mo Brooks used the article in the hearing shows it is nothing but a tool used by Boeing to promote SLS and EUS, it would be a waste of time to try to analyze it.

I'm more surprised that Boeing wants to kill Gateway, without it SLS will truly become rocket to nowhere, are they really this confident that Congress will keep funding it when Starship and New Glenn/Blue Moon is making rapid progress towards the Moon?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 09/19/2019 03:39 pm
I'm more surprised that Boeing wants to kill Gateway, without it SLS will truly become rocket to nowhere, are they really this confident that Congress will keep funding it when Starship and New Glenn/Blue Moon is making rapid progress towards the Moon?

My guess is that Boeing is focused on the near term on the bird-in-hand-is-better-than-two-in-the-bush theory.  Money for EUS work now is better than the hope of keeping SLS going longer.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 09/19/2019 04:05 pm
I'm more surprised that Boeing wants to kill Gateway, without it SLS will truly become rocket to nowhere, are they really this confident that Congress will keep funding it when Starship and New Glenn/Blue Moon is making rapid progress towards the Moon?

My guess is that Boeing is focused on the near term on the bird-in-hand-is-better-than-two-in-the-bush theory.  Money for EUS work now is better than the hope of keeping SLS going longer.

This is due to the perverse incentive created by publicly traded companies and quarterly earning reports to shareholders.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/19/2019 05:08 pm
Do not be shocked or surprised when the Senate does not fund any of this. Nobody is interested.

The Senate is quite interested in funding EUS, and Boeing is lobbying hard for it. The Gateway is also partially funded already.

The only funding in question is for the lander elements.

Gateway is fully funded under a CR if you use the budget request to gauge full funding. The amount for the gateway isn't in the omnibus appropriations act for FY 2019, but it appears in both the house and senate committee reports as 504.2 million. The original budget request for gateway was 821.4 million, but the budget request amendment reduces that by 321 million (so ~ 500.4 million).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/19/2019 05:38 pm
By 2024 all new commercial  LVs supporting landing will have 10+ flights each under there belts. SLS will be doing its 2nd or 3rd making it more high risk LV.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/19/2019 06:31 pm
Interesting to read the theory that the St. Louis arch was a prototype for the NRHO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 09/20/2019 06:21 am
https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/1171815565742215169

Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Note that the Gateway is much smaller/simpler than the lander. Though admittedly the lander would be smaller and simpler if Gateway were in a better orbit.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 09/20/2019 06:22 am
Quote
First model I have seen of the early gateway and lunar lander #VBS2019

Boy, that lander sure looks a LOT bigger than the Gateway.
It really drives home for me that while reusing the ascent cabin is nice, expending the descent stage seems like a big loss. I've been really interested in Jon Goff's "uncrasher" tug concepts, and it really seems like something like that would have value here.

When I get some free time I want to do an analysis of uncrashers from the current Gateway orbit. But first I have some reports to file, contracts/subcontracts to finalize, a website to update, and a lot of other crap to slog through... :-(

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: PahTo on 09/20/2019 06:37 am

When I get some free time I want to do an analysis of uncrashers from the current Gateway orbit. But first I have some reports to file, contracts/subcontracts to finalize, a website to update, and a lot of other crap to slog through... :-(

~Jon

Hmm, for a "Recovering Rocket Plumber", it sure seems you're going about it the long way...
;)
Meanwhile, does this thread have anything positive to say about Artemis?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 09/20/2019 07:21 am
Meanwhile, does this thread have anything positive to say about Artemis?

Positive! Yes, I can do that, I think.

Executive Summary

Artemis is an attempt to take the warring factions in the space community and direct them towards a common goal.

Who are the players?

* Elon Musk

* Jeff Who

* The traditional aerospace contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, OMGWhateverATK)

* Every country in the world with a national space program (except China, not China)

* Just about any kid who could any minute apply a well known concept of computer science to rocketry and make us all look stupid.

What's the plan?

A bottleneck - let's call it a "Gateway" where we get to be involved with everything that's going on. Doesn't matter who - if you want to leave Cis-Lunar space you better call in to the Gateway. Either physically go there and get fuel (or something - we're not sure on exactly what you might reasonably get there) or at least use it as a relay station? Whatever, just check in with the Gateway okay? We've got these awesome prizes! Check out the goodies! We will give you money to build your vehicle if you check in with us. It's like the International Space Station - did you know you can get free rides? OMG, free rides! How could you not want that? - and we'll even launch your satellite from there if you want! (No idea why you want that, but probably because it's cheaper than doing something sensible!)

Everyone is invited to the party!

Except China. You're not invited China.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2019 12:11 pm
Meanwhile, does this thread have anything positive to say about Artemis?

Positive! Yes, I can do that, I think.

Executive Summary

Artemis is an attempt to take the warring factions in the space community and direct them towards a common goal.

Who are the players?

[1] * Elon [You mean Elrond]  Musk

* Jeff Who

* The traditional aerospace contractors [Big Space]

[2] * Every country in the world with a national space program (except China, not China)

[3] * Just about any kid who could any minute apply a well known concept of computer science to rocketry and make us all look stupid.

What's the plan?

[4] A bottleneck - let's call it a "Gateway" where we get to be involved with everything that's going on. Doesn't matter who - if you want to leave Cis-Lunar space you better call in to the Gateway. Either physically go there and get fuel (or something - we're not sure on exactly what you might reasonably get there) or at least use it as a relay station? [And then a bunch of snark which some folks get to make, but other folks, not so much.]

Everyone is invited to the party!

[2] Except China. You're not invited China.

1. Minor spell check.

2. They lie, cheat, and steal.  Which is a bug, not a feature.

3. This could actually be a good thing.  A national space competition.  Remember Skylab?  NASA let it be known that they would chose an experiment from a high school kid if it were worthy.  Me and a bunch of other kids suggested growing plants in space for our science fair project.  And Skylab did!  So yeah.  That would be a good idea; for NASA to sponsor a national competition thru the hisgh school science fair process; the point being for kids to suggest and make sound arguments for elements of the Artemis program. 

The launch rockets are already figured out; private industry and the Senate launch industry have several sound candidates already in contention.  So the science fair categories could be the Gateway, including alternate orbits; the lander; the base itself; rover design; lunar water ice prospecting strategies.  That should cover the areas where NASA would benefit from national STEM talent.

Some peeps would insist on an international competition, but I would argue that a national competition would be good enough for the time being.

4. Zubrin, for example, insists that he doesn't need a pit stop on the way to Mars.  I disagree with Zubrin, but I'm not seeing a positive suggestion for how to proceed in the above post.  All I see is disparagement.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 09/20/2019 12:29 pm
There's two ways to proceed:

* Play ball - join the Artemis, make something that integrates with the Gateway

* Make your own game
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: speedevil on 09/20/2019 01:22 pm
There's two ways to proceed:

* Play ball - join the Artemis, make something that integrates with the Gateway

* Make your own game

* Make something that incidentally has the capability of using gateway to get some cash.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2019 02:16 pm
There's two ways to proceed:

[1] * Play ball - join the Artemis, make something that integrates with the Gateway

[2] * Make your own game

1.  That's fair.

2. Easy to say, but those Israeli kids tried,  And India's trying, and China has had modest success.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 09/20/2019 09:15 pm
2. Easy to say, but those Israeli kids tried,  And India's trying

Nooooo... they're trying to get in on the Artemis game.



Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 09/20/2019 10:50 pm
Everyone is invited to the party!

Except China. You're not invited China.
I don't really agree with the argument behind your post, but that actually made me chuckle, so credit where credit's due.  :)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: theinternetftw on 09/20/2019 10:53 pm
2. Easy to say, but those Israeli kids tried,  And India's trying

Nooooo... they're trying to get in on the Artemis game.

When they started developing those spacecraft, Artemis was a twinkle in literally no one's eye.

Now after the crash, IAI is trying to get in on CLPS, which isn't quite Artemis.  I say that because CLPS has a separate (far smaller) budget, is under the science directorate, and has good chances of surviving Artemis if a sea change comes.

TeamIndus is trying that route too, but ISRO is not TeamIndus.  No national space agency is trying for CLPS.

ESA and JAXA are trying to get in on Gateway, but they were trying to do that before the surface was a destination.

I think they're hoping that a DSG-as-ISS-2.0 program will carry on regardless of Administration or Gerstlessness.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 09/20/2019 11:09 pm
Artemis is the Borg.



Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/21/2019 10:59 am
This article from Doug Cooke featured prominently in the hearing:
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/461299-getting-back-to-the-moon-requires-speed-and-simplicity

From Cooke's article:
Quote from: Doug Cooke
Of these proposed commercial launchers, only Falcon Heavy exists today, and even it has not demonstrated the necessary 15 metric tons (MT) lift performance to lunar transfer orbit.

It's absurd that Cooke still promotes the idea that SLS is a real rocket but commercial alternatives are not.  It's true that Falcon Heavy has not demonstrated 15 tonnes to TLI, but 1) it has demonstrated a Tesla virtually to TMI, and 2) SLS is still two years away from demonstrating anything at all!

More on this from Eric Berger:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1174767705301409792

Quote
It wasn't just Mo this time.

And yes, this originates on the other side of Congress. It just broke into public view in the House imo.

And if you read it together with this:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1175224547408302080

Quote
As an aside, I've heard that the good Senator has made it clear, in no uncertain terms to NASA, that any of its crewed spacecraft going beyond LEO must launch on SLS. Period.

Seems very probable that NASA is being forced to launch lander on SLS, it would be interesting to see what's the next draft BAA looks like...

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/21/2019 01:15 pm
Those Israeli kids tried.  And India's trying.

Nooooo... they're trying to get in on the Artemis game.

When they started developing those spacecraft, Artemis was a twinkle in literally no one's eye....

Exactly. And the same with India.

Think of the Gateway as the US dollar.  Each country has their own currency, but the US dollar is recognized everywhere as having value and makes international commerce run a bit easier.  Theoretically, at least, everybody gets to play on the Gateway, although one must pay to play.  In fact, the Gateway people say a lotta words about "international cooperation" and stuff like that.

Quote from: JohnFornaro
China has had modest success.

China is NOT trying to get in on the "Artemis Game".

At the moment, China is "making their own game", and nobody is in wonderment at this.  [Will they abide by OST?  Probably not.  But I digress.]  Nor will they invite others to play with them.  The Chinese government is more focused on world domination at the moment, and it is not a stretch to consider that they will explore Luna on their own.  China is the Borg.

What on Earth is wrong with the idea of getting in on the Artemis game?

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/21/2019 01:28 pm
Quote from: Richard Shelby
Good News – the structural assembly of the first flight SLS rocket is complete! This is the first time since the Apollo program that a rocket of this size has been joined together – a milestone accomplishment.

Yeah.  And when they paint it, it will be the first time since Apollo that a rocket of that size will have been painted.  True, that would only be a yardstone...

Seems very probable that NASA is being forced to launch lander on SLS, it would be interesting to see what's the next draft BAA looks like...

Whaddaya mean "NASA is being forced"?  This is the way the system works.  NASA gets instructions from Congress and the President, and then they implement those instructions.  [Well, at least back in the day, implementation was an important part of that equation.]  People may not like the instructions, but that's a different matter.

Anyhow, it's not unreasonable to expect that the Orion capsule will sit on top of SLS.  Furthermore, thanks to the 'Law of Payload Adapters', it's not unreasonable to conjecture that the Orion capsule could sit on top of a different launch vehicle.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/22/2019 03:55 am

Seems very probable that NASA is being forced to launch lander on SLS, it would be interesting to see what's the next draft BAA looks like...

Whaddaya mean "NASA is being forced"?  This is the way the system works.  NASA gets instructions from Congress and the President, and then they implement those instructions.  [Well, at least back in the day, implementation was an important part of that equation.]  People may not like the instructions, but that's a different matter.

NASA is part of the executive branch, they're supposed to follow the order from the administration, I didn't see the president or VP asking them to use SLS to launch landers. They're also supposed to follow the law enacted by congress, I didn't see a law requiring them to use SLS to launch landers.

If there's no order from administration, no law from congress, and NASA doesn't want to use SLS to launch landers (pointed out by the source in Berger's article), then if they change the BAA to only allow SLS to launch landers, what other conclusion can you draw except they're being forced to do this?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 09/22/2019 06:50 pm
If there's no order from administration, no law from congress, and NASA doesn't want to use SLS to launch landers (pointed out by the source in Berger's article), then if they change the BAA to only allow SLS to launch landers, what other conclusion can you draw except they're being forced to do this?
Regardless of whether or not the rest of your argument has merit, you're jumping the gun here. That has not happened. Your example is entirely hypothetical.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Targeteer on 09/23/2019 09:56 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract


Sept. 23, 2019
RELEASE 19-074
NASA Commits to Long-term Artemis Missions with Orion Production Contract


NASA is setting in motion the Orion spacecraft production line to support as many as 12 Artemis missions, including the mission that will carry the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024.

The agency has awarded the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) to Lockheed Martin of Littleton, Colorado. Spacecraft production for the Orion program, managed at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, will focus on reusability and building a sustainable presence on the lunar surface.

“This is a great day for the men and women at Johnson Space Center. They are crucial to our national space program, and have an undeniable legacy and record of success in advancing America’s leadership in the human exploration of space,” said Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. “I am pleased that Administrator Bridenstine has heeded my calls and is taking significant steps to ensure that Johnson continues to grow with the exciting future of manned exploration that lies ahead. More needs to be done, and I look forward to production ramping up in the weeks and months to come and to more opportunities with NASA.”

OPOC is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030. Production and operations of the spacecraft for six to 12 missions will establish a core set of capabilities, stabilize the production process, and demonstrate reusability of spacecraft components.

“This contract secures Orion production through the next decade, demonstrating NASA’s commitment to establishing a sustainable presence at the Moon to bring back new knowledge and prepare for sending astronauts to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “Orion is a highly-capable, state-of-the-art spacecraft, designed specifically for deep space missions with astronauts, and an integral part of NASA’s infrastructure for Artemis missions and future exploration of the solar system.”

With this award, NASA is ordering three Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions III through V for $2.7 billion. The agency plans to order three additional Orion capsules in fiscal year 2022 for Artemis missions VI through VIII, at a total of $1.9 billion. Ordering the spacecraft in groups of three allows NASA to benefit from efficiencies that become available in the supply chain over time – efficiencies that optimize production and lower costs.

Spacecraft reusability – itself a significant cost saver for the agency – will help NASA build the capabilities for sustainable exploration at the Moon and beyond. The long-term plan is to reuse the recovered crew modules at least once. The first phase of reusability will start with Artemis II. Interior components of the spacecraft, such as flight computers and other high value electronics, as well as crew seats and switch panels, will be re-flown on Artemis V. The Artemis III crew module will be re-flown on Artemis VI.

The first six spacecraft will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive-fee ordering. Because the cost of a complex, high-tech system generally decreases over time as the design stabilizes and production processes mature, NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases. Furthermore, the cost incentives on the cost-plus-incentive-fee orders are designed to motivate favorable cost performance during early OPOC production and drive substantially lower prices for any subsequent firm-fixed-price orders issued under this contract.

“As the only vehicle capable of deep space exploration, the Orion spacecraft is critical to America’s continued leadership,” said Rep. Brian Babin of Texas. “Today’s announcement signals that we are moving closer towards operation and production. While I look forward to learning more of the details, it’s encouraging to see that this program is moving along as it should be. I am proud of the Orion program team and contractor partners at Johnson Space Center as they move towards getting the vehicle ‘flight ready.’ Without the brilliant minds and extraordinary leadership of the hard-working men and women at Johnson, our country would not be the preeminent spacefaring nation in the world.”

Work under this contract also will support production of NASA’s lunar-orbiting Gateway and evolving mission requirements. Production of certain spacecraft components already designed and qualified for Orion will be provided for Gateway use, eliminating the need for the Gateway Program to develop and qualify similar components.

“The men and women at Johnson Space Center represent the best and brightest scientific minds, and I’m confident with additional Orion spacecraft they will push the limits of exploration to the Moon and beyond,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “I commend the Trump Administration for recognizing the importance and tradition of Houston as the center of human spaceflight and exploring the next frontier.”

Houston has long been the hub of America’s human space exploration program, from the early days of Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo to Artemis. With NASA’s accelerated return to the Moon, Johnson Space Center now is managing more major human spaceflight programs than ever before. In addition to the Orion program, the Texas facility also manages NASA’s Gateway and International Space Station programs, and is home to the Mission Control Center and America’s astronaut corps – the next moonwalkers. Johnson also manages the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services, the first two deliveries for which are targeted to launch to the Moon in July 2021.

“No other spacecraft in the world can keep humans alive hundreds of thousands of miles from Earth for weeks at a time with the safety features, crew accommodations, technical innovations, and reliability that Orion provides,” said Mark Kirasich, Orion Program manager at Johnson. “With the design and development phase of Orion largely behind us, this new contract will enable us to increase efficiencies, reuse the spacecraft, and bring down the cost of reliably transporting people between earth and the Gateway.”

NASA is working to land the first woman and next man on the Moon in five years as part of the agency’s Artemis program. Orion, the Space Launch System rocket and Gateway are part of NASA’s backbone for deep space exploration. Work is well underway on both the Artemis I and II Orion spacecraft. Engineers at Kennedy Space Center in Florida have completed and attached the crew and service modules for Artemis I and are preparing the spacecraft for environmental testing. Meanwhile, teams at Kennedy are integrating thousands of parts into the crew module for Artemis II in preparation for the first crewed Artemis mission.

The Artemis program is the next step in human space exploration. It’s part of NASA’s broader Moon to Mars exploration approach, in which we will quickly and sustainably explore the Moon and use what we learn there to enable humanity’s next giant leap, sending astronauts to Mars.

For more information about Orion, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/orion

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/24/2019 10:10 am
Looks like Roman numerals are now official! I guess Arabic numerals don't have as much gravitas. :-)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 09/24/2019 03:43 pm
Senate bill approves $300M for EUS (unrequested)
$755M for lunar lander (not the $1B requested).

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 09/25/2019 12:21 am
What is the Artemis Generation?

Jim Bridenstine Posted on September 24, 2019

It’s hard to believe it was only six months ago that NASA was called to accelerate our plans to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, and establish sustainable lunar exploration by 2028. In doing so, we also accelerated our plans for our next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars.

We committed to making these goals a reality, and soon after, I announced the name for our efforts: the Artemis program.

Artemis is the twin sister of Apollo, and a goddess of the Moon. And she now personifies our path forward in more ways than one. With the Artemis program, we will land the first woman and next man on the Moon. Many have asked why we’re focused on sending the first woman. And I often say because it is about time! Our astronauts represent the best of us, and to do so, we must be able to see ourselves among them.

Today, our astronaut corps is diverse. Based on education and professional experience, millions of American women and men are eligible to apply to be NASA astronauts. Only a handful though are selected from each application class. In addition to pilots, astronauts today have a variety of backgrounds in STEM – they are doctors, geologists, biologists and more.

As the father of a young girl, it’s important my daughter can look to the stars and see herself in the face of the first woman to go the Moon. Whether or not she grows up to be a doctor and ultimately an astronaut, she needs to see that it is possible. I believe our astronaut corps today gives her that confidence. Like me and you, she is a part of the Artemis generation.

Not since Apollo has there been this much momentum to return to the lunar surface. Many other nations are interested in the Moon so this time, we’re not going alone. With Artemis, we will go forward to explore the Moon and beyond with innovative commercial and international partners.

And we will go to the Moon this time using modern technology and systems in ways that will allow us to return time and time again. This too is different with the Artemis generation – we will see long-term robotic and human exploration of our nearest neighbor. Then we will take what we learn at the Moon, and head to Mars.

#AskNASA

In the coming weeks, we will highlight more of our Artemis plans. We’re starting with the basics – answering questions such as Why are we going back to the Moon? How do we get there? And finally, who is going with us?

We’ll address these questions and more with a fun, new digital series called #AskNASA. If you have a question about the Moon and Mars, or really, anything you want to know about our agency, send it our way. Submit questions on Twitter using the hashtag #AskNASA or online using our webform.

We look forward to answering your questions. In doing so, we’re hoping to inform and inspire you…the Artemis generation.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/bridenstine/2019/09/24/what-is-the-artemis-generation/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/25/2019 03:20 am
Senate bill approves $300M for EUS (unrequested)
$755M for lunar lander (not the $1B requested).

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/
If this holds up it is a start.  But without the full request a 2024 landing is probably out of the question.  It's not like I believed they would hit 2024 with full funding anyways.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 09/25/2019 03:51 am
Senate bill approves $300M for EUS (unrequested)
$755M for lunar lander (not the $1B requested).

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/

Not sure how the funding is specified in the bill, but in NASA's proposal the $1B lunar lander funding is not all new funding, $321M of it comes from Gateway, so if $755M is all new, the total may actually be pretty close to $1B.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 09/25/2019 04:09 am
Senate bill approves $300M for EUS (unrequested)
$755M for lunar lander (not the $1B requested).

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/
If this holds up it is a start.  But without the full request a 2024 landing is probably out of the question.  It's not like I believed they would hit 2024 with full funding anyways.
It seems like commercial crew underfunding all over again: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/02/congress-chronic-funding-nasas-commercial-crew-program/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/25/2019 02:26 pm
Eric Berger, from that twit:

"As an aside, I've heard that the good Senator has made it clear, in no uncertain terms to NASA, that any of its crewed spacecraft going beyond LEO must launch on SLS. Period."

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1175224547408302080

From Richard Shelby's twit:

"Good News – the structural assembly of the first flight SLS rocket is complete! This is the first time since the Apollo program that a rocket of this size has been joined together – a milestone accomplishment."

https://twitter.com/SenShelby/status/1175124324027703297

If there's no order from administration, no law from congress, and NASA doesn't want to use SLS to launch landers (pointed out by the source in Berger's article), then if they change the BAA to only allow SLS to launch landers, what other conclusion can you draw except they're being forced to do this?
Regardless of whether or not the rest of your argument has merit, you're jumping the gun here. That has not happened. Your example is entirely hypothetical.

su27K:  Are you basing your opinion on Berger saying, "I heard that..."?  And Shelby saying, "blah blah blah, a milestone accomplishment"?  You go on to say "IF they change the BAA".  C'mon.  Tighten up.  Hypothetical arguments based on hearsay hold no water.  Nobody is surprised at the notion of Orion on SLS.  It remains to be seen whether or not SLS will fly.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 09/25/2019 02:29 pm
Senate bill approves $300M for EUS (unrequested)
$755M for lunar lander (not the $1B requested).

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/
If this holds up it is a start.  But without the full request a 2024 landing is probably out of the question.  It's not like I believed they would hit 2024 with full funding anyways.
It seems like commercial crew underfunding all over again: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/02/congress-chronic-funding-nasas-commercial-crew-program/

Not sure what Commercial Crew has to do with Artemis other than taking an unnecessary jab.  In any case, this certainly removes the critique that NASA isn't funding EUS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: spacebleachers on 09/25/2019 05:26 pm
Senate bill approves $300M for EUS (unrequested)
$755M for lunar lander (not the $1B requested).

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/
If this holds up it is a start.  But without the full request a 2024 landing is probably out of the question.  It's not like I believed they would hit 2024 with full funding anyways.
It seems like commercial crew underfunding all over again: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/02/congress-chronic-funding-nasas-commercial-crew-program/

Not sure what Commercial Crew has to do with Artemis other than taking an unnecessary jab.  In any case, this certainly removes the critique that NASA isn't funding EUS.

I believe he is comparing the funding levels that Commercial Crew got through about 2017, which were below what NASA had requested, to the fact Artemis Lunar Lander only got a partial portion of the funding requested.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/25/2019 05:40 pm
Seems like JAXA is on board, they may contribute to logistics deliveries and / or develop a pressurized lunar rover.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-jaxa-reaffirm-intent-to-cooperate-in-lunar-exploration/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: pochimax on 09/25/2019 08:18 pm
And also maybe part in HERACLES mission, if approved.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48197 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48197)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 09/29/2019 12:31 am
Since the dawn of humanity, the Moon has always been...how much it must know.

Find out more about our #Artemis program and why our mission to return to the Moon is so important:

https://twitter.com/AstroHague/status/1178079508991225857
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 10/02/2019 04:12 pm
Why We’re Going to the Moon

Jim Bridenstine Posted on October 2, 2019

When discussing plans to explore the Moon under our Artemis program, I often get asked a lot of “why” questions. As in – why go back to the Moon and not somewhere else? Why now? Why NASA? Or even, why explore at all?

There are many reasons to go back, or as you may have heard me say, go forward to the Moon. With Artemis, we’re going to explore more of the Moon than ever before, and this time, we’re planning to stay. We are traveling 250,000 miles to the Moon to demonstrate new technologies, capabilities and business approaches needed for future exploration of Mars, which can be as far as 250 million miles away from home.

With Mars as our horizon goal, we need to take steps to get there, and the Moon is the next logical one. Today, our astronauts are living 250 miles above us in low-Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station – something we’ve continued to do for almost 20 years. This is an incredible feat for humanity and international cooperation. If there’s an emergency on station though, we can have our crew home in a matter of hours. On and around the Moon, we will build on our experiences from station and learn to live and work days away from Earth. We need this step before we send astronauts on a mission to Mars, which can take years round-trip.

Science and technology will lead us there

We have successfully explored the Moon robotically for many years since humans last walked on the surface in 1972. We want to take what we’ve learned from missions like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and couple that knowledge with new science investigations and technology demonstrations in new locations across the Moon.

Working with our partners, we will send a suite of new instruments to the lunar surface on commercial robotic landers to study the Moon and prepare for our human return. Our goal is to send the first woman and next man somewhere we’ve never been before: the lunar South Pole. We’re targeting this area for a landing by 2024 because we believe it is rich in potential resources including water. Finding those resources, successfully extracting them, and ultimately converting them into other uses will help us further our exploration into the solar system.

As we did with Apollo, we hope our exploration of the Moon will inspire a new generation – the Artemis generation – and encourage more students to pursue careers in STEM. We will need astronauts, scientists, engineers, and more as we push boundaries for humanity and explore the vast wonders of our universe for decades to come.

With our Artemis program, we will once again establish American leadership and a strategic presence on the Moon while also expanding our global impact here on Earth. Since we’re not going alone this time, we’ll use the Moon to broaden and strengthen our commercial and international partnershipsacross a variety of programs. Our partnerships are critical to ensuring we reach the surface by 2024 and establish sustainable exploration by 2028. Together, we will get ready to explore Mars in the 2030s.

Again, there are many reasons to go to the Moon, and these are the main drivers for why NASA is going. Need more info? In our latest episode of #AskNASA, Jim Green, the chief scientist here at NASA explains from his point of view why we are going, talks more about converting the ice in the poles into drinkable water and rocket fuel, and more. Take a look!

https://blogs.nasa.gov/bridenstine/2019/10/02/why-were-going-to-the-moon/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 10/04/2019 08:09 pm
NEWS: Our #Artemis astronauts will #SuitUp in a high-tech spacesuit called xEMU. @NASA will build the 2024 suit for the first woman and next man on the Moon. We’ll ask U.S. companies to manage production for 2025 & beyond. More: https://go.nasa.gov/30MEF0q

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1180195864825999362
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/10/2019 09:50 pm
https://youtu.be/_-TiP7onEmo
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/11/2019 12:11 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TiP7onEmo

A launch trajectory video... that nobody with any trajectory experience reviewed? The launch out of KSC doesn't even follow a great circle or cross the equator at all. :facepalm:

And that lunar orbit isn't even close to NRHO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/11/2019 12:27 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TiP7onEmo

A launch trajectory video... that nobody with any trajectory experience reviewed? The launch out of KSC doesn't even follow a great circle or cross the equator at all. :facepalm:

And that lunar orbit isn't even close to NRHO.
What a launch at 28.5ºN doesnt result in an orbit that remains due East?(j/k)

 I was waiting for the graphic to drop below the equator as well.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/11/2019 03:55 am
I've seen some rockets that can fly that trajectory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXB9823Qg9E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXB9823Qg9E)

 :D ;)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: nmz on 10/11/2019 10:48 am
Hey guys, I'm new here.

I'm very interested in trying to learn more about the Artemis program as 2024 is just behind the corner  :).

Is there any briefing I can look at or perhaps monthly (or weekly) briefings on the progresss that is being made?

Thank you so much.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 10/11/2019 10:55 am
Hey guys, I'm new here.

I'm very interested in trying to learn more about the Artemis program as 2024 is just behind the corner  :).

Is there any briefing I can look at or perhaps monthly (or weekly) briefings on the progresss that is being made?

Thank you so much.

Yes, there is:

https://www.americaspace.com/2019/10/07/artemis-updates-2019-10-07/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/11/2019 12:23 pm
Hey guys, I'm new here.

I'm very interested in trying to learn more about the Artemis program as 2024 is just behind the corner  :).

Is there any briefing I can look at or perhaps monthly (or weekly) briefings on the progresss that is being made?

Thank you so much.

Yes, there is:

https://www.americaspace.com/2019/10/07/artemis-updates-2019-10-07/

Nice!

Also, try reading the articles here:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/news/constellation/

Chris and the team post new articles about SLS/Orion/Artemis about once a week.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: nmz on 10/12/2019 12:41 pm
Awesome! Thank you guys so much!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: webdan on 10/12/2019 01:00 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TiP7onEmo

A launch trajectory video... that nobody with any trajectory experience reviewed? The launch out of KSC doesn't even follow a great circle or cross the equator at all. :facepalm:

And that lunar orbit isn't even close to NRHO.

This is the world we now live in? What college grad (with a degree in humanities) did this? Scott Manley certainly let it rip on YouTube. I'll bet that video is gonna get pulled eventually. What an embarrassment.

As a software developer, this is akin to reading someone else's code and seeing massive amounts of typos in the comments, that is if they left any *sigh*
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 10/12/2019 08:27 pm
It's not meant to be true-to-life. It's meant to give the gist to the general public. I think you're overreacting.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: webdan on 10/12/2019 09:05 pm
Then sadly, the public is misinformed. Yet, as taxpayers, we pay for these videos from NASA.

Did you read up on the comments on YouTube??

What if we launched rockets from *cough* south pole. Where would they go?

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/12/2019 09:49 pm
YouTube comments can literally rot your brain if you over-indulge in them. I recommend not reading them! ;)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/12/2019 10:19 pm
It's not meant to be true-to-life. It's meant to give the gist to the general public. I think you're overreacting.
Thankyou Webdan for calling it out. I watched it and immediately thought "let it go, its obviously done by some non-technical publicist" but you have better "Ethics" on this sort of crap!

Beware - rant on the way -
In this fantastic technological world, where we build spacecraft, and use NMR to reach the physical limits of data storage on hard drives etc, We also have perfect physics in realistic games.... However we also manufacture tin-openers of Plasticine-metal unlike those we grew up with that lasted a lifetime, and accept mass lies against science around global warming, smoking, pesticide consequences etc etc. Do we want to live in a world that makes good use of accurate science and engineering, or one based on skewed politics, fake news, and wasted talent?

The said video is also supposed to be part of NASA's outreach and education, and as such it totally fails. Instead of some "coffee table c**p" couldn't they have got a real sequence from the folks that plan lunar trajectories? That would be much more inspiring, and given a proper insight into what working in spaceflight is about. Technology might have to be simplified for the young and non technical, but its really totally lazy, patronising, and disenfranchising to put out such blatantly incorrect material at all let alone in any kind of educational context. SpaceX staff wouldn't be seen dead near such rubbish; SX uses the output from real simulations. No wonder the young are put off STEM, when its not held in high regard, and is just airbrushed off the page! 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/12/2019 10:28 pm
SpaceX staff wouldn't be seen dead near such rubbish; SX uses the output from real simulations.

You mean, like this graph shown during the dear moon presentation? Apparently, during the cruise phase both ways, there are no gravitational affects on the spacecraft given it flies in a perfectly straight line.

edit: it really should look more like the graphs done here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDoHDVuZfo
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 10/12/2019 11:19 pm
No NCB1397. I thought you had a valid point ... but the SX graphic is a schematic diagram, with annotations and different indications on different parts of the trajectory, whereas the NASA apparent simulation fudges the difference, by having a nice smooth motion as if it is a simulation, but actually the added details to do this are incorrect. Thus it is neither a schematic or a simulation. It jars my sense of rightness, and I think it would confuse students. SX's diagram does not do either, as it does not purport to simulate the motion. Edit: And it does show the great circle orbit appropriately.
Edit: I do like TANSTAAFL's video though thanks!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/14/2019 12:28 pm
SpaceX staff wouldn't be seen dead near such rubbish; SX uses the output from real simulations.

You mean, like this graph shown during the dear moon presentation? Apparently, during the cruise phase both ways, there are no gravitational affects on the spacecraft given it flies in a perfectly straight line.

That's not the best graphic I've ever seen, but in all fairness it's quite hard to convey a complex 4-dimensional trajectory in a 2-dimensional graphic without breaking realism. The NASA video went to the effort of showing the trajectory in 4 dimensions, but at a realism level they could easily have done in 2.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/14/2019 12:34 pm
Then sadly, the public is misinformed.

Welcome to the US!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: webdan on 10/14/2019 12:53 pm
Haha, thx!

If one can't get the little things right, how can we trust them with the big things?

The top comment by Scott Manley lays it out, however some of the replies... yet I don't feel bad for voting down this NASA video.

MATTBLAK, you're right, I'm off YouTube comments for life  :P

Anyway, just realized Artemis will be releasing CubeStats after TLI:

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/artemis-i-map (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/artemis-i-map)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/14/2019 06:29 pm
It's not meant to be true-to-life. It's meant to give the gist to the general public. I think you're overreacting.
Thankyou Webdan for calling it out. I watched it and immediately thought "let it go, its obviously done by some non-technical publicist" but you have better "Ethics" on this sort of crap!

Beware - rant on the way -
In this fantastic technological world, where we build spacecraft, and use NMR to reach the physical limits of data storage on hard drives etc, We also have perfect physics in realistic games.... However we also manufacture tin-openers of Plasticine-metal unlike those we grew up with that lasted a lifetime, and accept mass lies against science around global warming, smoking, pesticide consequences etc etc. Do we want to live in a world that makes good use of accurate science and engineering, or one based on skewed politics, fake news, and wasted talent?

The said video is also supposed to be part of NASA's outreach and education, and as such it totally fails. Instead of some "coffee table c**p" couldn't they have got a real sequence from the folks that plan lunar trajectories? That would be much more inspiring, and given a proper insight into what working in spaceflight is about. Technology might have to be simplified for the young and non technical, but its really totally lazy, patronising, and disenfranchising to put out such blatantly incorrect material at all let alone in any kind of educational context. SpaceX staff wouldn't be seen dead near such rubbish; SX uses the output from real simulations. No wonder the young are put off STEM, when its not held in high regard, and is just airbrushed off the page!
More Space Exploration Technologies Incorporated drivel in a non Space Ex thread?   Great, oh I mean GRATing.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GrandByte on 10/14/2019 09:22 pm
I mean this has been, how many posts now? about a not-so-accurate animation. Like this isn't a decline in STEM or some other sort of thing. Like yeah it's not that good but it illustrates the idea to people who might not know what will happen on Artemis I. I don't necessarily blame people for this conversation though, we're a little news-starved in the past week or so when it comes to Artemis
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/15/2019 03:42 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TiP7onEmo

A launch trajectory video... that nobody with any trajectory experience reviewed? The launch out of KSC doesn't even follow a great circle or cross the equator at all. :facepalm:

And that lunar orbit isn't even close to NRHO.

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/15/2019 08:46 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TiP7onEmo

A launch trajectory video... that nobody with any trajectory experience reviewed? The launch out of KSC doesn't even follow a great circle or cross the equator at all. :facepalm:

And that lunar orbit isn't even close to NRHO.

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.

Aren't future missions all planned for NRHO? Why send a test mission to a different orbit?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/15/2019 09:30 pm

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.

Aren't future missions all planned for NRHO? Why send a test mission to a different orbit?

What mission criteria can you think of that would be satisfied by entering a NRHO that can't be satisfied by flying a DRO?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: webdan on 10/15/2019 10:10 pm
A DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit) is a highly stable orbit where objects can remain steady for about a hundred years. This is from 2014, regarding ARM/Moon:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/the-latest-on-nasas-asteroid.html (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/the-latest-on-nasas-asteroid.html)

Quote
In both cases, the spacecraft and captured asteroid are inserted into what’s called a Distant Retrograde Orbit, or DRO, around the moon. DROs are very stable over long periods of time. “The orbit that we currently have in mind is about 75,000 kilometers [47,000 miles] above the surface of the moon,” said ARM Program Director Michelle Gates during the June 19 briefing. She added the spacecraft and asteroid would be stable for more than a hundred years.

Now look at NHRO:

Quote
NHRO enables a cislunar space station to save propellant for orbital corrections and avoid the blocking of sunlight by the Moon from reaching the station's solar panels, while always keeping the spacecraft within a line of sight to ground controllers on Earth.
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/misc/near-rectilinear-halo-orbits.html (http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/misc/near-rectilinear-halo-orbits.html)



For NASA, lunar DRO is intriguing for several reasons. First of all, it offers a low delta-v transfer capability, meaning it's a place where spacecraft can enter and exit the Earth-moon system without using a lot of propellant. NASA plans to establish a permanent habitat here to serve as a waypoint for Mars-bound missions.[/quote]

NASA is indicating a DRO for Artemis I. Artemis 2 will be crewed with a flyby. Artemis 3 is to land on the moon. So perhaps indicating what is more relevant for a DRO. It is also a great location for a space hotel.

(Longest ever post... had a big dinner)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 02:36 am

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.

Aren't future missions all planned for NRHO? Why send a test mission to a different orbit?

What mission criteria can you think of that would be satisfied by entering a NRHO that can't be satisfied by flying a DRO?

I think the more relevant question is what advantages do you gain from not testing as you fly?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/16/2019 02:40 pm

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.

Aren't future missions all planned for NRHO? Why send a test mission to a different orbit?

What mission criteria can you think of that would be satisfied by entering a NRHO that can't be satisfied by flying a DRO?

I think the more relevant question is what advantages do you gain from not testing as you fly?

Generally speaking, there is savings in time and reduced complexity of testing, therefore reducing overall costs. For example, a new passenger aircraft won't fly to Tokyo on its first flight. You want to put a new vehicle through its paces in a controlled fashion.

If it doesn't need to go into a NRHO to satisfy some test metric, then there's no point in putting it into a NRHO. They can use a simpler orbit to satisfy the testing goals. The Orion is actually going considerably further away from the Earth in the DRO than it would in a NRHO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 03:04 pm

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.

Aren't future missions all planned for NRHO? Why send a test mission to a different orbit?

What mission criteria can you think of that would be satisfied by entering a NRHO that can't be satisfied by flying a DRO?

I think the more relevant question is what advantages do you gain from not testing as you fly?

Generally speaking, there is savings in time and reduced complexity of testing, therefore reducing overall costs. For example, a new passenger aircraft won't fly to Tokyo on its first flight. You want to put a new vehicle through its paces in a controlled fashion.

If it doesn't need to go into a NRHO to satisfy some test metric, then there's no point in putting it into a NRHO. They can use a simpler orbit to satisfy the testing goals. The Orion is actually going considerably further away from the Earth in the DRO than it would in a NRHO.

Is DRO actually simpler though? And if so, doesn't that leave risk of operating in a more complex orbit on the first crew flight?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: armchairfan on 10/16/2019 05:40 pm
"House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 moon landing": Arstechnica article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/) by Eric Berger.
Quote
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with legislators who write the House's version of the space agency's budget. The hearing came after six months of frenetic lobbying by Bridenstine to win support from Congress for his Artemis Program plan to accelerate a human return to the Moon from the year 2028 to 2024.

It appears as though those efforts were unsuccessful.
Quote from: Rep. Jose Serrano D-NY
I believe that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission for the benefit of the American people and the world.
So back to the slow boat ....

This is in stark contrast to recent efforts elsewhere that are mostly funded without public money. As a US taxpayer and huge space fan, at least I can find solace there.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GrandByte on 10/16/2019 05:52 pm
House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 moon landing: Arstechnica article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/) by Eric Berger.
Quote
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with legislators who write the House's version of the space agency's budget. The hearing came after six months of frenetic lobbying by Bridenstine to win support from Congress for his Artemis Program plan to accelerate a human return to the Moon from the year 2028 to 2024.

It appears as though those efforts were unsuccessful.
Quote from: Rep. Jose Serrano D-NY
I believe that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission for the benefit of the American people and the world.
So back to the slow boat ....

This is in stark contrast to recent efforts elsewhere that are mostly funded without public money. As a US taxpayer and huge span fan, at least I can find solace there.

I would be a little hesitant to claim that one or two representatives asking questions equates to killing the ideas of a 2024 landing. Heck I've even seen some people run with this as a removal of Artemis entirely. It's too early to tell, but do remember that the Senate already enacted a large part of what NASA wanted to start off the 2024 goal in their bill.

Related, this tweet seemingly talking about Berger's own tweet regarding Moon 2024 funding: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1184492743172743170
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/16/2019 06:08 pm

Artemis I isn't going into a NRHO, it's going into a DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit). That part of the video is reasonably accurate.

Aren't future missions all planned for NRHO? Why send a test mission to a different orbit?

What mission criteria can you think of that would be satisfied by entering a NRHO that can't be satisfied by flying a DRO?

I think the more relevant question is what advantages do you gain from not testing as you fly?

Generally speaking, there is savings in time and reduced complexity of testing, therefore reducing overall costs. For example, a new passenger aircraft won't fly to Tokyo on its first flight. You want to put a new vehicle through its paces in a controlled fashion.

If it doesn't need to go into a NRHO to satisfy some test metric, then there's no point in putting it into a NRHO. They can use a simpler orbit to satisfy the testing goals. The Orion is actually going considerably further away from the Earth in the DRO than it would in a NRHO.

Is DRO actually simpler though? And if so, doesn't that leave risk of operating in a more complex orbit on the first crew flight?

It's a relatively simple lunar orbit, as opposed to NRHO, which is the love child of an L-point halo orbit and a highly elliptical lunar orbit.

Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 10/16/2019 07:47 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/16/2019 07:50 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.
Appears so.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/16/2019 07:59 pm
"House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 moon landing": Arstechnica article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/) by Eric Berger.
Quote
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with legislators who write the House's version of the space agency's budget. The hearing came after six months of frenetic lobbying by Bridenstine to win support from Congress for his Artemis Program plan to accelerate a human return to the Moon from the year 2028 to 2024.

It appears as though those efforts were unsuccessful.
Quote from: Rep. Jose Serrano D-NY
I believe that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission for the benefit of the American people and the world.
So back to the slow boat ....

This is in stark contrast to recent efforts elsewhere that are mostly funded without public money. As a US taxpayer and huge space fan, at least I can find solace there.

Wait a minute.   I don't think it's accurate to say "original NASA schedule of 2028".   Artemis is an entirely new effort; only Orion, LOPG and SLS have been around previously.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 08:06 pm
"House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 moon landing": Arstechnica article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/) by Eric Berger.
Quote
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with legislators who write the House's version of the space agency's budget. The hearing came after six months of frenetic lobbying by Bridenstine to win support from Congress for his Artemis Program plan to accelerate a human return to the Moon from the year 2028 to 2024.

It appears as though those efforts were unsuccessful.
Quote from: Rep. Jose Serrano D-NY
I believe that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission for the benefit of the American people and the world.
So back to the slow boat ....

This is in stark contrast to recent efforts elsewhere that are mostly funded without public money. As a US taxpayer and huge space fan, at least I can find solace there.

Wait a minute.   I don't think it's accurate to say "original NASA schedule of 2028".   Artemis is an entirely new effort; only Orion, LOPG and SLS have been around previously.

The only new parts for Artemis are the lander elements. And the timeline.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/16/2019 08:07 pm
"House budget committee has likely killed the 2024 moon landing": Arstechnica article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/) by Eric Berger.
Quote
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with legislators who write the House's version of the space agency's budget. The hearing came after six months of frenetic lobbying by Bridenstine to win support from Congress for his Artemis Program plan to accelerate a human return to the Moon from the year 2028 to 2024.

It appears as though those efforts were unsuccessful.
Quote from: Rep. Jose Serrano D-NY
I believe that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission for the benefit of the American people and the world.
So back to the slow boat ....

This is in stark contrast to recent efforts elsewhere that are mostly funded without public money. As a US taxpayer and huge space fan, at least I can find solace there.

Wait a minute.   I don't think it's accurate to say "original NASA schedule of 2028".   Artemis is an entirely new effort; only Orion, LOPG and SLS have been around previously.
I think there were NASA guys that had the original Artemis date of 2028, but on the way to the podiums that date changed to 2024, and some in attendance were shocked.  IIRC BOTH the 2028 AND the 2024 dates were BOTH Artemis dates. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 08:09 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.

That makes sense to me, as it reduces risk to the crew. But if they are going to the trouble of putting the uncrewed test mission into lunar orbit, I don't see how sending it to a completely different orbit than the one they plan for later operations is worthwhile.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/16/2019 08:14 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.
Yes Lunar DRO for 6-23 days, crewless of course.

That makes sense to me, as it reduces risk to the crew. But if they are going to the trouble of putting the uncrewed test mission into lunar orbit, I don't see how sending it to a completely different orbit than the one they plan for later operations is worthwhile.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: whitelancer64 on 10/16/2019 08:16 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.

That makes sense to me, as it reduces risk to the crew. But if they are going to the trouble of putting the uncrewed test mission into lunar orbit, I don't see how sending it to a completely different orbit than the one they plan for later operations is worthwhile.

Again, what testing metric are you thinking is going to be met by going into an NRHO that can't be met by entering a DRO?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GrandByte on 10/16/2019 08:18 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.

That makes sense to me, as it reduces risk to the crew. But if they are going to the trouble of putting the uncrewed test mission into lunar orbit, I don't see how sending it to a completely different orbit than the one they plan for later operations is worthwhile.

From what I've heard the main reason for only having a Lunar flyby on Artemis II aside from crew safety is that since they spend a day in Earth orbit first, a lot of the Hydrogen in the ICPS boils off and they have to complete the TLI burn partly with Orion, meaning getting into Lunar orbit would leave less of a margin for landing. While I can see someone proposing going straight to TLI and having AII get into Lunar orbit, I doubt it'll happen (but then again I could be wrong).

Also I would say that Artemis was likely an idea floating around before the official program announcement, probably would've been announced as a program without the 2024 goal, and if landing in 2024 is somehow rejected by Congress then it'll still be Artemis back in 2028
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 08:46 pm
Artemis II is not going to a NRHO either, but also a DRO (as far as I can tell).

The first thing to go to a NRHO is a cubesat called CAPSTONE. The primary mission for that cubesat is to test an autonomous relative positioning sytem using signals from the LRO. Then the first few Gateway elements will be sent there prior to Artemis III.
Artemis 2 is a flyby. It doesn't enter lunar orbit, just comes into its proximity while on a free-return trajectory.

That makes sense to me, as it reduces risk to the crew. But if they are going to the trouble of putting the uncrewed test mission into lunar orbit, I don't see how sending it to a completely different orbit than the one they plan for later operations is worthwhile.

Again, what testing metric are you thinking is going to be met by going into an NRHO that can't be met by entering a DRO?

Proving that Orion can enter into and operate in NRHO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 10/16/2019 08:50 pm
New Eric Berger article on Ars Technical: "A House Budget Committee Has Likely Killed the 2024 Moon Landing (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/)."  House Democrats are quoted as giving two major reasons for not supporting 2024:

1. There's no obvious reason for the acceleration from 2028 to 2024 other than putting it in Trump's putative second term; and
2.  Although NASA has asked for an extra $1.6 billion this year, it still hasn't said how much 2024 is going to cost in total.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/16/2019 08:55 pm
New Eric Berger article on Ars Technical: "A House Budget Committee Has Likely Killed the 2024 Moon Landing (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/)."

Relevant quote:
Quote
"I remain extremely concerned by the proposed advancement by four years of this mission," said Jose Serrano, a Democrat from New York who chairs the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. "The eyes of the world are upon us. We cannot afford to fail. Therefore, I believe that it is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and cost-effective mission for the benefit of the American people and the world."

Serrano cited several reasons for this decision, but ultimately he said he felt like the 2024 date was chosen for political reasons rather than technical ones. "To a lot of Members, the motivation appears to be just a political one—giving President Trump a moon landing in a possible second term, should he be reelected," Serrano said.

Of course the Senate will have their own version of the spending bill, and then it will go to reconciliation. Still, this provides guidance for the House reconciliation team on what the House would ultimately vote for.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/16/2019 08:58 pm
New Eric Berger article on Ars Technical: "A House Budget Committee Has Likely Killed the 2024 Moon Landing (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/)."  House Democrats are quoted as giving two major reasons for not supporting 2024:

1. There's no obvious reason for the acceleration from 2028 to 2024 other than putting it in Trump's putative second term; and
2.  Although NASA has asked for an extra $1.6 billion this year, it still hasn't said how much 2024 is going to cost in total.

Democrats just need to consider 2024 as a reelection year for their guy(or girl).

edit:
the hearing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8635Zzfrzk
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/16/2019 09:11 pm
New Eric Berger article on Ars Technical: "A House Budget Committee Has Likely Killed the 2024 Moon Landing (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/)."  House Democrats are quoted as giving two major reasons for not supporting 2024:

1. There's no obvious reason for the acceleration from 2028 to 2024 other than putting it in Trump's putative second term; and
2.  Although NASA has asked for an extra $1.6 billion this year, it still hasn't said how much 2024 is going to cost in total.

Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/16/2019 09:51 pm
New Eric Berger article on Ars Technical: "A House Budget Committee Has Likely Killed the 2024 Moon Landing (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/)."  House Democrats are quoted as giving two major reasons for not supporting 2024:

1. There's no obvious reason for the acceleration from 2028 to 2024 other than putting it in Trump's putative second term; and
2.  Although NASA has asked for an extra $1.6 billion this year, it still hasn't said how much 2024 is going to cost in total.

Democrats just need to consider 2024 as a reelection year for their guy(or girl).

I'm not aware of any national election that was decided due to the support or non-support of a NASA program.  ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/16/2019 09:56 pm
Two other articles:

Key House appropriator remains skeptical about Artemis (https://spacenews.com/key-house-appropriator-remains-skeptical-about-artemis/) - SpaceNews.com

Lawmaker who helps fund NASA questions the agency’s 2024 lunar deadline (https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/16/20917171/nasa-artemis-program-moon-jose-serrano-jim-bridenstine-budget-2024) - The Verge

Relevant quote from The Verge article:

Quote
In a hearing on Wednesday, Rep. José Serrano (D-NY), chairman of the House subcommittee that appropriates funds for NASA, cited the potential astronomical cost of the space agency’s lunar program. He claimed that some experts have estimated that it could cost more than $25 billion over the next five years, and that money will be hard to justify, especially since many other government programs are in need of funds.

In other words, the House REALLY wants to know how much the Artemis program will cost BEFORE they fund it. This doesn't always happen to large programs (the SLS never had a budget estimate), but it's not unusual either - and taxpayers should be glad that NASA has to provide informed estimates before funding.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/16/2019 10:02 pm
New Eric Berger article on Ars Technical: "A House Budget Committee Has Likely Killed the 2024 Moon Landing (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/a-house-budget-committee-has-likely-killed-the-2024-moon-landing/)."  House Democrats are quoted as giving two major reasons for not supporting 2024:

1. There's no obvious reason for the acceleration from 2028 to 2024 other than putting it in Trump's putative second term; and
2.  Although NASA has asked for an extra $1.6 billion this year, it still hasn't said how much 2024 is going to cost in total.

Democrats just need to consider 2024 as a reelection year for their guy(or girl).

I'm not aware of any national election that was decided due to the support or non-support of a NASA program.  ::)

How would we know one way or another? It is entirely possible that the 537 votes in Florida that gave Bush the presidency in 2000 hinged on space issues (as Florida is a space state with way more than 537 voters working in the civil space sector).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: punder on 10/16/2019 10:16 pm
From Jeff Foust's article at SpaceNews:

“I’m concerned that NASA could undercut its flexibility and incur unnecessary costs by foregoing opportunities to leverage existing assets in an attempt to simultaneously foster a commercial space economy,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), the subcommittee’s ranking member.

 ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/16/2019 10:43 pm
From Jeff Foust's article at SpaceNews:

“I’m concerned that NASA could undercut its flexibility and incur unnecessary costs by foregoing opportunities to leverage existing assets in an attempt to simultaneously foster a commercial space economy,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), the subcommittee’s ranking member.

 ::)
Someone needs to tell him that we could reduce costs and increase flexibility by canceling SLS.  I wonder what his reaction would be.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/16/2019 10:51 pm
Two other articles:

Key House appropriator remains skeptical about Artemis (https://spacenews.com/key-house-appropriator-remains-skeptical-about-artemis/) - SpaceNews.com

Lawmaker who helps fund NASA questions the agency’s 2024 lunar deadline (https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/16/20917171/nasa-artemis-program-moon-jose-serrano-jim-bridenstine-budget-2024) - The Verge

Relevant quote from The Verge article:

Quote
In a hearing on Wednesday, Rep. José Serrano (D-NY), chairman of the House subcommittee that appropriates funds for NASA, cited the potential astronomical cost of the space agency’s lunar program. He claimed that some experts have estimated that it could cost more than $25 billion over the next five years, and that money will be hard to justify, especially since many other government programs are in need of funds.

In other words, the House REALLY wants to know how much the Artemis program will cost BEFORE they fund it. This doesn't always happen to large programs (the SLS never had a budget estimate), but it's not unusual either - and taxpayers should be glad that NASA has to provide informed estimates before funding.

SLS had both NASA and 3rd party costs estimates before it was funded. Congress simply ignored them when setting funding rates, and never recognized an expected cost nor set a budget cap.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: punder on 10/16/2019 11:08 pm
James Webb in From the Earth to the Moon: "I'm serious now. Does anybody here want my job?"

Bet Bridenstine has been channeling Webb a lot lately, between Democrats who think he wants too much money for what they view as a Trump ego trip, and Republicans who think he wants too little money for SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/17/2019 12:07 am
Democrats just need to consider 2024 as a reelection year for their guy(or girl).

I'm not aware of any national election that was decided due to the support or non-support of a NASA program.  ::)

How would we know one way or another? It is entirely possible that the 537 votes in Florida that gave Bush the presidency in 2000 hinged on space issues (as Florida is a space state with way more than 537 voters working in the civil space sector).

NASA is not even one of the Top 10 employers in Florida (see this list (https://livability.com/fl/business/top-employers-in-florida)). Jobs-wise Floridians would be more concerned with tourism, public schools, defense, grocery shopping, and healthcare than they would with NASA.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 10/17/2019 12:30 pm
From Jeff Foust's article at SpaceNews:

“I’m concerned that NASA could undercut its flexibility and incur unnecessary costs by foregoing opportunities to leverage existing assets in an attempt to simultaneously foster a commercial space economy,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), the subcommittee’s ranking member.

 ::)
Someone needs to tell him that we could reduce costs and increase flexibility by canceling SLS.  I wonder what he is reaction would be.

I think he would ignore it or blather on about NASA's unique requirements or delays in the commercial-crew program, because he is interested in SLS mostly because of the money it brings to his district.  But you're right that the point needs to be made.  If it can be said often enough and loud enough in the halls of Congress, then SLS's supporters might actually have to address it someday.

EDIT:  "his" -> "he is"
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 10/17/2019 12:56 pm
Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.

"The National Space Council Is Pushing for a 2028 Moon Mission" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xybnb/the-national-space-council-is-pushing-for-a-2028-moon-mission)

"NASA’s Plan To Land Astronauts On Moon By 2028" (https://spaceinsider.com/2019/02/18/nasas-plan-to-land-astronauts-on-moon-by-2028/)

"This Is NASA's Plan to Land Astronauts on the Moon in 2028 with Commercial Vehicles" (https://www.space.com/nasa-crewed-lunar-landers-moon-2028.html)


Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/17/2019 01:11 pm
Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.

"The National Space Council Is Pushing for a 2028 Moon Mission" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xybnb/the-national-space-council-is-pushing-for-a-2028-moon-mission)

"NASA’s Plan To Land Astronauts On Moon By 2028" (https://spaceinsider.com/2019/02/18/nasas-plan-to-land-astronauts-on-moon-by-2028/)

"This Is NASA's Plan to Land Astronauts on the Moon in 2028 with Commercial Vehicles" (https://www.space.com/nasa-crewed-lunar-landers-moon-2028.html)

2028 might have been NASA's plan, but Congress never backed it with funding so the real achievable landing date was "never". Until there is money for a lander and everything else, going back to the 2028 plan really means going back to the "never" plan.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GrandByte on 10/17/2019 03:07 pm
Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.

"The National Space Council Is Pushing for a 2028 Moon Mission" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xybnb/the-national-space-council-is-pushing-for-a-2028-moon-mission)

"NASA’s Plan To Land Astronauts On Moon By 2028" (https://spaceinsider.com/2019/02/18/nasas-plan-to-land-astronauts-on-moon-by-2028/)

"This Is NASA's Plan to Land Astronauts on the Moon in 2028 with Commercial Vehicles" (https://www.space.com/nasa-crewed-lunar-landers-moon-2028.html)

2028 might have been NASA's plan, but Congress never backed it with funding so the real achievable landing date was "never". Until there is money for a lander and everything else, going back to the 2028 plan really means going back to the "never" plan.

Congress had prior approval of the 2028 plan - at least they would've stopped it if it didn't. Regardless, I'm sure that if landing in 2024 gets nixed then landing in 2028 with Gateway will still be a go - all the people that were against landing in 2024 said it'd be best to hold off and use NASA's plan before. While I do believe that 2028 was approved before it was announced, even if 2024 gets canned then a landing will certainly still happen. It's not like NASA can tell it's international partners (and those in the Senate who have already funded Gateway and most of the lander for this year) "nah man, some dudes in the House said we shouldn't land in 2024, we're just not going to try"
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 10/17/2019 04:25 pm
Regardless, I'm sure that if landing in 2024 gets nixed then landing in 2028 with Gateway will still be a go - all the people that were against landing in 2024 said it'd be best to hold off and use NASA's plan before. While I do believe that 2028 was approved before it was announced, even if 2024 gets canned then a landing will certainly still happen.

I'm not so sure a landing by 2028 is especially likely, but I do think it is now a little more likely than before, because Congress has now implicitly acknowledged 2028.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/17/2019 05:07 pm
Policy talk is great, but in the wrong thread? ???
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/17/2019 05:11 pm
Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.

"The National Space Council Is Pushing for a 2028 Moon Mission" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xybnb/the-national-space-council-is-pushing-for-a-2028-moon-mission)

"NASA’s Plan To Land Astronauts On Moon By 2028" (https://spaceinsider.com/2019/02/18/nasas-plan-to-land-astronauts-on-moon-by-2028/)

"This Is NASA's Plan to Land Astronauts on the Moon in 2028 with Commercial Vehicles" (https://www.space.com/nasa-crewed-lunar-landers-moon-2028.html)


Thanks for these.   That "plan" lasted not very long.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 10/17/2019 05:14 pm
Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.

"The National Space Council Is Pushing for a 2028 Moon Mission" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xybnb/the-national-space-council-is-pushing-for-a-2028-moon-mission)

"NASA’s Plan To Land Astronauts On Moon By 2028" (https://spaceinsider.com/2019/02/18/nasas-plan-to-land-astronauts-on-moon-by-2028/)

"This Is NASA's Plan to Land Astronauts on the Moon in 2028 with Commercial Vehicles" (https://www.space.com/nasa-crewed-lunar-landers-moon-2028.html)

2028 might have been NASA's plan, but Congress never backed it with funding so the real achievable landing date was "never". Until there is money for a lander and everything else, going back to the 2028 plan really means going back to the "never" plan.

Ah, this is closer to what my understanding was.   I did not recall that NASA had a 2028 date, briefly, before they had a 2024 date ... and neither of those was (or is) funded by congress.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: strkiky on 10/17/2019 09:43 pm
Where are the prior statements or documents or anything indicating there was "a prior 2028"?   It's not an acceleration ... that sounds like spin.

"The National Space Council Is Pushing for a 2028 Moon Mission" (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xybnb/the-national-space-council-is-pushing-for-a-2028-moon-mission)

"NASA’s Plan To Land Astronauts On Moon By 2028" (https://spaceinsider.com/2019/02/18/nasas-plan-to-land-astronauts-on-moon-by-2028/)

"This Is NASA's Plan to Land Astronauts on the Moon in 2028 with Commercial Vehicles" (https://www.space.com/nasa-crewed-lunar-landers-moon-2028.html)

2028 might have been NASA's plan, but Congress never backed it with funding so the real achievable landing date was "never". Until there is money for a lander and everything else, going back to the 2028 plan really means going back to the "never" plan.

Ah, this is closer to what my understanding was.   I did not recall that NASA had a 2028 date, briefly, before they had a 2024 date ... and neither of those was (or is) funded by congress.

I don't think the plan was to land by 2028, the old plan, and still up and running plan is to start making the gateway at 2028. Meaning just an lunar orbital station. The landing was saved up for the 2030s.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 10/18/2019 01:33 pm
I don't think the plan was to land by 2028, the old plan, and still up and running plan is to start making the gateway at 2028. Meaning just an lunar orbital station. The landing was saved up for the 2030s.

Please refer to the attached presentation related to NextSTEP 2 (see p. 23) or to the NASA FY 2020 budget proposal (pp. 7 & 30).

EDIT:  Added budget document and reference thereto.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 10/21/2019 03:23 pm
The first mission of #NASASLS and @NASA_Orion will last 26 days. You can watch the journey of Artemis I to the Moon and back in just 30 seconds HERE >> http://go.nasa.gov/35Py6hk

https://twitter.com/NASA_SLS/status/1186296225143967748
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/21/2019 04:07 pm
A 26 day mission duration should validate the Orion's long duration independent operation capability. Basically everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/21/2019 08:34 pm
A 26 day mission duration should validate the Orion's long duration independent operation capability. Basically everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board).
And that is a source of risk right there.  NASA has some substantial vacuum chamber assets (Glenn etc.), is the Orion ECLSS tested within such assets?

I thought it would have been nice to have had a full up ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) installed on Artemis-1 and at least sensor the heck out of it to see how it does.  As you said "everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board)"  which IS a big deal.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HarmonicGF2 on 10/22/2019 01:11 pm
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/   
Highlights :
Quote
Blue Origin will serve as the prime contractor.
Lockheed Martin will build a crew-rated ascent stage, leveraging systems it developed for the Orion spacecraft. Northrop Grumman will build a transfer stage.
Executives with the four companies said the urgency required by the goal of returning humans to the moon within five years led them to team up rather than pursue separate lander projects.
“It’s a relatively small community. We talk to each other all the time,” Sherwood said when asked how the companies decided to join forces.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/22/2019 01:17 pm
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/   
Highlights :
Quote
Blue Origin will serve as the prime contractor.
Lockheed Martin will build a crew-rated ascent stage, leveraging systems it developed for the Orion spacecraft. Northrop Grumman will build a transfer stage.
Executives with the four companies said the urgency required by the goal of returning humans to the moon within five years led them to team up rather than pursue separate lander projects.
“It’s a relatively small community. We talk to each other all the time,” Sherwood said when asked how the companies decided to join forces.
I didn't expect this.  I'm wondering how much skin will each put in the game.  Given the time frame for getting operational, it kind of makes sense.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 10/22/2019 01:43 pm
For those scratching their heads, Draper is the 4th company apparently.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 10/22/2019 01:49 pm
For those scratching their heads, Draper is the 4th company apparently.

Yup, they will be building guidance and avionics systems.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 10/22/2019 02:04 pm
Someone on another site was really adamant about the possibility of a Blue Origin-Lockheed Martin team-up, while I was dismissive of the possibility.

Looks like they were on the right track after all.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: testguy on 10/22/2019 02:29 pm
A 26 day mission duration should validate the Orion's long duration independent operation capability. Basically everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board).
And that is a source of risk right there.  NASA has some substantial vacuum chamber assets (Glenn etc.), is the Orion ECLSS tested within such assets?

I thought it would have been nice to have had a full up ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) installed on Artemis-1 and at least sensor the heck out of it to see how it does.  As you said "everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board)"  which IS a big deal.

I believe the photo is the test cell at NASA Plumbrooke.  The facility was built to test the NERVA (nuclear rocket engine) at altitude, which never happened.  It is truly an amazing facility, built to safely contain a nuclear rocket.  You can see in the photo the rail road tracks that would have allowed rail road engines to move the rocket in and then out after testing.  I have been in that facility and it is wonder to see what can be built with sufficient funding.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/22/2019 02:54 pm
Someone on another site was really adamant about the possibility of a Blue Origin-Lockheed Martin team-up, while I was dismissive of the possibility.

Looks like they were on the right track after all.

Maybe it is the realization that none of the "Team USA Lander" companies can make the 2024 target date by themselves.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 10/22/2019 03:16 pm
Someone on another site was really adamant about the possibility of a Blue Origin-Lockheed Martin team-up, while I was dismissive of the possibility.

Looks like they were on the right track after all.

Maybe it is the realization that none of the "Team USA Lander" companies can make the 2024 target date by themselves.

Utilising a Cygnus-derived transfer stage, an ascent stage built with Lockheed’s crewed spaceflight knowledge from Orion, Blue’s engine and retro propulsion technology for the descent stage and Draper’s guidance heritage which dates back to Apollo, seems like a good way to get a head start.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 10/22/2019 03:18 pm
It always made engineering sense, but I didn't think they'd be willing to cooperate. I thought they'd all try to go for the jackpot individually. I guess I underestimated their willingness to "split the pot," so to speak.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 10/22/2019 04:47 pm
This is exactly what needed to happen to hit those timelines. Its a really smart decision based on schedule - never mind the political clout it lends to the proposal.

Boeing and Intuitive Machines were planning to partner for their lander last I heard, which in comparison doesn't seem like as complete of a partnership.

Welcome to the age of the Space Cartels?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/22/2019 04:55 pm
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop join forces for Artemis lunar lander

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/   
Highlights :
Quote
Blue Origin will serve as the prime contractor.
Lockheed Martin will build a crew-rated ascent stage, leveraging systems it developed for the Orion spacecraft. Northrop Grumman will build a transfer stage.
Executives with the four companies said the urgency required by the goal of returning humans to the moon within five years led them to team up rather than pursue separate lander projects.
“It’s a relatively small community. We talk to each other all the time,” Sherwood said when asked how the companies decided to join forces.
I didn't expect this.  I'm wondering how much skin will each put in the game.  Given the time frame for getting operational, it kind of makes sense.

The real challenge is not in building the hardware and software, but in managing the partnership. Blue Origin better have some great program managers assigned to this, because Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have decades of experience outmaneuvering the U.S. Government, so Blue Origin is going to have to stay on their toes.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/22/2019 05:13 pm
This partnership also comes with three LVs, NG, Omega and Vulcan. That is commercial LV side sorted for mission resupply. Will still need SLS for crew at this stage.

Long term I can see them offering a crew OTV for LEO-Gateway-LEO trip. Could be done without lunar ISRU fuel but cheaper with it.


Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 10/22/2019 05:16 pm
A 26 day mission duration should validate the Orion's long duration independent operation capability. Basically everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board).
And that is a source of risk right there.  NASA has some substantial vacuum chamber assets (Glenn etc.), is the Orion ECLSS tested within such assets?

I thought it would have been nice to have had a full up ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) installed on Artemis-1 and at least sensor the heck out of it to see how it does.  As you said "everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board)"  which IS a big deal.

I believe the photo is the test cell at NASA Plumbrooke.  The facility was built to test the NERVA (nuclear rocket engine) at altitude, which never happened.  It is truly an amazing facility, built to safely contain a nuclear rocket.  You can see in the photo the rail road tracks that would have allowed rail road engines to move the rocket in and then out after testing.  I have been in that facility and it is wonder to see what can be built with sufficient funding.
I just did a quick search under vacuum testing Glenn.  I didnt realize that the facilities included the Space Environments Complex(SEC) which include the "world’s largest and most powerful space environment simulation facilities including the Space Simulation Vacuum Chamber measuring 100 ft. in diameter by 122 ft. high."

Built to test NERVA? Wow that's cool.  Odd that NERVA was cancelled.
  I live in an area that supplies 65% of its electricity via nuclear reactors and only 4% using oil/gas having cut out coal 100% within our recent history.  Not all places are as accepting of nuclear anything.

It would have been something to see a NERVA demonstrator inside a shuttle payload bay.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 10/22/2019 08:23 pm
If New Glenn plays a major role in launching lander elements then the element will have to contribute to TLI. The cargo version of Blue Moon has a wet mass of 15 mT whereas NG can place 13.6 mT in GTO according to the User Guide. Additional deltaV will be needed to reach NRHO.

The mass of a Blue Moon descent element will have even a greater mass.

Some sources have indicated that LockMart was considering repurposing the OMS engine for their ascent element. I wouldn't be surprised to see the OMS retained since it provides a reliable "fail safe" option.

Given the weight issues with Orion, however, I do wonder about LM's ability to repurpose Orion's pressure vessel in the ascent element.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: testguy on 10/23/2019 12:30 am
A 26 day mission duration should validate the Orion's long duration independent operation capability. Basically everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board).
And that is a source of risk right there.  NASA has some substantial vacuum chamber assets (Glenn etc.), is the Orion ECLSS tested within such assets?

I thought it would have been nice to have had a full up ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) installed on Artemis-1 and at least sensor the heck out of it to see how it does.  As you said "everything except ECLSS under load (humans on board)"  which IS a big deal.

I believe the photo is the test cell at NASA Plumbrooke.  The facility was built to test the NERVA (nuclear rocket engine) at altitude, which never happened.  It is truly an amazing facility, built to safely contain a nuclear rocket.  You can see in the photo the rail road tracks that would have allowed rail road engines to move the rocket in and then out after testing.  I have been in that facility and it is wonder to see what can be built with sufficient funding.
I just did a quick search under vacuum testing Glenn.  I didnt realize that the facilities included the Space Environments Complex(SEC) which include the "world’s largest and most powerful space environment simulation facilities including the Space Simulation Vacuum Chamber measuring 100 ft. in diameter by 122 ft. high."

Built to test NERVA? Wow that's cool.  Odd that NERVA was cancelled.
  I live in an area that supplies 65% of its electricity via nuclear reactors and only 4% using oil/gas having cut out coal 100% within our recent history.  Not all places are as accepting of nuclear anything.

It would have been something to see a NERVA demonstrator inside a shuttle payload bay.
Nerva would have provided exceptional isp but was too dangerous to fly.  It was planned to fly on Saturn 1.  Imagine the environmental issues with a nuclear reactor during a flight failure. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/23/2019 12:38 am
Nerva would have provided exceptional isp but was too dangerous to fly.  It was planned to fly on Saturn 1.  Imagine the environmental issues with a nuclear reactor during a flight failure.

Less than a flight failure with an RTG. RTGs use radioactive nuclear reactor byproducts. You would have to run the reactor on the nuclear engine for a very long time (in rocket engine terms) to produce a similar amount of radioactive material. Uranium itself isn't very dangerous as the half life is 700 million years to 4.5 billion years. Radium that they used to put on watch dials on the other hand had a half life of 1600 years. Plutonium 238 used in RTGs is 78 years.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/23/2019 02:30 am


If New Glenn plays a major role in launching lander elements then the element will have to contribute to TLI. The cargo version of Blue Moon has a wet mass of 15 mT whereas NG can place 13.6 mT in GTO according to the User Guide. Additional deltaV will be needed to reach NRHO.



The descent stage can make its own way from LEO-gateway.
Assume 455ISP 28mt in LEO, arrives at Gateway (3700m/s) with mass of 12mt.
Add 6.4mt ascent stage =18.4mt.
Arrives on surface (2550m/s) with mass of 10.4mt. That is 4mt  for lander and any residual fuel.

My values are rough but good enough to show descent stage can do it.




Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/23/2019 01:50 pm
If New Glenn plays a major role in launching lander elements then the element will have to contribute to TLI. The cargo version of Blue Moon has a wet mass of 15 mT whereas NG can place 13.6 mT in GTO according to the User Guide. Additional deltaV will be needed to reach NRHO.

The mass of a Blue Moon descent element will have even a greater mass.

Some sources have indicated that LockMart was considering repurposing the OMS engine for their ascent element. I wouldn't be surprised to see the OMS retained since it provides a reliable "fail safe" option.

Given the weight issues with Orion, however, I do wonder about LM's ability to repurpose Orion's pressure vessel in the ascent element.

13.6 t is what Blue is selling to GTO, which is not necessarily what the vehicle can do. New Glenn is half a Saturn V with considerably more efficient engines and far more advanced materials and construction methods (staged combustion, carbon fiber, friction stir welding, microcontrollers, etc). Even with only 2 stages and booster recovery it should do much better than that.

For example, the LUVOIR team at NASA appears fairly certain that New Glenn can launch the LUVOIR-B even though that requires at the very minimum 15,000 kg sent all the way to escape, and more likely 20,000+ kg.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rondaz on 10/25/2019 02:46 am
As our human spaceflight programs evolved, so did the food!🍎🍕🥗
Eating in microgravity can be very different than eating on Earth. Food preservation & harvest will be one of the challenges for long duration flights on future #Artemis missions, & beyond to Mars.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Astronauts/status/1187494343831179270
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/25/2019 07:20 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcCFqhprebo

Quote
Published on 25 Oct 2019
On the final day of the International Astronautical Congress in Washington, DC, Administrator Jim Bridenstine gave an update on the Artemis program and the critical role of international partnerships. He announced that the agency will send the VIPER rover to the Moon to map water ice before astronauts land there in 2024 and gave the agency's Distinguished Service Medal to former U.S. representative John Culberson.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 10/30/2019 12:04 pm
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1189231664750313474

I think this mostly cans the "It's too complicated and likely to lead to LOM" argument.  Dual redundancy eliminates most of the single-point failures (e.g. ascent stage failure on the surface) that even single-launch architectures can't address.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 10/30/2019 12:56 pm
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1189231664750313474

I think this mostly cans the "It's too complicated and likely to lead to LOM" argument.  Dual redundancy eliminates most of the single-point failures (e.g. ascent stage failure on the surface) that even single-launch architectures can't address.
I really hope NASA is given enough budget to maintain the purchase of two lunar landers for exactly the reason you addressed.

Lunar aborts are essentially the opposite of an abort on Earth or in Earth orbit. Any abort in those locations takes the form of getting on the ground as soon as possible. On the Moon, any abort takes the form of getting off the ground as soon as possible.

With one lander, if it fails to get off the surface and back to Gateway, that's it for the crew. They're already dead. With two landers, you can send down another to pick them up, and since the two landers will be different designs made by different companies, it's very unlikely to suffer the same failure as the first.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: bitbyte2015 on 10/30/2019 09:42 pm
The ESD update from today's HEO meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnacdq9JZyw
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 11/03/2019 04:02 am
If I'm reading this correctly, an amendment to the House appropriations bill (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/10/22/senate-section/article/S5978-1?q=%257B%2522search%2522%253A%255B%2522HR%2B3055%2522%255D%257D) proposed by a certain Mr. Shelby includes the roughly $700M for the HLS lunar lander program present in the Senate appropriations bill.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/03/2019 04:16 am
If I'm reading this correctly, an amendment to the House appropriations bill (https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/10/22/senate-section/article/S5978-1?q=%257B%2522search%2522%253A%255B%2522HR%2B3055%2522%255D%257D) proposed by a certain Mr. Shelby includes the roughly $700M for the HLS lunar lander program present in the Senate appropriations bill.
I also find the following part interesting:

     Not more than 50 percent of the amounts made available in
     this Act for the Gateway; Advanced Cislunar and Surface
     Capabilities; Commercial LEO Development; and Lunar Discovery
     and Exploration, excluding the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter,
     may be obligated until the Administrator submits a multi-year
     plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
     Representatives and the Senate that identifies estimated
     dates, by fiscal year, for Space Launch System flights to
     build the Gateway; the commencement of partnerships with
     commercial entities for additional LEO missions to land
     humans and rovers on the Moon; and conducting additional
     scientific activities on the Moon. The multi-year plan shall
     include key milestones to be met by fiscal year to achieve
     goals for each of the lunar programs described in the
     previous sentence and funding required by fiscal year to
     achieve such milestones.


This adds a little pressure to come up with a budget estimate for landing on the Moon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: pochimax on 11/03/2019 09:14 am
Quote
until the Administrator submits a multi-year plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate that identifies estimated dates, by fiscal year, for Space Launch System flights to build the Gateway

How boring,... you know, politics...

The answer for this should be "ZERO FLIGHTS" (only Orion launches)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 11/03/2019 10:26 am
Quote
until the Administrator submits a multi-year plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate that identifies estimated dates, by fiscal year, for Space Launch System flights to build the Gateway

How boring,... you know, politics...

The answer for this should be "ZERO FLIGHTS" (only Orion launches)

Yes, this. Specifically mentioning SLS for building the Gateway is a fairly obvious attempt to keep commercial launchers away from launching Gateway elements.
But naturally, that was to be expected from that particular senator.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 11/14/2019 05:17 am
If there's no order from administration, no law from congress, and NASA doesn't want to use SLS to launch landers (pointed out by the source in Berger's article), then if they change the BAA to only allow SLS to launch landers, what other conclusion can you draw except they're being forced to do this?
Regardless of whether or not the rest of your argument has merit, you're jumping the gun here. That has not happened. Your example is entirely hypothetical.

Not hypothetical anymore: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1194691593619562496.html

Quote
Subcommittee ranking member Babin criticizes NASA for allowing companies to use commercial rockets for human lunar lander proposals; the most optimal architecture uses heavy-lift rockets like SLS.

Babin adds that with “dwindling” odds of getting sufficient funding this year to enable 2024 deadline, it’s an opportunity to revisit lunar landing architecture, one that makes greater use of SLS.

And it goes beyond that:

Quote
Young: need full capability of NASA and industry to achieve Mars-Moon program. Management and contracting “experiments” should be excluded

Babin: is NASA’s lunar lander approach an example of management and contracting experiments to be avoided?

Young: don’t think we should buy seats to fly to the Moon; landers should be government-acquired assets.

Sounds like Boeing is trying to blow up HLS for good and force NASA to sole source cost-plus SLS based lunar lander to them.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 11/14/2019 03:59 pm
Marshall Space Flight Center may also be pushing for SLS.

Quote
In 2019, a team at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study on the choice of the human lunar mission balance of launch vehicle manifesting and the schedule realities. It determined that SLS is essential for architecture and mission closure. - Only SLS can lift the Orion Spacecraft - SLS cargo significantly simplifies the mission - SLS Block 1B opens up trade space and provides robust architecture

This is from Stafford's testimony.
https://science.house.gov/download/stafford-testimony

Who knows what else was said in this study, he could just be cherry picking out certain pro SLS elements. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 11/14/2019 06:44 pm
I just listened to the subcommittee hearing (https://science.house.gov/hearings/keeping-our-sights-on-mars-part-2-structuring-a-moon-mars-program-for-success).  Both witnesses were strongly in favor of Apollo-style, NASA-managed HSF.  Stafford, in particular, was plugging SLS and EUS.  Fawning legislators ate it up.  None of ULA, SpaceX or BO got any mention whatsoever.

If this group of people gets its way, it's great news for Boeing.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 11/15/2019 03:17 pm
If this group of people gets its way, it's great news for Boeing.

And very bad news for the US taxpayer.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: punder on 11/15/2019 03:24 pm
Great news for SpaceX too. They can stop their descent into the Artemis rabbit hole and devote their full attention to a rational internal plan.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 11/18/2019 05:58 pm
I have to say, it takes some REAL chutzpah on Boeing's part to be lobbying Congress to use their lander solution in a way that goes completely against the program of record - Gateway.

Maybe launching 2 SLS's, one for Orion and one for a lander is the most cost effective solution. If that's the case then fine. That can all get shaken out in the competition.

Restructuring the entire plan so that makes competition virtually impossible? That's just dirty.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 11/18/2019 10:22 pm
Great news for SpaceX too. They can stop their descent into the Artemis rabbit hole and devote their full attention to a rational internal plan.

No chance. They just won the right to bid for billions of dollars in lunar landing contracts.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 11/19/2019 12:44 am
Great news for SpaceX too. They can stop their descent into the Artemis rabbit hole and devote their full attention to a rational internal plan.

No chance. They just won the right to bid for billions of dollars in lunar landing contracts.

The maximum amount for CLPS is $2.6B.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 11/19/2019 01:00 am
The maximum amount for CLPS is $2.6B.

Is over two and half billion dollars not billions of dollars anymore?

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: punder on 11/19/2019 01:10 am
Great news for SpaceX too. They can stop their descent into the Artemis rabbit hole and devote their full attention to a rational internal plan.

No chance. They just won the right to bid for billions of dollars in lunar landing contracts.

Thanks for not adding "English bed-wetting type" to that "no chance"!

I'll take that result. It's all good.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 11/19/2019 02:08 am
The maximum amount for CLPS is $2.6B.

Is over two and half billion dollars not billions of dollars anymore?

There are 14 companies. The maximum for all the companies is $2.6B.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: QuantumG on 11/19/2019 02:11 am
There are 14 companies.

There was 19 for COTS/CRS.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: theinternetftw on 11/19/2019 05:28 am
The original purpose of CLPS, as was said by NASA to Intuitive Machines, is to deliver something to the moon for less than $100M.

There will be around two missions a year, each for a little under $100M.  The VIPER mission needs a bigger lander and it looks like the way they handle that is for it to eat the other mission for that year, so call that one $200M.  If you win one mission in a two mission year, you probably won't win the other.

So $100-$200M per mission, a likely max of one mission a year for any one provider.  Maybe five providers currently showing themselves to be competent, with the potential for a surprise or two who may or may not get crowded out by those five.

For SpaceX and Blue, and SNC though they're behind, perhaps also LM, will all compete for the money budgeted for a large landing (probably ~$200M), any time the CLPS program thinks they can afford a big landing, which currently is not every year.

This is all if the funding level for CLPS stays as is.  With the addition of big landings, it shouldn't, but it looks like they're currently scheduling things as if it doesn't increase. For better or worse, a significant appeal of the program is that it funds really cool things without needing all that much a year.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/19/2019 06:19 am
How they thought it would be done in 1952.

How they think it will be done in 2022.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/19/2019 12:40 pm
How they thought it would be done in 1952.

How they think it will be done in 2022.

Excellent catch!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 11/19/2019 12:44 pm
I thought of it but could not find it on line. I think there was a sequence of deployment of the blue Lunar "tank" as well in the book.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 11/19/2019 04:23 pm
I've read that Tin-Tin comic. It was surprisingly well-researched, especially for its time. Biggest straight-up sci-fi element was the "nuclear engine" that could burn at 1 Earth g of acceleration for almost the entire journey. Everything else was portrayed as realistically as the science of the time allowed, which does lead to a couple of funny moments with dated science.

One of the most notable examples of dated science (and the only one I can think of off the top of my head) was the idea that astronauts would need to lie down on special beds during launch to mitigate g-forces, and even then they would inevitably pass out. In contrast, reality showed that that astronauts could remain conscious during a launch, that the standard chair was quite suitable for the job, and the "bed" design depicted in the comic actually worsened the effects of high g-forces on the human body.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/20/2019 06:53 am
The reason the flight sequence in Tin Tin is so accurate is because it is a very close copy of the flight sequence used in the 1921 film "Frau im Mond"! The two stage spaceship "Friede" is also remarkably similar to Starship. By a coincidence, the two men in the photo could just as well be Musk and Maezawa in their old age!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0_--GnGSU
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/20/2019 07:33 am
I thought of it but could not find it on line. I think there was a sequence of deployment of the blue Lunar "tank" as well in the book.

Yes, there is a quite large blue tank that Tin Tin and company drives around in, but its deployment is not shown. The text in the book describes that the tank is assembled by The Captain and Tin Tin over two days (3 and 4 June).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 11/21/2019 04:57 am
NASA wants to start procurement of an unpressurized lunar rover for the Artemis program.

NASA to seek ideas for an Artemis lunar rover (https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-seek-ideas-for-an-artemis-lunar-rover/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Speaking at the SpaceCom Expo here Nov. 20, Tom Cremins, NASA associate administrator for strategy and plans, said the agency will soon release a request for information for an unpressurized lunar rover for use by astronauts on Artemis lunar landing missions.

“We want that [rover] there when the first crews arrive and then be there subsequently to be able to be used potentially autonomously from the Gateway, to conduct operations and to add to the science objectives,” he said.

That RFI, which he said would be released “in the coming weeks,” would propose to eventually develop the rover through a public-private partnership. The work will be led by the Johnson Space Center.

Very exciting news, IMO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/21/2019 05:38 am
NASA wants to start procurement of an unpressurized lunar rover for the Artemis program.

NASA to seek ideas for an Artemis lunar rover (https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-seek-ideas-for-an-artemis-lunar-rover/)

Quote from: SpaceNews
Speaking at the SpaceCom Expo here Nov. 20, Tom Cremins, NASA associate administrator for strategy and plans, said the agency will soon release a request for information for an unpressurized lunar rover for use by astronauts on Artemis lunar landing missions.

“We want that [rover] there when the first crews arrive and then be there subsequently to be able to be used potentially autonomously from the Gateway, to conduct operations and to add to the science objectives,” he said.

That RFI, which he said would be released “in the coming weeks,” would propose to eventually develop the rover through a public-private partnership. The work will be led by the Johnson Space Center.

Very exciting news, IMO.
If it's going to be there before the first crew lands, it should have an HD camera on it to broadcast the landing back to Earth as it happens and to broadcast the first new steps out on the surface.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 11/21/2019 05:44 am
If it's going to be there before the first crew lands, it should have an HD camera on it to broadcast the landing back to Earth as it happens and to broadcast the first new steps out on the surface.
I got the vibe that it would come down with the lander a la Apollo. But that would be cool.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/21/2019 04:52 pm
If it's going to be there before the first crew lands, it should have an HD camera on it to broadcast the landing back to Earth as it happens and to broadcast the first new steps out on the surface.
I got the vibe that it would come down with the lander a la Apollo. But that would be cool.

I just reread the article, it could go either way. 
The rover would be ready before the lander mission, why not send it ahead? 
It would reduce the lander mass.  In a distributed launch environment it relieves many old planning constraints. 
By the time this lander mission happens NASA should have gotten pretty good at positioning gear. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/21/2019 05:34 pm
The original purpose of CLPS, as was said by NASA to Intuitive Machines, is to deliver something to the moon for less than $100M.

There will be around two missions a year, each for a little under $100M.  The VIPER mission needs a bigger lander and it looks like the way they handle that is for it to eat the other mission for that year, so call that one $200M.  If you win one mission in a two mission year, you probably won't win the other.

So $100-$200M per mission, a likely max of one mission a year for any one provider.  Maybe five providers currently showing themselves to be competent, with the potential for a surprise or two who may or may not get crowded out by those five.

For SpaceX and Blue, and SNC though they're behind, perhaps also LM, will all compete for the money budgeted for a large landing (probably ~$200M), any time the CLPS program thinks they can afford a big landing, which currently is not every year.

This is all if the funding level for CLPS stays as is.  With the addition of big landings, it shouldn't, but it looks like they're currently scheduling things as if it doesn't increase. For better or worse, a significant appeal of the program is that it funds really cool things without needing all that much a year.

I think they would need multiple VIPER missions (100 days). 
Even if it finds water right away NASA will want to explore other locations. 
Building multiple units should drive the cost down.  They deploy the first one and see if their are improvements can make to it. 
The VIPER is larger than other smaller rovers maybe they can piggyback other science missions on it?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 11/21/2019 05:37 pm
I just reread the article, it could go either way. 
The rover would be ready before the lander mission, why not send it ahead? 
It would reduce the lander mass.  In a distributed launch environment it relieves many old planning constraints. 
By the time this lander mission happens NASA should have gotten pretty good at positioning gear.
I'd think that if they were going to send it down separately they'd make it a pressurized rover. If you're already giving it a dedicated launch it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to go that last mile. But I admit I could be wrong.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 11/21/2019 06:00 pm
I just reread the article, it could go either way. 
The rover would be ready before the lander mission, why not send it ahead? 
It would reduce the lander mass.  In a distributed launch environment it relieves many old planning constraints. 
By the time this lander mission happens NASA should have gotten pretty good at positioning gear.
I'd think that if they were going to send it down separately they'd make it a pressurized rover. If you're already giving it a dedicated launch it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to go that last mile. But I admit I could be wrong.
Maybe it was thought an unpressurized rover would be an easier thing to develop and deliver in the desired timeline?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/21/2019 06:09 pm
I just reread the article, it could go either way. 
The rover would be ready before the lander mission, why not send it ahead? 
It would reduce the lander mass.  In a distributed launch environment it relieves many old planning constraints. 
By the time this lander mission happens NASA should have gotten pretty good at positioning gear.
I'd think that if they were going to send it down separately they'd make it a pressurized rover. If you're already giving it a dedicated launch it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to go that last mile. But I admit I could be wrong.
Maybe it was thought an unpressurized rover would be an easier thing to develop and deliver in the desired timeline?

It will be interesting to see what they deploy together. 
VIPER will need to be early because there will be a lot mission planning based on what it learns.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 11/21/2019 06:12 pm
Maybe it was thought an unpressurized rover would be an easier thing to develop and deliver in the desired timeline?
Possibly. It is definitely going to be much easier and faster to develop an Apollo-style unpressurized rover that doesn't need to be crew-rated than an SEV-style pressurized rover that will need to be crew-rated and also be able to function as a mini-habitat for extended trips on the surface.

It's also likely that they haven't made a decision on the delivery method yet. After all, the mass margins will depend on which lander bids are pursued.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/28/2019 02:55 pm
Cross-posting as this is an Artemis update as well...

https://twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/1200027153561202689
Quote
On Exploration, big smiles from that directorate. Esa will be participating in Lunar Gateway with iHAB and ESPRIT modules. The robotic lunar lander gets the nod also. #SPace19Plus
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: pochimax on 11/28/2019 03:04 pm
https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate/Resolution_3_Space19+Final-28Nov-12h30.pdf (https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate/Resolution_3_Space19+Final-28Nov-12h30.pdf)

9. STRESSES that the formalisation with NASA and other international partners of
Europe’s participation in both:
(i) the Lunar Gateway, to enable a regular human presence on the Moon; and
(ii) the Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign, to enable the first-ever return to Earth
of pristine Mars soil samples;
shall be concluded urgently in view of the ambitious schedule for the actual
development, launch and operation of the corresponding hardware elements; and
NOTES that the approach to developing the necessary agreements and arrangements
builds on the wealth of experience gained through, respectively, 30 years of ISS
cooperation, and 20 years of cooperation in Mars exploration through Mars Express
and ExoMars;

10. UNDERLINES that, with the provision of a series of European Service Modules
(ESMs) for the NASA-developed Orion capsule under a barter scheme outlined in ISS
cooperation- related Implementing Arrangements, the Agency is already an important
stakeholder in the Lunar Gateway endeavour.


I wonder if there is some decouplement between NASA's Orion procurement and ESA's commitment to service modules fabrication, under the ISS barter scheme (more capsules from NASA than ESA modules... ???)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Targeteer on 12/03/2019 05:59 am
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/new-launch-communications-segment-empowers-artemis


Nov. 27, 2019
New Launch Communications Segment Empowers Artemis

As Artemis astronauts lift off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida, new ground systems will provide them with the communications links needed to ensure safety and mission success.

On Robert H. Goddard Road at Kennedy, a small dome housing a 20-foot antenna rises from the surrounding wetlands. This new ground station is the Kennedy Uplink Station, one of three that comprise the Near Earth Network’s Launch Communications Segment, managed by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The station is a product of interagency and inter-center collaboration that improves efficiencies, reduces costs and will enable NASA’s Artemis missions to the Moon.


Managers and support staff of the Launch Communications Segment held a ribbon cutting ceremony at the Kennedy Uplink Station on Tuesday, November 19. There, leadership from Goddard and Kennedy celebrated the critical role this segment will play in NASA’s journey forward to the Moon, Mars and beyond.

“It’s an exciting time to be involved in human spaceflight,” said Kennedy Center director Robert D. Cabana. “The capabilities provided by the Launch Communications Segment – this collaborative effort of Kennedy and Goddard – show how the Artemis missions empower us all to explore as one.”


Goddard commissioned the Launch Communications Segment to support the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS), which will be the most powerful rocket in the world.  The Kennedy station, alongside companion stations Ponce De Leon (also in Florida) and Bermuda, will facilitate communications for launch of Artemis missions to the Moon.

During initial phases of launch, the Kennedy Uplink Station and Ponce De Leon will provide uplink and downlink communications between Artemis astronauts and mission controllers, giving them the data necessary to ensure crew safety. In the final phases of ascent, the Bermuda station will downlink high data rate telemetry from SLS while Orion data is communicated via the constellation of Tracking and Data Relay Satellites in geosynchronous orbit, about 22,000 miles overhead.

Each station in the Launch Communications Segment provides a complementary view of Orion and SLS during launch. For the space shuttle, all three data streams were sent to end users even though data from one station was always better than the others at different times during the flight. This made operations more complex.

Now, the segment merges data from the three stations into one clear stream to mission controllers, simplifying operations and reducing costs.


In the era of the space shuttle, the Merritt Island Launch Annex (MILA) facilitated launch communications for crewed missions launching from Kennedy. MILA needed a lot of operator involvement to provide communications between the space shuttle and mission control, requiring around 50 full-time employees to support launches.

In contrast, computers now autonomously handle most complicated networking functions. Supervision of routine operations is handled remotely. Thanks to these technological advancements, just a handful of on-site employees will be needed to operate the Launch Communications Segment during the Artemis missions.

Ultimately, project engineers expect that the automation and remote capabilities will save the agency tens of millions of dollars in operating costs over its lifetime.


While MILA was located outside the grounds of Kennedy, through a collaborative agreement between Goddard and Kennedy, the Kennedy Uplink Station is now located within Kennedy’s campus. This streamlines operations, further optimizing operating costs.

The advanced technology at the Kennedy Uplink Station also dramatically reduces its physical footprint when compared to MILA, which was comprised of 13 buildings over 16 acres. Kennedy Uplink Station needs only a 700 square foot prefabricated shelter and antenna with a protective dome to perform similar functions.

“MILA was a huge facility – it even had its own security force,” said Dave McCormick, operations manager for the Launch Communications Segment. “By moving within Kennedy’s campus, we’re reducing everything from the energy footprint to the number of personnel needed onsite.”While the Artemis missions are the primary customer for the Launch Communications Segment, the team will be able to support launches of all stripes, from government to commercial missions.

“We are a part of Kennedy’s transformation into a multi-user spaceport,” said Chris Roberts, development manager for the Launch Communications Segment. “Our hope is to accelerate development of a public and private space economy around the center.”
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/03/2019 05:23 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1201921761023025155

Quote
NASA Deputy Administrator Jim Morhard, speaking at #SpaceSummit19: the primary goal of Artemis is a Mars concept of operations, an end-to-end demo of technologies and capabilities needed for human missions.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Star One on 12/03/2019 07:41 pm
Quote
Next year, NASA will send a pair of "phantom women" dummies on a trip around the moon with the aim of investigating the effects of space radiation on astronauts.

Designed by the German Aerospace Center (DLR,) the two dummies—known as Helga and Zohar—simulate adult female torsos. They are made from plastic which mimics human tissue—including the differing density between bones, soft tissue and other organs.

The dummies are fitted with more than 5,600 sensors each. These will be able to measure exposure to space radiation in the "skin" of the dummies all the way down to their "internal organs."

https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-two-phantom-women-dummies-moon-1475233
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 12/03/2019 09:25 pm
Quote
Next year, NASA will send a pair of "phantom women" dummies on a trip around the moon with the aim of investigating the effects of space radiation on astronauts.

Designed by the German Aerospace Center (DLR,) the two dummies—known as Helga and Zohar—simulate adult female torsos. They are made from plastic which mimics human tissue—including the differing density between bones, soft tissue and other organs.

The dummies are fitted with more than 5,600 sensors each. These will be able to measure exposure to space radiation in the "skin" of the dummies all the way down to their "internal organs."

https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-two-phantom-women-dummies-moon-1475233 (https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-two-phantom-women-dummies-moon-1475233)

What about the radiation studies that were done on the actually human (7) 3-man crews that went to the moon already? Did NASA lose those studies or is this something different? If different, then how is it different?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Star One on 12/04/2019 05:53 am
Quote
Next year, NASA will send a pair of "phantom women" dummies on a trip around the moon with the aim of investigating the effects of space radiation on astronauts.

Designed by the German Aerospace Center (DLR,) the two dummies—known as Helga and Zohar—simulate adult female torsos. They are made from plastic which mimics human tissue—including the differing density between bones, soft tissue and other organs.

The dummies are fitted with more than 5,600 sensors each. These will be able to measure exposure to space radiation in the "skin" of the dummies all the way down to their "internal organs."

https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-two-phantom-women-dummies-moon-1475233 (https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-two-phantom-women-dummies-moon-1475233)

What about the radiation studies that were done on the actually human (7) 3-man crews that went to the moon already? Did NASA lose those studies or is this something different? If different, then how is it different?

Men are not women. This is specifically designed to answer questions about female physiology and radiation around the moon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/04/2019 06:15 am
Men are not women. This is specifically designed to answer questions about female physiology and radiation around the moon.

The Apollo crews also were...

1.)not in Orion which is a different spacecraft configuration
2.)weren't wearing the polyethylene vest designed to protect vital organs from radiation damage
3.)solar radiation is variable and so the conditions for this flight won't be the same as the other lunar flights. If we get lucky, Orion would get hit by a solar flare and this will produce data on that event. This will produce real data to evaluate the solar radiation shelter conops.
4.)Apollo astronauts weren't as heavily instrumented with radiation sensors. This will show radiation dose vs depth. Of critical importance is either confirming or contradicting the heart disease-radiation link as likely stastistical aberration or not.

Quote
The rate among  astronauts who never flew is 9%. Among low-Earth orbiting astronauts, its 11%. For the men who travelled to the Moon, a staggering 43%, or 4-5 times higher than their less-travelled colleagues.The one exception to the study was Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who passed away after the study’s data had already been collected.
https://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/

This suggests the damage over a week is extensive. Exposure over months could have more immediate affects.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 12/04/2019 12:40 pm
Men are not women.

Now that's a revelation lol.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 12/04/2019 12:46 pm
Men are not women. This is specifically designed to answer questions about female physiology and radiation around the moon.

The Apollo crews also were...

1.)not in Orion which is a different spacecraft configuration
2.)weren't wearing the polyethylene vest designed to protect vital organs from radiation damage
3.)solar radiation is variable and so the conditions for this flight won't be the same as the other lunar flights. If we get lucky, Orion would get hit by a solar flare and this will produce data on that event. This will produce real data to evaluate the solar radiation shelter conops.
4.)Apollo astronauts weren't as heavily instrumented with radiation sensors. This will show radiation dose vs depth. Of critical importance is either confirming or contradicting the heart disease-radiation link as likely stastistical aberration or not.

Quote
The rate among  astronauts who never flew is 9%. Among low-Earth orbiting astronauts, its 11%. For the men who travelled to the Moon, a staggering 43%, or 4-5 times higher than their less-travelled colleagues.The one exception to the study was Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who passed away after the study’s data had already been collected.
https://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/ (https://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/)

This suggests the damage over a week is extensive. Exposure over months could have more immediate affects.

Thank you for the detailed answer. I asked if NASA had lost the previous studies because NASA *has* lost many things, including studies, wrt the Apollo missions. They've simply gone missing and no one knows where they are. It was a genuine question, seriously asked. Star One's answer was like a report title - it didn't say much beyond the obvious. Your answer is like the report itself - very informative. I now understand the value of this study. Thank you.
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Star One on 12/04/2019 03:11 pm
Men are not women.

Now that's a revelation lol.

Because I thought the article fully explained it, and as the video below points out there has been a long standing issue with medical data only being gathered for the so called average male.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVdn-2KE2bs
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 12/04/2019 05:07 pm
Men are not women.

Now that's a revelation lol.

Because I thought the article fully explained it, and as the video below points out there has been a long standing issue with medical data only being gathered for the so called average male.

Actually I don't think it did. It left me questioning the premise behind the mission. Perhaps you have more background information than I do which informed your impression. That happens more often than I care to admit. What ncb1397 offered me was much clearer, as was the video you just provided. Thank you.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/05/2019 02:01 pm
Ya gotta have space suits anyhow.  An unpressurized rover would be less expensive, and easier to make, especially considering that they could model it on the one in the Air and Space museum.  So clearly, they're not gonna take the "faster cheaper" route.  Right?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/05/2019 02:05 pm
Men are not women. This is specifically designed to answer questions about female physiology and radiation around the moon.

Please.  This is an example of slow walking the process by NASA officials pretending to be "safe".
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/05/2019 07:23 pm
Ya gotta have space suits anyhow.  An unpressurized rover would be less expensive, and easier to make, especially considering that they could model it on the one in the Air and Space museum.  So clearly, they're not gonna take the "faster cheaper" route.  Right?
Huh? They announced they were going to procure an unpressurized rover a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 12/05/2019 07:55 pm
Men are not women.

Now that's a revelation lol.

Because I thought the article fully explained it, and as the video below points out there has been a long standing issue with medical data only being gathered for the so called average male.
I would characterize your statement as anti-informative, as differences between men and women are not significant for these purposes, if they were, they should also be flying at least* one male dummy, because real reasons for this are listed by ncb1397. Those all apply equally to men and women. The article also did not list most of these.

*The reason for 2 dummies is one with and one without the protective vest, which is why the 2 dummies should be otherwise the same to make it a better test. They could possibly get away with just 1 male dummy depending on how significant the difference between the male and female vests would be.
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Star One on 12/05/2019 08:05 pm
Men are not women.

Now that's a revelation lol.

Because I thought the article fully explained it, and as the video below points out there has been a long standing issue with medical data only being gathered for the so called average male.
I would characterize your statement as anti-informative, as differences between men and women are not significant for these purposes, if they were, they should also be flying at least* one male dummy, because real reasons for this are listed by ncb1397. Those all apply equally to men and women. The article also did not list most of these.

*The reason for 2 dummies is one with and one without the protective vest, which is why the 2 dummies should be otherwise the same to make it a better test. They could possibly get away with just 1 male dummy depending on how significant the difference between the male and female vests would be.

I am not sure how you can make the claim that the differences between men and women are not significant for these purposes, when in fact the article states the direct opposite, in that it states women are more effected by radiation. It’s almost as if you hadn’t actually read the article.

And please cease your typical aggressive tone as it’s getting old now
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 12/05/2019 08:49 pm
I am not sure how you can make the claim that the differences between men and women are not significant for these purposes, when in fact the article states the direct opposite, in that it states women are more effected by radiation. It’s almost as if you hadn’t actually read the article.
The article says that modifying the vest for men vs women should be easy. Women being more susceptible to radiation would be related to biology that is not present in these dummies, and is therefore irrelevant to this test. As I said in my post, significant differences between men and women in a way that is relevant to this test would be a reason to include dummies of both body shapes.

And please cease your typical aggressive tone as it’s getting old now
Please stop dodging facts by accusing anyone who disagrees with you and can back it up with facts or logic as being "aggressive." If you have a legitimate complaint about something I said (not just projecting a bad tone on it because you don't like it) please take it to PM.

Your original post that started this thread was dismissive and unhelpful in response to a legitimate question, and as I pointed out, it was also wrong.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/05/2019 09:09 pm
For those interested...

Quote
Orion EM-1 Internal Environment Characterization:
The Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190026525.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 12/06/2019 01:12 am
I am not sure how you can make the claim that the differences between men and women are not significant for these purposes, when in fact the article states the direct opposite, in that it states women are more effected by radiation.

In fact it would appear that the female test articles are heavily outfitted internally to mimic the organs of a woman in their actual locations. Artificial material which mimics soft tissue also appears to surround the organs in the amounts appropriate to a healthy female. AIUI, the organs are instrumented to detect and record the radiation doses seen by the organs under the protection regimes specified.

Having now been educated on this testing, the only beef I still have with it is that there should also be 2 male subjects (2 female and 2 male), similarly made and similarly outfitted with protection. That would produce male/female test results that would be far more meaningful to the program objectives than just 2 female subjects.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/06/2019 03:18 pm
... Women being more susceptible to radiation would be related to biology that is not present in these dummies, and is therefore irrelevant to this test. As I said in my post, significant differences between men and women in a way that is relevant to this test would be a reason to include dummies of both body shapes. ...

Uhhhh... Shapes?  But more seriously, how do the sensors account for the biological differences between men and women?  What is it that they are measuring?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/06/2019 03:28 pm
In fact it would appear that the female test articles are heavily outfitted internally to mimic the organs of a woman in their actual locations. Artificial material which mimics soft tissue also appears to surround the organs in the amounts appropriate to a healthy female. AIUI, the organs are instrumented to detect and record the radiation doses seen by the organs under the protection regimes specified.

Having now been educated on this testing, the only beef I still have with it is that there should also be 2 male subjects (2 female and 2 male), similarly made and similarly outfitted with protection. That would produce male/female test results that would be far more meaningful to the program objectives than just 2 female subjects.

From:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190026525.pdf

"Body self-shielding from anatomically correct human models" And:

"The radiation vest will provide "preferential protection to stem cell rich organs and tissues"

I'm with Chuck on this one.  Both sexes should have test articles.  Why, one might ask, are male dummies NOT included in this testing regimen?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 12/06/2019 06:16 pm
... Women being more susceptible to radiation would be related to biology that is not present in these dummies, and is therefore irrelevant to this test. As I said in my post, significant differences between men and women in a way that is relevant to this test would be a reason to include dummies of both body shapes. ...

Uhhhh... Shapes?  But more seriously, how do the sensors account for the biological differences between men and women?  What is it that they are measuring?
Not all men are the same shape nor all women. I am male, and the dummies used in this experiment are closer to my body shape than my body shape is to some other men I know, even accounting for the placement of internal organ simulation tissue. (The specific people I am thinking of may be outside the range of height/weight that NASA limits its astronauts to due to generally being built a lot bigger than me, but my point is still relevant.)

The presentation ncb1397 linked above is very helpful and explains some about the different sensors they are using. Besides shape, the placement of different types of tissue simulators is based on a female organ structure rather than a male organ structure. The sensors will mostly measure total radiation dose, though it seems some (external?) sensors may characterize radiation type as well. Differences for different body shapes or radiation sensitivity with gender will have to be accounted for through the models that they are validating.

I assume that they believe 1 pair of dummies is enough to validate their models, and that they believe adjustments for different body shapes including male/female will not add significant uncertainty. This is a reasonable approach, and I see no reason to think that the scientists designing this experiment aren't doing it right.

In case my statements aren't clear enough, I do not have the knowledge to say a priori whether a male model would be needed (it would of course be useful, because more data is just about always useful.) What I can do is look at the experiment design and conclude that if the experimenters are designing a good experiment, they must have concluded that having both male and female test articles were not necessary.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/06/2019 07:13 pm
The presentation ncb1397 linked above is very helpful and explains some about the different sensors they are using. Besides shape, the placement of different types of tissue simulators is based on a female organ structure rather than a male organ structure.

Many thanks! 

I read the presentation too, and am still baffled by two things.  Male organ structure is different from women; secondly, male shapes are different from women.  It just seems that to be on the "safe" side, at least one of each should be dummied up with sensors.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 12/06/2019 07:19 pm
If it makes anyone feel any better, seat position 1 will have an Artemis II crew seat with a suited manikin. The manikin and several locations in the cabin will have radiation dosimeters that will gather data throughout the duration of the flight.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Lar on 12/08/2019 04:30 am
OK what?

some deletion of silliness. And an admonishment, some of you are sniping at each other. I should have deleted those posts too but there was some useful stuff interspersed. Just knock it off, you all know better.
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Star One on 12/08/2019 09:04 am
I am not sure how you can make the claim that the differences between men and women are not significant for these purposes, when in fact the article states the direct opposite, in that it states women are more effected by radiation.

In fact it would appear that the female test articles are heavily outfitted internally to mimic the organs of a woman in their actual locations. Artificial material which mimics soft tissue also appears to surround the organs in the amounts appropriate to a healthy female. AIUI, the organs are instrumented to detect and record the radiation doses seen by the organs under the protection regimes specified.

Having now been educated on this testing, the only beef I still have with it is that there should also be 2 male subjects (2 female and 2 male), similarly made and similarly outfitted with protection. That would produce male/female test results that would be far more meaningful to the program objectives than just 2 female subjects.

Well quite. I agree now, and even after reading the additional materials, that you’d think they would put two of both genders on the flight just to err on the side of caution. I can’t see it would be anything like a space issue considering the size of crew it’s designed for.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2019 01:38 pm
If it makes anyone feel any better, seat position 1 will have an Artemis II crew seat with a suited manikin. The manikin and several locations in the cabin will have radiation dosimeters that will gather data throughout the duration of the flight.

And another thing.  Is the shielding on the capsule inadequate for the job?  Why do any Astros have to wear extra protection when they are in the friggin' capsule?
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 12/08/2019 01:46 pm
If it makes anyone feel any better, seat position 1 will have an Artemis II crew seat with a suited manikin. The manikin and several locations in the cabin will have radiation dosimeters that will gather data throughout the duration of the flight.

And another thing.  Is the shielding on the capsule inadequate for the job?  Why do any Astros have to wear extra protection when they are in the friggin' capsule?
It’s a science experiment to benchmark the AstroRad vest performance in the deep space environment. These types of vest may be part of future mitigations for in-space radiation but they are not required to fly crew on Orion. Artemis II crews will not have these vests. There are procedures for crew to get inside the aft bay lockers in case of impending high radiation events.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan


https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/np-2014-03-001-jsc-orion_radiation_handout.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/08/2019 02:40 pm
If it makes anyone feel any better, seat position 1 will have an Artemis II crew seat with a suited manikin. The manikin and several locations in the cabin will have radiation dosimeters that will gather data throughout the duration of the flight.

And another thing.  Is the shielding on the capsule inadequate for the job?  Why do any Astros have to wear extra protection when they are in the friggin' capsule?
It’s a science experiment to benchmark the AstroRad vest performance in the deep space environment. These types of vest may be part of future mitigations for in-space radiation but they are not required to fly crew on Orion. Artemis II crews will not have these vests. There are procedures for crew to get inside the aft bay lockers in case of impending high radiation events.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/scientists-and-engineers-evaluate-orion-radiation-protection-plan

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/np-2014-03-001-jsc-orion_radiation_handout.pdf

Radiation in space is going to be a BIG problem for any spacecraft (space stations too), so using the Orion for baselining radiation levels is a good idea.

As far as radiation protection, there have been studies that have shown that only minimal radiation protection is needed LEO, but once you get to the region of the Moon Earth is not providing much protection, and since we don't know for sure how much radiation is OK, we don't know for sure how much radiation protection a spacecraft or space station needs for long-term missions.

Which is why everyone going to space needs to be a volunteer for now, because there are many unknown risks...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2019 05:35 pm
... seat position 1 will have an Artemis II crew seat with a suited manikin. ...

Is the shielding on the capsule inadequate for the job?  Why do any Astros have to wear extra protection when they are in the friggin' capsule?

It’s a science experiment to benchmark the AstroRad vest performance in the deep space environment. These types of vest may be part of future mitigations for in-space radiation but they are not required to fly crew on Orion. Artemis II crews will not have these vests. There are procedures for crew to get inside the aft bay lockers in case of impending high radiation events.

Thanks.  I threw an eyeball over both of those links.  Still trying to figure out what they are studying in that -- if the capsule is rad hardened, but for 'extreme' radiation effects, how can it be said that they are testing vest performance in the "deep space" environment?  The capsule might be in deep space, but 'indoors', rad levels are thought to be low enough for crew safety over the long term?  At least that's what I thought.

They've got to be expecting measurable amounts of radiation to penetrate the capsule, if the test is to take place 'indoors'. 

And if the tests are for surface ops on the Luna, wouldn't the space suit be properly rad hardened, obviating the need for an additional vest.  Also, haven't the rad levels on the lunar surface already been accurately measured?  Or is that info some of the "lost" data from that era?

I'm not getting something.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/09/2019 03:56 pm
https://youtu.be/nv3pAO-RXoQ

Quote
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine gives Artemis update with core stage of Space Launch System

Published on 9 Dec 2019
The event highlighted the completion of the core stage for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will help power the first Artemis mission to the Moon.
Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussed the status of the agency’s Artemis program and took part in a question-and-answer session with the SLS core stage in the background.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 12/17/2019 01:27 am
NASA starts at pages 247 of the National Security minibus bill:
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/BILLS-116HR1158SA-RCP116-43.PDF

NASA starts at page 50 of the explanatory statements:
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/HR%201158%20-%20Division%20B%20-%20CJS%20SOM%20FY20.pdf

See more generally, this link:
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/lowey-releases-appropriations-packages

Am I reading too much into the snippets below or does it seem that Congress is directing NASA build Gateway and launch HLS elements using SLS and not CLV? Or is the language flexible enough to proceed with the current plan to launch PPE, HALO and HLS elements on commercial launch vehicles?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191217/e3e61de72955e81dc72fd6cc28b33081.plist)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191217/a7d7902041d23bd1a2c1f84b855f063b.plist)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191217/c7db19d1e4c5d63079ab7dd9682fbf5c.plist)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: gemmy0I on 12/17/2019 03:53 am
NASA starts at pages 247 of the National Security minibus bill:
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/BILLS-116HR1158SA-RCP116-43.PDF

NASA starts at page 50 of the explanatory statements:
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/HR%201158%20-%20Division%20B%20-%20CJS%20SOM%20FY20.pdf

See more generally, this link:
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/lowey-releases-appropriations-packages

Am I reading too much into the snippets below or does it seem that Congress is directing NASA build Gateway and launch HLS elements using SLS and not CLV? Or is the language flexible enough to proceed with the current plan to launch PPE, HALO and HLS elements on commercial launch vehicles?
Good catch. However, looking at this carefully, I think the wording still allows NASA the flexibility it is asking for - it just encourages them to "think SLS" in their plans, and requires them to report back to Congress explaining their decisions. Here are the key bits I'm getting this from:

Quote
Not more than 40 percent of the amounts made available in this Act for [basically all of the new stuff NASA wants to do] may be obligated until the Administrator submits a multi-year plan to the Committees...and the Senate that identifies expected dates, by fiscal year, for Space Launch System flights to build the Gateway; the commencement of partnerships with commercial entities for additional LEO missions to land humans and rovers on the Moon; and conducting additional scientific activities on the Moon.
This doesn't explicitly box out the use of CLVs for building the Gateway, although it is clearly written so as to presume that SLS might play a role in building the Gateway. It's definitely worded clumsily (intentionally so, I suspect) so as to support the party line that "SLS is for beyond Earth orbit, CLVs are for LEO" - but I would say it can definitely be interpreted more broadly, because otherwise "additional LEO missions to land humans and rovers on the Moon" would be a contradiction in terms.

Certainly some of the CLV-launched elements, e.g. lander pieces, might end up being deployed in LEO and do their own burns to get to the moon - depending on the launcher and payload, that might be the most sensible mission profile. For instance, Falcon Heavy is very LEO-optimized and can get a lot more payload to the moon if the payload is designed to "be its own third stage", especially if it's hydrolox-based. But I doubt Congress is being so technically astute as to be thinking along these specific lines, and it would be a very weird stipulation if they were. I suspect this is an attempt to give lip service to the party line and signal their intentions to NASA without actually boxing them in too much. (I'm sure the Boeing lobbyists would've preferred to explicitly box in CLV participation to LEO, but Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Northrop have their lobbyists too who would've fought to get the wording softened, resulting in this awkward statement that talks a lot but says nothing.)

Quote
Provided further, that not less than $2,585,900,000 shall be for the Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle, which shall have a lift capacity not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have core elements and an Exploration Upper Stage developed simultaneously to be used to the maximum extent practicable, including for Earth to Moon missions and a Moon landing[.]
This too is clearly written so as to emphasize that Congress wants SLS and EUS to be used, but "to the maximum extent practicable" gives NASA the pragmatic loophole it wants. I don't see this as precluding NASA from proceeding with Artemis as currently planned, but it's definitely set up so as to give pro-SLS Congressmen fodder to grill Bridenstine in hearings with nonsense talking points demanding to know why SLS doesn't play a bigger role in the plan than it does. Basically, exactly what they've been doing for the last number of years. It'll make for some uncomfortable hours for Bridenstine in the hot seat, but he'll just need to do as he's done before and methodically explain the technical and practical reasons why the questioners' preferred approaches wouldn't work and why NASA therefore had to choose an alternative approach. The questioners will then proceed to ignore what he just said and grandstand for a while quoting from op-eds by Boeing shills, and then everyone will go home and NASA will go back to doing what it was doing.

The big change here from what I remember of previous appropriations is that EUS is now prioritized front and center. Now when Bridenstine goes before Congress he'll have to not only explain why he's not using SLS more but why he hasn't snapped his fingers to make EUS materialize out of thin air to fly Boeing's preferred Apollo-style "Orion and lander in one SLS Block 1B mission that bypasses the Gateway" approach. Again, more grandstanding opportunities but I don't see it being a material roadblock to NASA's Artemis plans as we know them.

Quote
NASA is reminded that section 70102 of Title 51, United States Code, explicitly authorizes the use of the SLS for, among other purposes, payloads and missions that contribute to extending human presence beyond low-Earth [orbit], payloads and missions that would substantially benefit from the unique capabilities of the SLS, and other compelling circumstances, as determined by the Administrator.
This is more non-binding "intention signaling" by Congress. They're "reminding" NASA something that they know and Congress knows they know full well, which is that the SLS was created and intended to serve as the centerpiece of NASA's exploration architecture. But it clearly leaves an escape hatch for Bridenstine to actually make whatever engineering decisions he deems sound, thanks to the magic words "as determined by the Administrator". Again, he'll have to explain and defend his decisions to Congress, but that's nothing new.

All told, it looks like NASA is getting a budget "close enough" to what it wanted. Congress hasn't stipulated any requirements that require NASA to drop what they're doing and switch to a totally different plan. It looks like the usual product of "battling lobbyists", i.e. the lobbyists and affiliated Congressmen from Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Blue Origin, and SpaceX have all pushed and pulled on the wording until they reached an equilibrium that none of them is entirely happy with but they can all live with. In other words, it's the best they're each going to get given the political capital at each of their disposals. This is likely exactly what Bridenstine was going for: he's an experienced politician who knows how Washington works and knows that getting what he wants is a game of balancing competing interests against each other to keep any one of them from running away with the ball.

The big takeaways are what we already knew: Congress chose to under-fund Artemis and over-fund EUS. What NASA does with that is a matter of how shrewd and creative they can get without overextending their political capital.

I suspect that we will see them go ahead with the commercial moon lander program as planned, although the short funding will force them to go with a single contractor (most likely Blue's "National Team", or as I like to call them, the "Blue Team" :) ), and/or under-fund the two teams they were hoping to pick, expecting them to close the gap with private funding. (I'm confident Blue can stay on schedule if under-funded; Bezos has made his intentions clear that he's going to develop Blue Moon eventually with or without NASA funding, and I'd say it's clearly in his interest to help NASA make the 2024 deadline for the sake of stimulating future opportunities. Other competitors will depend on just how much skin they're willing to put in the game. SpaceX is doing Starship anyway by hook or by crook, so any NASA funding is icing on the cake for them. Boeing would undoubtedly prefer to be paid by the hour simply to sneeze, but they'll have to make a decision on whether they think some private investment in their lander bid is worthwhile for the opportunity to get NASA to commit to buying even more SLSes.)

I also expect that we'll see Boeing proceed full-tilt with EUS development under the contract that (IIRC) they have now been officially awarded. NASA has $300 million that it can only spend on EUS development, so at this point there's not much to do except give it to Boeing as intended. I think NASA will see this as "icing on the cake" if they can find a way to make use of it, or a wasteful but "harmless" (in terms of not actively holding back NASA's goals) pork payoff if they can't. If EUS materializes on a remotely useful timetable, I'm sure they'll make use of it, even if they don't have any co-manifested payload to put it to good use. (I'm sure they can find something - a simple logistics module loaded with cargo would be an easy possibility.) I've read that EUS is actually supposed to be cheaper per unit than ICPS, so in terms of marginal mission cost it shouldn't hurt for NASA to "have to" switch to Block 1B for Orion flights once it becomes available.

Bridenstine and Loverro will undoubtedly continue to crack the whip on Boeing for both SLS and EUS development. We've seen Boeing get its butt moving on a dime under Pence's threat of replacing them and Bridenstine's active micromanagement to find opportunities to accelerate Core Stage production (horizontal integration, etc.). That's the "silver lining" of cost-plus contracts: NASA is paying Boeing by the hour to be an arm of the federal government, so they get to boss them around at a very fine-grained level. The whole point of cost-plus is that the government can "change things as they go" without violating their contract; Boeing can't really complain because they're still getting paid by the hour as promised. There's only so much efficiency that can be retroactively squeezed out of a project that was never designed to go fast, but I think NASA has some good options for "making lemonade out of the lemons Congress and Boeing have given them".

They'll get as much as they can out of the SLS program while it exists and they're obligated to use it; and then when commercial alternatives have developed to the point where they make it completely obsolete (as opposed to just 90% prospectively obsolete, which is the case now - commercial alternatives still need to get over a last little hump to be viable to replace SLS for crew launches in Artemis, so they're not "off the shelf" replacements yet), SLS's political capital will have at least well and truly dried up, and it will die a natural political death. NASA has taken the only politically viable position they can on this: they will make full use of viable commercial alternatives to SLS if and when they are ready to take over its job. Congress isn't going to give them so much as an inch of funding to get those commercial alternatives "over the finish line", but once private industry has gotten them there by themselves, it will be politically unviable not to use them - because at that point, the lobbyists from SpaceX and Blue Origin will be able to put SLS to shame in a way that's clearly understandable to the general public, i.e. they will then have the edge in political capital despite Boeing's larger established clout.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/17/2019 12:16 pm
I think your read of the politics is pretty accurate (the lander section in particular includes some language that's almost ripped straight out of Boeing's lander press release), but I continue to roll my eyes at the implication that there's even a chance of SLS replacement before the 2030s.

Remember, private alternatives cannot fulfill SLS's role until they can carry crew safely to NASA's satisfaction. In addition, architectures that require in-space fueling to reach Lunar orbit will need to launch several depots, demonstrate in-space cryogenic fuel transfer, and keep those depots topped off. I think a decade for that is entirely realistic, perhaps even overly-optimistic considering demonstrated non-COTS timeline performance.

In the near term, I actually think New Glenn is a bigger "threat" (and I use that term loosely) to SLS than anything else in the works. It's roughly the same size as Block 1, and would likely have a similar payload capacity if expended. It's only due to man-rating and Block 1B that SLS doesn't really have to worry about it supplanting its primary roles in the Artemis architecture any time soon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 12/17/2019 12:24 pm
Quote
Provided further, that not less than $2,585,900,000 shall be for the Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle, which shall have a lift capacity not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have core elements and an Exploration Upper Stage developed simultaneously to be used to the maximum extent practicable, including for Earth to Moon missions and a Moon landing[.]
This too is clearly written so as to emphasize that Congress wants SLS and EUS to be used, but "to the maximum extent practicable" gives NASA the pragmatic loophole it wants. I don't see this as precluding NASA from proceeding with Artemis as currently planned, but it's definitely set up so as to give pro-SLS Congressmen fodder to grill Bridenstine in hearings with nonsense talking points demanding to know why SLS doesn't play a bigger role in the plan than it does. Basically, exactly what they've been doing for the last number of years. It'll make for some uncomfortable hours for Bridenstine in the hot seat, but he'll just need to do as he's done before and methodically explain the technical and practical reasons why the questioners' preferred approaches wouldn't work and why NASA therefore had to choose an alternative approach. The questioners will then proceed to ignore what he just said and grandstand for a while quoting from op-eds by Boeing shills, and then everyone will go home and NASA will go back to doing what it was doing.

The big change here from what I remember of previous appropriations is that EUS is now prioritized front and center. Now when Bridenstine goes before Congress he'll have to not only explain why he's not using SLS more but why he hasn't snapped his fingers to make EUS materialize out of thin air to fly Boeing's preferred Apollo-style "Orion and lander in one SLS Block 1B mission that bypasses the Gateway" approach. Again, more grandstanding opportunities but I don't see it being a material roadblock to NASA's Artemis plans as we know them.

I pretty much agree, but I find it chilling that the House reiterates the 130-metric ton requirement.  I don't follow the engineering details of SLS closely, but I gather that getting to 130 tonnes means some serious development work, including advanced SRBs and possibly a fifth RS-25.  The idea seems to be that SLS will be a serious cash sink for years and years.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/17/2019 12:29 pm
At this stage, I think the "easiest" way to meet the 130t "requirement" would be to design a common-bulkhead upper stage with the same interfaces as EUS.

Minimal alteration of the ML(s), no alteration to the core, and no need for an expensive fifth RS-25.

Of course, it's not like that "requirement" is really a concern for any time in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 12/17/2019 12:32 pm
It's not the least bit obvious, though, that Congress wants the easiest approach.  Some members may even want the slowest and most expensive approach.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/17/2019 12:40 pm
It's not the least bit obvious, though, that Congress wants the easiest approach.  Some members may even want the slowest and most expensive approach.
Congress has not been enforcing the 130t "requirement." I'd wait until then before implying conspiracy.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 12/17/2019 03:45 pm
<snip>

Excellent analysis.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 12/18/2019 01:01 am
At this stage, I think the "easiest" way to meet the 130t "requirement" would be to design a common-bulkhead upper stage with the same interfaces as EUS.

Minimal alteration of the ML(s), no alteration to the core, and no need for an expensive fifth RS-25.

Of course, it's not like that "requirement" is really a concern for any time in the foreseeable future.

How would that work? The entire outside surface of the EUS is the LH2 tank, or forward skirt. The volume between the LH2 and LOX tanks isn't enough to significantly increase propellant load.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/18/2019 04:36 am
At this stage, I think the "easiest" way to meet the 130t "requirement" would be to design a common-bulkhead upper stage with the same interfaces as EUS.

Minimal alteration of the ML(s), no alteration to the core, and no need for an expensive fifth RS-25.

Of course, it's not like that "requirement" is really a concern for any time in the foreseeable future.

How would that work? The entire outside surface of the EUS is the LH2 tank, or forward skirt. The volume between the LH2 and LOX tanks isn't enough to significantly increase propellant load.
If I understand correctly, he may be saying something similar to what I proposed a few months back by eliminating the service module and using a shortened core stage with 4 Rl-10s as EUS using existing tooling... YMMV...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/18/2019 05:35 am
At this stage, I think the "easiest" way to meet the 130t "requirement" would be to design a common-bulkhead upper stage with the same interfaces as EUS.

Minimal alteration of the ML(s), no alteration to the core, and no need for an expensive fifth RS-25.

Of course, it's not like that "requirement" is really a concern for any time in the foreseeable future.

A common bulkhead will only get you a couple extra tonnes of payload, not enough to get to 130 t. A larger upper stage with more powerful engines also won't get you to 130 t. 2xBOLE-SRB+4xRS-25E+4xMB-60 gets you 126.1 to LEO. The MB-60 has 2.4 times the thrust of the RL-10. The problem is that the low thrust of the core stage creates significant gravity losses for large upper stages. With solid boosters, you really need a fifth engine on the core to get to 130 t. My preference was to have six engines!

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/sls2b4b4.zip
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/18/2019 06:08 am
At this stage, I think the "easiest" way to meet the 130t "requirement" would be to design a common-bulkhead upper stage with the same interfaces as EUS.

Minimal alteration of the ML(s), no alteration to the core, and no need for an expensive fifth RS-25.

Of course, it's not like that "requirement" is really a concern for any time in the foreseeable future.

A common bulkhead will only get you a couple extra tonnes of payload, not enough to get to 130 t. A larger upper stage with more powerful engines also won't get you to 130 t. 2xBOLE-SRB+4xRS-25E+4xMB-60 gets you 126.1 to LEO. The MB-60 has 2.4 times the thrust of the RL-10. The problem is that the low thrust of the core stage creates significant gravity losses for large upper stages. With solid boosters, you really need a fifth engine on the core to get to 130 t. My preference was to have six engines!

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/sls2b4b4.zip
Steven, it makes me wonder if the addition of GEM63XLs would work if the load paths through the core could be addressed, aerodynamics, as well as any issues with the launch platform?
~Rob
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GEM/Documents/GEM_63_GEM_63XL.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/18/2019 06:19 am
Steven, it makes me wonder if the addition of GEM63XLs would work if the load paths through the core could be addressed, aerodynamics, as well as any issues with the launch platform?
~Rob
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GEM/Documents/GEM_63_GEM_63XL.pdf

The extra performance would certainly help. The GEMs could be attached to the boosters, like they are on OmegA. You would still need to modify the launch platform to allow the exhaust from the GEMs to pass through.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/18/2019 06:37 am
How many GEM-63XL's? 2x on each booster? (4x in total, making 1.8 million pounds thrust more)

I remember asking Tory Bruno if the Vulcan could accommodate 8 or even 10x solid strap-ons. He did not rule it out, but said there were no plans to do so. A Vulcan-Centaur V with 10x GEM-63XL solids could place more than 45 metric tons even into L.E.O. Twinned launches of that would kick a Block 1 SLS's butt, for a fraction of the cost. Heh - though we aren't here to play 'Rocket Legos' I thought that the relevancy of GEM-63XL's to this discussion was worth mentioning in this context. A whole thread about Vulcan-Centaur V enhancements would be a worthy one in itself.

EDIT: If you look at the picture of the Vulcan on the first page of this document; you can see there's lots of room for more GEMs...

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GEM/Documents/GEM_63_GEM_63XL.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 12/18/2019 01:58 pm
It's not the least bit obvious, though, that Congress wants the easiest approach.  Some members may even want the slowest and most expensive approach.
Congress has not been enforcing the 130t "requirement." I'd wait until then before implying conspiracy.

The "conspiracy" (perhaps not the word I would use) is in plain sight, in that SLS is literally unjustified.  Congress created it without specifying its objective, without considering alternatives (the merits of which could not be evaluated anyway, without an objective) and has year after year shoveled more money at it than requested by Democratic or Republican presidents, despite interminable slippage and an increasingly capable commercial launch industry.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/18/2019 03:11 pm
How many GEM-63XL's? 2x on each booster? (4x in total, making 1.8 million pounds thrust more)

I remember asking Tory Bruno if the Vulcan could accommodate 8 or even 10x solid strap-ons. He did not rule it out, but said there were no plans to do so. A Vulcan-Centaur V with 10x GEM-63XL solids could place more than 45 metric tons even into L.E.O. Twinned launches of that would kick a Block 1 SLS's butt, for a fraction of the cost. Heh - though we aren't here to play 'Rocket Legos' I thought that the relevancy of GEM-63XL's to this discussion was worth mentioning in this context. A whole thread about Vulcan-Centaur V enhancements would be a worthy one in itself.

EDIT: If you look at the picture of the Vulcan on the first page of this document; you can see there's lots of room for more GEMs...

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GEM/Documents/GEM_63_GEM_63XL.pdf
I was thinking about 4 GEMXLs, but yes they could probably do 6 if needed with pad mods. Sad we even have to talk about this marginal performance. I've always advocated for 5-RS-25s as well. I like Steven's idea of 6 RS-25s (if you are going to go 5, go 6!) even better for engine-out...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 12/18/2019 03:23 pm
How many GEM-63XL's? 2x on each booster? (4x in total, making 1.8 million pounds thrust more)
I was thinking about 4 GEMXLs, but yes they could probably do 6 if needed with pad mods. Sad we even have to talk about this marginal performance. I've always advocated for 5-RS-25s as well. I like Steven's idea of 6 RS-25s (if you are going to go 5, go 6!) even better for engine-out...

This reminds me of the delta IV upgrage path, adding SRB's to the core. I suppose if one wanted to go true Kerbal a few air lit SRB's could be added to SLS's core to reduce gravity losses after booster burn out.
Wildly off topic but better I guess than just complaining about SLS's existence again...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/18/2019 03:35 pm
How many GEM-63XL's? 2x on each booster? (4x in total, making 1.8 million pounds thrust more)
I was thinking about 4 GEMXLs, but yes they could probably do 6 if needed with pad mods. Sad we even have to talk about this marginal performance. I've always advocated for 5-RS-25s as well. I like Steven's idea of 6 RS-25s (if you are going to go 5, go 6!) even better for engine-out...

This reminds me of the delta IV upgrage path, adding SRB's to the core. I suppose if one wanted to go true Kerbal a few air lit SRB's could be added to SLS's core to reduce gravity losses after booster burn out.
Wildly off topic but better I guess than just complaining about SLS's existence again...
Perhaps we could discuss it below or a new separate thread on potential to add GEM 63XLs to SLS?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.700
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/18/2019 05:14 pm
Perhaps we could discuss it below or a new separate thread on potential to add GEM 63XLs to SLS?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.700
It appears to have been locked.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 12/18/2019 05:59 pm
The GEM 63XL's could possibly be added to the solid boosters, but the tank may have to be again strengthened to allow for this.  I've seen a Shuttle launch and it jumped off the pad faster than liquids which are more gentle and gradual.  Adding GEM's, say 6 or so on each solid would make the stack jump quicker, don't know how many G forces it may add.  Someone may could answer this. 

Also, the SLS launch mount, by added solids, again may have to be rebuilt. 

Anything you do to improve it is going to cost more. 

I asked upstream about adding a wide squat upper stage that is more powerful than EUS, but no answers.  There is a height problem with the SLS in the VAB. 

If someone was thinking, they should have made the core 9m or 10m to make it shorter to be able to add a larger upper stage.  Also having the ability to add a 5th engine on the bottom built into the original design. 

In other words, it should have been designed to allow for upgrades without spending exorbant amounts of money. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/18/2019 06:01 pm
If someone was thinking, they should have made the core 9m or 10m to make it shorter to be able to add a larger upper stage.  Also having the ability to add a 5th engine on the bottom built into the original design. 

In other words, it should have been designed to allow for upgrades without spending exorbant amounts of money.
Sounds like you're describing Ares V.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/18/2019 06:15 pm
Perhaps we could discuss it below or a new separate thread on potential to add GEM 63XLs to SLS?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.700
It appears to have been locked.
It's unlocked now.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 12/19/2019 09:33 pm
The GAO just dropped a report on Artemis: "Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Analyses and Plans for Moon Landing."
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ThomasGadd on 12/19/2019 09:35 pm
A new GAO report:

NASA LUNAR PROGRAMS
Opportunities Exist to strengthen Analyses and Plans for Moon Landing

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703432.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 12/20/2019 03:45 pm
GAO identifies two problems in the summary.  Firstly, there is the difficulty of integrating systems that were defined before the lunar-landing mission was established.  Orion and SLS were defined for a lunar mission, but one using a very different architecture.  Secondly, NASA has not produced and does not intend to produce an overall cost estimate, which will make it harder to manage spending.

GAO also points out that NASA "did not fully assess a range of alternatives" to its current lunar plans.

I think you can sum it all up in one word: politics.  Much of the hardware to be used was specified in piecemeal fashion over the years in a way that was politically expedient but by no means optimal for proposed lunar landing.  It is politically inopportune to discuss the overall cost of the project.  And alternative architectures have been neglected, because they might trample on politicians' pet projects.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 12/20/2019 04:02 pm
These reports are like a Rorsach test.

There was also a section criticizing NASA for not investigating whether further use of the SLS (and an earlier move to upgraded variants) would allow faster completion of the landing objective.

The GAO does not care what the outcome of any of those studies are, they just care that NASA does them.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 12/20/2019 09:41 pm
I agree -- the point is to perform the studies (thought GAO points out that it is too late to consider significantly different architectures).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/21/2019 08:19 am
This is such a great compilation of what happened in the Artemis program in 2019...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--vCGsLp_C8

Probably the biggest single thing that happened was every major component of the Artemis program was funded including about $2.1 million per day able to go to actually building human landing systems (compared to a request of $2.7 million per day).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woog on 12/21/2019 06:48 pm
This is such a great compilation of what happened in the Artemis program in 2019...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--vCGsLp_C8

Probably the biggest single thing that happened was every major component of the Artemis program was funded including about $2.1 million per day able to go to actually building human landing systems (compared to a request of $2.7 million per day).

nice seeing my video in the wild   ;D
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Patchouli on 12/22/2019 04:39 am

I was thinking about 4 GEMXLs, but yes they could probably do 6 if needed with pad mods. Sad we even have to talk about this marginal performance. I've always advocated for 5-RS-25s as well. I like Steven's idea of 6 RS-25s (if you are going to go 5, go 6!) even better for engine-out...

Adding some GEMXLs would be a lot easier than adding more RS-25s as the latter means reworking the plumbing.
Looking at how the tank test went they may not need to do much reinforcement.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: eric z on 12/25/2019 02:30 pm
  I don't think they would cancel/kill it this time, but the timetable very well might, heck, will be s t r e t c h e d way to the right. IMHO, of course! ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Patchouli on 12/26/2019 02:32 pm

That kind of question is kind of a distraction here, but in regards to the effects politics has on space yes, on occasion an American president decides to change-up NASA so they can take credit.

This time I think they'd likely stay the course due to how far along things are, the fear of falling behind China, and lets be honest Artemis is mostly Constellation on a workable LV.
What might change under the Democrats is more commercial involvement as keep in mind COTS was a Bush Jr era program but did not became fully funded until Obama and commercial crew is an Obama program.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/07/2020 08:01 pm
Article about money and "skin in the game":

NASA may ask lunar lander aspirants to put more skin in the game (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-may-ask-lunar-lander-aspirants-to-put-more-skin-in-the-game/) | Ars Technica

Relevant quote from the article:
Quote
This has caused the space agency to think about leaning a bit more on its contractors, Bridenstine told Ars.

"The $600 million wasn’t everything we requested, which means we’re going to have to make some modifications to how we move forward," Bridenstine said. "But I do think the intent is to move forward with multiple contracts. We can’t delay, we’ve got to keep moving forward. Of course we might need to have some of our partners step up in a bigger way."

Ouch! This program is an initiative of the U.S. Government, and while companies are interested in seeing if there are new business models they can leverage out in space and on the Moon, doing anything in space is still HIGHLY risky. Now Bridenstine wants the private sector to risk even more?

Look, let's get back to first principles here. What goal should there be for the U.S. Government to spend taxpayer money on space? If it's not to expand our economic sphere of influence out into space then I think we probably have the wrong goal.

But it is clear that the private sector is not yet ready to create new business models in space on their own, so if the U.S. Government wants that to happen then the goal of the Artemis program needs to make sure that they don't price the private sector out of this experiment. And yes, the U.S. Government is running an experiment to see if the private sector can help with space exploration, which is good, but I'm not sure Bridenstine understands what the incentives should be.

Of course the 2024 date is distorting many aspects of this whole venture, since it is a fake date that has nothing to do with helping the private sector create new business models in space. And when your goals are not aligned, then don't be surprised if the outcome is not what you want...  ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/07/2020 08:12 pm
You presume the primary goal of the US space program is (or should be) to help the private sector create new business models in space. I don't think you'd find much agreement across the general public or politicos.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 01/07/2020 09:22 pm
Well, once private companies start making money in space related business, the larger rockets will come, and there will always be a way to get things into orbit.  Saturn V was cancelled, Saturn IB was cancelled, Shuttle was cancelled, Titan various versions was cancelled. 

Private companies are developing larger more capable rockets, like Starship, New Glenn, Vulcan, and OmegA, in order to compete at a lower price.  Their capabilities are going to be heavier payloads for less money.  NASA should pay for launch services and let the private companies develop the rocket for the payloads.  Various solutions can be done, like distributed launch, fuel depots, orbital refueling, that NASA seems unwilling to develop. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/07/2020 09:33 pm
The primary goal of the US crewed spaceflight program is clearly to create jobs through easily defined programs, particularly those that favor working with well established large contractors. Actually accomplishing something, or seeking to create new jobs through risky entrepreneurial activities is secondary to this.

Why else would congress ensure that $300M in FY2020 goes to EUS, and another $383M to a second mobile launcher to support EUS, for a mission that doesn't actually NEED EUS. And why Europa Clipper be mandated to launch on SLS even if it takes just as long or longer than a commercial launcher would (with a slightly longer transit) that is actually ready today and not mired in delays.


In terms of this news, I honestly there is some silver lining. Two of the main contenders are clearly willing to put skin in the game - that being SpaceX and Blue Origin. SpaceX is obviously much more visible, Blue Origin has the BE-7 hot fire as proof (although I expect that will also see use for their NSSL proposal for the Class C payloads).  The lack of funds is going to do one of two things: weed out the other guys who won't spend a dime on their own, or make enough noise for Congress to kick in some money.

Personally I see SpaceX, Blue Origin and Boeing all getting selected for initial development, and once Boeing is in the running with the possibility of using a second SLS all the cash will magically appear. Let's all just hope that things can move along so we have a race on our hands.   


Mods: Feel free to snip my first 2 paragraphs if they are too ranty  ;)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: punder on 01/07/2020 09:41 pm
No publicly traded company capable of doing the work is going to touch this.

That leaves privately owned companies capable of doing the work. Who are those companies, again??

So, if I were a silly naive space fan with an inadequate understanding of politics (and I am one of those), I might almost be tempted to see this as a ploy by Bridenstine to separate the committed from the not-so-much, once and for all. And that might indeed be the case, but what difference would it make? Sorry for the smell of dented dead horse, but Senator Shelby is the de facto King of NASA, and the problems of Bridenstine & co. don't amount to a hill of beans in his crazy world.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/07/2020 09:56 pm
In the Ars Technica article it says there is a fourth unnamed group expected to compete for the lunar lander contracts.  Does anyone have an idea who that is?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: butters on 01/07/2020 09:58 pm
No publicly traded company capable of doing the work is going to touch this.

What about a publicly traded company that's been through processes like this more than enough times to know that when push comes to shove, they'll be able to extract more money from the government than they originally bid?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/07/2020 10:08 pm
In the Ars Technica article it says there is a fourth unnamed group expected to compete for the lunar lander contracts.  Does anyone have an idea who that is?

Umm, my guess will be to look at the CLPS providers: SNC, Moon Express, Deep Space Systems, Astrobotic, Firefly Aerospace, Intuitive Machines, Masten Space Systems, etc. Maybe the most likely are the ones actually working for NASA currently and that is Intuitive Machines and Astrobotic. I know that doesn't narrow it down much.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/07/2020 10:13 pm
No publicly traded company capable of doing the work is going to touch this.

What about a publicly traded company that's been through processes like this more than enough times to know that when push comes to shove, they'll be able to extract more money from the government than they originally bid?
I assume you're referring to companies like Boeing.  They do very long term development of airliners.  They analyze a market extensively for the potential payback on an airliner.  That's going to be a lot more difficult with a lunar lander because at this stage how big of a market there is for a lunar lander for the next couple of decades, even just from NASA, is complete guesswork right now.  That doesn't mean they won't do it.  It's just a much tougher decision for the board to approve because there is no established market to compare against.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/07/2020 10:21 pm
Umm, my guess will be to look at the CLPS providers: SNC, Moon Express, Deep Space Systems, Astrobotic, Firefly Aerospace, Intuitive Machines, Masten Space Systems, etc. Maybe the most likely are the ones actually working for NASA currently and that is Intuitive Machines and Astrobotic. I know that doesn't narrow it down much.

Intuitive Machines is partnering with Boeing: https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/09/boeing-proposes-sls-launched-lunar-lander/

SNC is really the only likely candidate IMO, since they are the only company not known that has done anything related to flying people, although they could be partnering with someone listed above.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: punder on 01/07/2020 11:43 pm
No publicly traded company capable of doing the work is going to touch this.

What about a publicly traded company that's been through processes like this more than enough times to know that when push comes to shove, they'll be able to extract more money from the government than they originally bid?
Point taken, clearly already demonstrated with Starliner.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/08/2020 01:12 am
Article about money and "skin in the game":

NASA may ask lunar lander aspirants to put more skin in the game (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-may-ask-lunar-lander-aspirants-to-put-more-skin-in-the-game/) | Ars Technica

Relevant quote from the article:
Quote
This has caused the space agency to think about leaning a bit more on its contractors, Bridenstine told Ars.

"The $600 million wasn’t everything we requested, which means we’re going to have to make some modifications to how we move forward," Bridenstine said. "But I do think the intent is to move forward with multiple contracts. We can’t delay, we’ve got to keep moving forward. Of course we might need to have some of our partners step up in a bigger way."

This is good as long as NASA gives companies more design authority, no BS about human rating/certification, no unilateral requirement changes.

In COTS, companies contributed more than 50% of the funding, I don't see why HLS couldn't do the same. It's pretty much the only way Bridenstine can get a landing anywhere near 2024, since congress is not going to pony up $20B~$30B in the next 4 years. Hopefully he's wise enough to realize this and have studied how COTS works.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/08/2020 02:53 am
Article about money and "skin in the game":

NASA may ask lunar lander aspirants to put more skin in the game (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-may-ask-lunar-lander-aspirants-to-put-more-skin-in-the-game/) | Ars Technica

Relevant quote from the article:
Quote
This has caused the space agency to think about leaning a bit more on its contractors, Bridenstine told Ars.

"The $600 million wasn’t everything we requested, which means we’re going to have to make some modifications to how we move forward," Bridenstine said. "But I do think the intent is to move forward with multiple contracts. We can’t delay, we’ve got to keep moving forward. Of course we might need to have some of our partners step up in a bigger way."

This is good as long as NASA gives companies more design authority, no BS about human rating/certification, no unilateral requirement changes.

Highly unlikely considering how much involvement NASA has had in the Commercial Crew program, which is FAR LESS COMPLEX than transportation systems that need to operate near and on the Moon.

Quote
In COTS, companies contributed more than 50% of the funding...

I don't think that is anywhere close to reality, since NASA is planning to spend a total of $8.5B, which according to your math means that Boeing and SpaceX would be spending more than $4.25B on their own. I don't see that happening. Do you have a source for your estimate?

Quote
...I don't see why HLS couldn't do the same.

When the Commercial Crew program was being bid there was an assumption that commercial LEO demand was imminent, and that with NASA-certified crew vehicles both Boeing and SpaceX thought they could fly the same vehicles for non-NASA customers. So far that non-NASA market has not appeared, and everyone bidding for the Artemis program knows that.

Plus, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that there will be non-NASA demand for human transportation systems to the Moon, and the underfunding of the Artemis program shows that Congress isn't too interested in funding NASA to go to the Moon either. I don't see any incentive for normal companies* to take on more risk.

Quote
It's pretty much the only way Bridenstine can get a landing anywhere near 2024, since congress is not going to pony up $20B~$30B in the next 4 years.

The 2024 date is a political date that has no relationship to the goals of the commercial providers. They don't care about 2024, they only care about not getting screwed if they win the contract.

If the U.S. Government needs to get to the Moon by 2024, then they should pay the private sector to help meet that goal. It is not incumbent on the private sector to take on that responsibility.

Quote
Hopefully he's wise enough to realize this and have studied how COTS works.

Bridenstine works for the President, who really doesn't seem to care about Artemis, but the Vice President does. So Bridenstine has to do whatever he can to meet the 2024 goal, even though Congress isn't enthusiastic about it. We'll see if the commercial companies do actually take on more risk by committing more of their own money, but don't be surprised if they don't.

* Blue Origin is not a "normal company", since they are self-funded by Jeff Bezos, who doesn't need to make money on anything Blue Origin does.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/08/2020 01:03 pm
Article about money and "skin in the game":

NASA may ask lunar lander aspirants to put more skin in the game (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-may-ask-lunar-lander-aspirants-to-put-more-skin-in-the-game/) | Ars Technica

Relevant quote from the article:
Quote
This has caused the space agency to think about leaning a bit more on its contractors, Bridenstine told Ars.

"The $600 million wasn’t everything we requested, which means we’re going to have to make some modifications to how we move forward," Bridenstine said. "But I do think the intent is to move forward with multiple contracts. We can’t delay, we’ve got to keep moving forward. Of course we might need to have some of our partners step up in a bigger way."

This is good as long as NASA gives companies more design authority, no BS about human rating/certification, no unilateral requirement changes.

Highly unlikely considering how much involvement NASA has had in the Commercial Crew program, which is FAR LESS COMPLEX than transportation systems that need to operate near and on the Moon.

Beggars can't be choosers, if NASA expects the companies to invest billions of dollars in HLS, they'll have to give up something in return, that's just how business works. NASA can dictate terms in Commercial Crew because they're providing the vast majority of the funding (~90% or more), things will be different in HLS if companies are carrying more weight in terms of funding.


Quote
Quote
In COTS, companies contributed more than 50% of the funding...

I don't think that is anywhere close to reality, since NASA is planning to spend a total of $8.5B, which according to your math means that Boeing and SpaceX would be spending more than $4.25B on their own. I don't see that happening. Do you have a source for your estimate?

I was referring to COTS, i.e. the development program for commercial cargo, not Commercial Crew. Commercial Crew is a bad example of public private partnership, it's a lesson of how not to do it. COTS is the right way of doing this, hopefully Bridenstine understands the difference.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 01/08/2020 01:12 pm
I was referring to COTS, i.e. the development program for commercial cargo, not Commercial Crew. Commercial Crew is a bad example of public private partnership, it's a lesson of how not to do it. COTS is the right way of doing this, hopefully Bridenstine understands the difference.

Yes, COTS was a major success and NASA learned a lot from it. But the very next thing NASA did was to forget most of those lessons when they got going with Commercial Crew.


And I'm quite certain that Bridenstine is capable of understanding the difference. But understanding is just one thing. Acting on it is quite another.


It's very simple:
if NASA is paying the bill than industry will have to do things the way NASA wants it.
if industry is paying the bill than NASA will have to learn to live with how industry does things.
if both NASA AND industry have skin in the game than both NASA and the industry will have to come to an arrangement.


NASA cannot simply expect industry to significantly invest while not changing the rules. Industry will want something in return for its increased investment. Something along the lines of much reduced NASA bureaucracy and/or much less NASA insight/oversight.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/08/2020 01:28 pm
Continued:

Quote
...I don't see why HLS couldn't do the same.

When the Commercial Crew program was being bid there was an assumption that commercial LEO demand was imminent, and that with NASA-certified crew vehicles both Boeing and SpaceX thought they could fly the same vehicles for non-NASA customers. So far that non-NASA market has not appeared, and everyone bidding for the Artemis program knows that.

Plus, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that there will be non-NASA demand for human transportation systems to the Moon, and the underfunding of the Artemis program shows that Congress isn't too interested in funding NASA to go to the Moon either. I don't see any incentive for normal companies* to take on more risk.

There're several ways companies could amortize their investment in lunar lander:
1. Non-NASA demands for crew transport to the Moon: This is certainly high risk, I wouldn't build the entire business case on this, but it is an option. Remember we already have a billionaire buying ticket for lunar flyby mission, I think there will be customers for lunar landing too, just a question of how much they're willing to pay.
2. Lunar cargo missions: Sharing hardware between crew and cargo mission is a common way of amortizing development cost, for example SpaceX is already doing this with Dragon 2 in the context of Commercial Crew. In terms of HLS, both SpaceX and Blue Origin has won a seat in CLPS, which would allow them to bid their respective lunar landers in cargo missions.
3. Earth orbit missions: If you design your architecture right, you can also share hardware with Earth orbit missions, which is where the vast majority of space commerce is located. Starship is an obvious example of this, ULA/Masten's XEUS is also an example.
4. Strategic investment towards company goals: Both Blue Origin and SpaceX has stated goals of expanding humanity beyond LEO, they would be investing money in their BLEO architecture no matter what NASA does. NASA can leverage this if it can align its objective with the objectives of the companies.

Quote
Quote
It's pretty much the only way Bridenstine can get a landing anywhere near 2024, since congress is not going to pony up $20B~$30B in the next 4 years.

The 2024 date is a political date that has no relationship to the goals of the commercial providers. They don't care about 2024, they only care about not getting screwed if they win the contract.

If the U.S. Government needs to get to the Moon by 2024, then they should pay the private sector to help meet that goal. It is not incumbent on the private sector to take on that responsibility.

A public private partnership works when both partners invest in achieving the end goal and both can get some benefit out of the end result. Bridenstine and his boss wanted to land Americans on the Moon by 2024 and they have some money to spend, at the same time we have companies who wanted to develop their own BLEO architecture and are willing to invest their own money in doing this. The two goals are roughly aligned and both sides have some funding, so I think a successful partnership is attainable, it's just a question of how to do it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 01/08/2020 01:32 pm
1. Non-NASA demands for crew transport to the Moon: This is certainly high risk, I wouldn't build the entire business case on this, but it is an option. Remember we already have a billionaire buying ticket for lunar flyby mission, I think there will be customers for lunar landing too, just a question of how much they're willing to pay.

Those customers don't have to be individuals, either. ESA and JAXA are probably both interested, depending on the price.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/08/2020 04:22 pm
Need commercial ride to Gateway. Could be SS, Orion on another LV, Blue capsule (assume they are building one) but not likely to be SLS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 01/08/2020 04:56 pm
Need commercial ride to Gateway. Could be SS, Orion on another LV, Blue capsule (assume they are building one) but not likely to be SLS.

Can Lockheed offer Orion commercially?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/08/2020 06:22 pm
Need commercial ride to Gateway. Could be SS, Orion on another LV, Blue capsule (assume they are building one) but not likely to be SLS.

Can Lockheed offer Orion commercially?
I think so.

There is 2 launch option which requires development work.
1 Crewed Orion on Vulcan. Some development required.
2a Vulcan or NG tanker launch of fuel for refuelling Centuar attached to Orion. ULA needs to make distributed launch to work.
2b. Use NG launched OTV (Blue lander based) to take Orion from LEO to Gateway.

There is 3 launch option which requires less development work.
1 Unmanned Orion to LEO on Vulcan or NG. 2 Crew to LEO ie Orion on Starliner.
3 NG launch of OTV.

Still need to add few other launches for lander system refuelling etc.

I prefer to 2 launch option 2b. Would make SLS obsolete and keep launch costs down. Crew launch on Starliner is waste when Orion can do it. Cost of single Starliner mission would pay for most if not all the Vulcan + Orion integration work.

Edit.
This option is more likely now that Blue and  LM are working on lander together.

Crew to gateway cost should be less $800m. Orion + SM $500m( heard this somewhere), Vulcan $100-150m. NG + OTV $120-150m.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/08/2020 06:50 pm

2b. Use NG launched OTV (Blue lander based) to take Orion from LEO to Gateway.

SNIP

This option is more likely now that Blue and  LM are working on lander together.

Crew to gateway cost should be less $800m. Orion + SM $500m( heard this somewhere), Vulcan $100-150m. NG + OTV $120-150m.

A BE-7 Powered transfer stage at 45 tonnes gets Orion through TLI with a little margin. That Orion flight leaves about 20 tonnes of capacity on the table.

A refuelable BE-7 powered service module/3rd stage on the other hand would really open up some possibilities, a 3 launch crew and landing architecture reusing the ascent stage might be within reach.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Comga on 01/08/2020 07:00 pm
https://twitter.com/collectSPACE/status/1174386482007744512 (https://twitter.com/collectSPACE/status/1174386482007744512)

And (just like Altair/Constellation), we have a logo

Sorry to be so late with this but...

Again with the red on blue?

Typical NASA “doubling down”. The vector logo has this mistake so instead of letting it go they repeat it to prove it’s NOT an oversight.

The human eye cannot focus on a red-blue boundary. Axial chromatic aberration, the nearer focus of the blue light when compared to red, is due to the higher refractive index of almost all natural materials at shorter visible wavelengths. 

This causes either the red edge to be out of focus or the blue, and possibly both, and the eye accommodation to keep “hunting” for a uniformly good focus, which does not exist.

Recent versions of the NASA “vector” logo seem to have them separated by a thin black line. I hope this appears over time in the Artemis logo.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/08/2020 09:43 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1215019603090378752

Quote
Per NASA HQ, initial lunar lander contracts now likely to be issued in February, or early March.


My personal bet is mid March for this, and Cargo & Logistics in early February (was due December 2019).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/09/2020 12:19 am
And the mystery bidder is....

Dynetics!

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1215074102849032192

They are currently building the universal stage adapter for SLS and doing structural qualification on Vulcan... but still they seem a little more like their role would be acting as a subcontractor or a prime for a team of subs....
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/09/2020 01:09 am
Dynetics was part of the 11 companies selected for NextSTEP Appendix E studies and prototyping for human landing systems. Also part of the Astrobotic team working on CLPS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/09/2020 01:51 am
Dynetics was part of the 11 companies selected for NextSTEP Appendix E studies and prototyping for human landing systems. Also part of the Astrobotic team working on CLPS.

It was announced December 17, 2019 that Leidos was buying Dynetics for $1.65B. Leidos, which was part of the break up of SAIC a number of years ago, likely bought them because their primary customers are the United States Department of Defense, the United States Intelligence Community, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

It will be interesting to see how this purchase affects their interest in this program, or specifically, the interest they may or may not have in assuming more risk per recent Bridenstine comments (see my earlier post).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/09/2020 07:48 pm
SNC is really the only likely candidate IMO, since they are the only company not known that has done anything related to flying people, although they could be partnering with someone listed above.

And the mystery bidder is....

Dynetics!
They are currently building the universal stage adapter for SLS and doing structural qualification on Vulcan... but still they seem a little more like their role would be acting as a subcontractor or a prime for a team of subs....

I wasn't wrong with my guess on SNC, or Dynetics acting as a prime for a team of subs, turns out SNC is working under Dynetics who is acting as the prime contractor. The below tweet suggests there are other parties as well (Masten? Please Masten).

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1215354130639683584
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/09/2020 10:51 pm
There are job postings for Dynetics to work on this:

https://careers.dynetics.com/job-view.php?p=6011 (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-view.php?p=6011)

If you ever wanted to work on a lunar lander, here's your chance.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/10/2020 10:38 pm
I guess it really shouldn't be a big surprise that Dynetics/SNC is bidding given that all one needs to do is read the industry forum participants  ::)

https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander2

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20191003-hls-virtual-industry-forum-3-participant-list.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20190903-nextstep-h-vif2-industry-participants.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20190723-nextstep-h-virtual-industry-forum-participants.pdf

Lots of folks from Aerojet Rocketdyne at all 3 meetings, all the known bidders from the teams (Blue, Boeing, Dynetics, LockMart, Northrop, SNC, SpaceX).
Also quite a few ULA folks at all 3 meetings. Maxar attended for the 1st and 2nd, and then at the 3rd meeting two people from Masten Space were in it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Gliderflyer on 01/11/2020 10:35 pm
You can view all the lander job postings by searching "hls" on the Dynetics Jobs page (currently there are 28 positions (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-listing.php?s=hls)). There was also a Dynetics billboard with a picture of a lunar lander on it by the Space and Rocket Center back in November, but I don't know if it is still up.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 01/13/2020 06:47 pm
You can view all the lander job postings by searching "hls" on the Dynetics Jobs page (currently there are 28 positions (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-listing.php?s=hls)). There was also a Dynetics billboard with a picture of a lunar lander on it by the Space and Rocket Center back in November, but I don't know if it is still up.

SpaceflightNow shared a picture of the proposed Dynetics lander on Twitter earlier. Not sure if they've mentioned formally what the lander is called, or if there are any other details. One thing I like is that the lander doesn't look like a paint-by-the-numbers Apollo LEM retread. And doesn't require 4-10story ladders for the astronauts to get down to the surface.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1216793212980953089

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ioncloud9 on 01/13/2020 06:59 pm
You can view all the lander job postings by searching "hls" on the Dynetics Jobs page (currently there are 28 positions (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-listing.php?s=hls)). There was also a Dynetics billboard with a picture of a lunar lander on it by the Space and Rocket Center back in November, but I don't know if it is still up.

SpaceflightNow shared a picture of the proposed Dynetics lander on Twitter earlier. Not sure if they've mentioned formally what the lander is called, or if there are any other details. One thing I like is that the lander doesn't look like a paint-by-the-numbers Apollo LEM retread. And doesn't require 4-10story ladders for the astronauts to get down to the surface.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1216793212980953089

~Jon

That looks very close to the "Jamestown" lander in For All Mankind.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 01/13/2020 07:03 pm
That looks very close to the "Jamestown" lander in For All Mankind.

Unfortunately I don't have Apple TV so I haven't had a chance to watch that show yet.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/13/2020 07:12 pm
You can view all the lander job postings by searching "hls" on the Dynetics Jobs page (currently there are 28 positions (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-listing.php?s=hls)). There was also a Dynetics billboard with a picture of a lunar lander on it by the Space and Rocket Center back in November, but I don't know if it is still up.

SpaceflightNow shared a picture of the proposed Dynetics lander on Twitter earlier. Not sure if they've mentioned formally what the lander is called, or if there are any other details. One thing I like is that the lander doesn't look like a paint-by-the-numbers Apollo LEM retread. And doesn't require 4-10story ladders for the astronauts to get down to the surface.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1216793212980953089

~Jon
Nice sensible design that doesn't require an "elevator"...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 01/13/2020 07:35 pm
You can view all the lander job postings by searching "hls" on the Dynetics Jobs page (currently there are 28 positions (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-listing.php?s=hls)). There was also a Dynetics billboard with a picture of a lunar lander on it by the Space and Rocket Center back in November, but I don't know if it is still up.

SpaceflightNow shared a picture of the proposed Dynetics lander on Twitter earlier. Not sure if they've mentioned formally what the lander is called, or if there are any other details. One thing I like is that the lander doesn't look like a paint-by-the-numbers Apollo LEM retread. And doesn't require 4-10story ladders for the astronauts to get down to the surface.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1216793212980953089

~Jon
Nice sensible design that doesn't require an "elevator"...

Yup. That's what I liked about it as well. I like landers where cargo and crew can be close to the surface instead of on top of a temporary skyscraper...

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/13/2020 08:22 pm
So many questions on that lander... would it need to integrate to the launcher sideways?
Single stage or an ascent vehicle hidden away somewhere?

The amount of mystery around Artemis (cargo and logistics included) is starting to get real frustrating.

Sort of looks like Dreamchaser's shooting star cargo module with tanks and extra support bolted on?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/14/2020 03:17 am
You can view all the lander job postings by searching "hls" on the Dynetics Jobs page (currently there are 28 positions (https://careers.dynetics.com/job-listing.php?s=hls)). There was also a Dynetics billboard with a picture of a lunar lander on it by the Space and Rocket Center back in November, but I don't know if it is still up.

SpaceflightNow shared a picture of the proposed Dynetics lander on Twitter earlier. Not sure if they've mentioned formally what the lander is called, or if there are any other details. One thing I like is that the lander doesn't look like a paint-by-the-numbers Apollo LEM retread. And doesn't require 4-10story ladders for the astronauts to get down to the surface.

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1216793212980953089

~Jon

I like this one.  It's exciting.  Lots of fun to be had here.  Reuse and refueling will be interesting.

Not worried about configuration in a fairing for launch.  We're getting some big launchers and know how to do some assembly on orbit.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 01/14/2020 04:27 am
All,

I created a poll about who people think NASA will pick for the initial up-through-PDR study contracts. I gave options for various combinations of two, three, or all four awardees. Poll is open through 1/28.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49874.0

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/14/2020 01:03 pm
All,

I created a poll about...SNIP

Hi Jon, would you care to speculate why so many ULA folks attended the industry forums for HLS? Are they just really committed to the launch services or is there potentially something more (ACES transfer stage maybe)? I notice Bernard Cutter on the list, who has his name on pretty much every advanced concept at ULA. Jonathon Barr who is also involved with ACES also attended.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FiniteBurn on 01/14/2020 01:47 pm
One of the internal lander architectures used Centaur. I don’t doubt ULA looked at something similar. Whether or not a prime picked it up is another story.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/15/2020 01:19 am
Besides SNC in Dynetics team, there are also mixture of small and medium suze companies. Masten could be one, definitely has vertical landing expertise.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/15/2020 01:56 am
Besides SNC in Dynetics team, there are also mixture of small and medium suze companies. Masten could be one, definitely has vertical landing expertise.

They had 2 people attend meeting number 3, but not the other ones.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/16/2020 09:32 am
This lander has some similarities to the lander we designed for "Fly me to the Moon on an SLS Block II", but on steroids.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/16/2020 09:42 am
That looks very close to the "Jamestown" lander in For All Mankind.

An image of the lander was posted in this NSF thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48269.100

Attached is an enhanced version. Looks like they use four Lunar Module descent engines fed by very small tanks, indicating that it must have performed staged descent.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Tulse on 01/16/2020 02:11 pm
As others have asked, how does something that large get launched? Does it need to be assembled in orbit/in transit?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/24/2020 10:34 pm
Jeff Foust tweeting about a house version of the NASA authorization bill:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1220837619719950336

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1220841666514497536


Seems like the push to use an "integrated landing system" on SLS Block 1B, delaying a landing to 2028, entirely a "government owned lander", and doing nothing but flags and footprints is becoming more and more likely.

Meanwhile in Artemis the Gateway Cargo and Logistics contract awards are 1 month late, Human Landing System awards will supposedly be 2 or 3 months late.

I can't help but feel nothing but cynicism - although I really wanted to be excited about Artemis as a compromise program that wasn't that bad.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jongoff on 01/24/2020 10:36 pm
Jeff Foust tweeting about a house version of the NASA authorization bill:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1220837619719950336

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1220841666514497536


Seems like the push to use an "integrated landing system" on SLS Block 1B, delaying a landing to 2028, entirely a "government owned lander", and doing nothing but flags and footprints is becoming more and more likely.

Meanwhile in Artemis the Gateway Cargo and Logistics contract awards are 1 month late, Human Landing System awards will supposedly be 2 or 3 months late.

I can't help but feel nothing but cynicism - although I really wanted to be excited about Artemis as a compromise program that wasn't that bad.

The least the House Science Committee could've done was give the Boeing ghostwriters proper credit in the introduction, or maybe included a Boeing Corporation logo on the front page or something... They're going to get me to use words I try not to use.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FiniteBurn on 01/24/2020 11:27 pm
It would make me a lot happier if we stopped attaching arbitrary dates to pieces of legislation.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/24/2020 11:30 pm
A crewed lunar landing in 2024 is a crewed lunar landing by 2028.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 01/24/2020 11:54 pm
This bill makes me really angry....

Anyway, does anyone have a guess on how this bill will impact upcoming Gateway HALO & Logistics and HLS contracts? All of those are supposed to be imminent.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/25/2020 12:10 am
This bill makes me really angry....

Anyway, does anyone have a guess on how this bill will impact upcoming Gateway HALO & Logistics and HLS contracts? All of those are supposed to be imminent.
Bill wouldn't kill Gateway, but would rechristen it "Gateway to Mars." Would likely lead to something looking closer to the original plans as the Deep Space Gateway.

The HLS procurement work done so far would need to be thrown out though. I can't see how you could salvage it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/25/2020 12:56 am
The authors of this bill all asked leading questions in a hearing on the 2024 date: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1194695351665598470

The whole thread is worth a revisit. It's basically all anti commercial rockets and contracts.

This last line says all you need to know:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1194713817235763216
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/25/2020 01:20 am
This bill makes me really angry....

Anyway, does anyone have a guess on how this bill will impact upcoming Gateway HALO & Logistics and HLS contracts? All of those are supposed to be imminent.

This is just a draft, haven't passed committee and full house yet, after that it will need to be consolidated with the senate version (which is the complete opposite of this bill, so good luck with that), then the president will have to sign it, I don't think this bill will become law any time soon. So probably zero impact on imminent contracts, but presumably Bridenstine will want to have a serious talk with his former colleagues...

Also, I'm not sure how much sway an authorization bill has, NASA routinely ignored some part of the old authorization bill (SLS launch date, Orion as ISS backup, etc).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/25/2020 01:36 am
This bill makes me really angry....

Anyway, does anyone have a guess on how this bill will impact upcoming Gateway HALO & Logistics and HLS contracts? All of those are supposed to be imminent.

This is just a draft, haven't passed committee and full house yet, after that it will need to be consolidated with the senate version (which is the complete opposite of this bill, so good luck with that), then the president will have to sign it, I don't think this bill will become law any time soon. So probably zero impact on imminent contracts, but presumably Bridenstine will want to have a serious talk with his former colleagues...

Also, I'm not sure how much sway an authorization bill has, NASA routinely ignored some part of the old authorization bill (SLS launch date, Orion as ISS backup, etc).

Orion to ISS has always been weak language:

Quote
            (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
        enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
        appropriate committees of Congress a report addressing the
        ability of Orion to meet the needs and the minimum capability
        requirements described in section 303(b)(3) of the National
        Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010
        (42 U.S.C. 18323(b)(3)).
            (2) Contents.--The report shall detail--

[[Page 131 STAT. 37]]

                    (A) those components and systems of Orion that
                ensure it is in compliance with section 303(b)(3) of
                that Act (42 U.S.C. 18323(b)(3));
                    (B) the expected date that Orion, integrated with a
                vehicle other than the Space Launch System, could be
                available to transport crew and cargo to the ISS;

                    (C) any impacts to the deep space exploration
                missions under subsection (f) of this section due to
                enabling Orion to meet the minimum capability
                requirements described in section 303(b)(3) of that Act
                (42 U.S.C. 18323(b)(3)) and conducting the mission
                described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; and
                    (D) the overall cost and schedule impacts associated
                with enabling Orion to meet the minimum capability
                requirements described in section 303(b)(3) of that Act
                (42 U.S.C. 18323(b)(3)) and conducting the mission
                described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/442/text

Quote
(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a
minimum, the following:

(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without
an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70
tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for
transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth
departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the
Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for
supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew
delivery requirements not otherwise met
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf

SLS/Orion being able to transfer crew/cargo to the ISS is an inherent capability given the docking port and lift capabilities of the platform. If Starliner and Dragon have issues, Artemis 3+ hardware could be pressed into service for ISS use as a backup. The report on when something could be available in terms of Orion on a different LV also isn't a mandate to develop a capability at all or by a certain date.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: b0objunior on 01/25/2020 02:45 am
This Bill if passed will go to the senate, then what? I don't understand the US system very much sadly.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/25/2020 03:44 am
This Bill if passed will go to the senate, then what? I don't understand the US system very much sadly.
Goes to Senate. If Senate makes changes, those need to be reconciled, and then assuming they are, it goes to the President, who can either sign or veto it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: b0objunior on 01/25/2020 04:00 am
This Bill if passed will go to the senate, then what? I don't understand the US system very much sadly.
Goes to Senate. If Senate makes changes, those need to be reconciled, and then assuming they are, it goes to the President, who can either sign or veto it.
Reconciled meaning what? Thanks!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/25/2020 04:23 am
This Bill if passed will go to the senate, then what? I don't understand the US system very much sadly.
Goes to Senate. If Senate makes changes, those need to be reconciled, and then assuming they are, it goes to the President, who can either sign or veto it.
Reconciled meaning what? Thanks!

The Senate and the House work out their differences and create a compromise bill that both chambers of Congress agree to. That's called a reconciliation. That is the bill that is sent to the President for his signature.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: b0objunior on 01/25/2020 04:47 am
This Bill if passed will go to the senate, then what? I don't understand the US system very much sadly.
Goes to Senate. If Senate makes changes, those need to be reconciled, and then assuming they are, it goes to the President, who can either sign or veto it.
Reconciled meaning what? Thanks!

The Senate and the House work out their differences and create a compromise bill that both chambers of Congress agree to. That's called a reconciliation. That is the bill that is sent to the President for his signature.
Really thank you! Is this pretty much a given that it's going to pass, or are bills actually shut down on a regular basis?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/25/2020 05:06 am
Really thank you! Is this pretty much a given that it's going to pass, or are bills actually shut down on a regular basis?
A NASA Authorization bill is pretty much given to pass, but it's very unlikely to be this particular one.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 01/25/2020 05:52 am
I doubt Orion could go to ISS. The environment is quite different from Lunar orbit and knowing how mass is critical it must have been optimized for that Lunar mission.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/25/2020 06:26 am
I doubt Orion could go to ISS. The environment is quite different from Lunar orbit and knowing how mass is critical it must have been optimized for that Lunar mission.

It was considered for EM-1 when they were talking about crewing it...

Quote
Sources point to two potential mission Design Reference Mission (DRM) options from SLS’ CONOPS (Concept Of Operations) documentation that would help fulfill a test flight and while keeping the risk to astronauts to a “minimum” when compared to simply transitioning EM-2 into the role of the maiden flight.

The first option has been touted in numerous iterations of the CONOPS as a hangover from the defunct Constellation Program (CxP).

Known as “LEO_Util_1A_C11A1: International Space Station (ISS) Back-Up Crew Delivery“, this mission would involve SLS and Orion conducting a crew rotation mission for the ISS, as was the initial plan for Orion during the CxP era.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/investigating-potential-crew-sls-maiden-flight/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/25/2020 07:56 am
After having read a good portion of the document, I think some of the hate was premature. For one, permanent lunar basing or ISRU could be done, but the budgeting would have to be separated out and itemized.

Quote
A Mars Transport Vehicle for the purposes of crewed transport to and around Mars. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate pre-formulation activities for a Mars transport vehicle.
https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/NASA_AUTH_01_xml.pdf

So, gateway still is developed in some form (at least PPE and HALO, logistics services). CLPS goes ahead as well. At least 1 HLS still gets developed but uses SLS and is a goods based procurement and not a services based procurement. Europa Clipper probably would get moved off SLS. The "MTV" development gets started nearly immediately with the funds that would have gone to an accelerated lunar return. It is an interesting roadmap, not completely inconsistent with the Administration's approach and has some merit in advancing the mars transport vehicle. Paul Spudis wouldn't like this.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 01/25/2020 01:49 pm
A crewed lunar landing in 2024 is a crewed lunar landing by 2028.

If then, if past is prologue.  As I see it, the only thing stopping a 2024 landing is political will.  The pieces are very nearly ready, and could be integrated if the workforce is led properly.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 01/25/2020 01:52 pm
It would make me a lot happier if we stopped attaching arbitrary dates to pieces of legislation.

That's not the problem, IMO.  They all just don't do the work to achieve the date.  The President rarely leads, Congress just bickers, and the agency just keeps putzing along.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/25/2020 03:25 pm
After having read a good portion of the document, I think some of the hate was premature. For one, permanent lunar basing or ISRU could be done, but the budgeting would have to be separated out and itemized.

Quote
A Mars Transport Vehicle for the purposes of crewed transport to and around Mars. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate pre-formulation activities for a Mars transport vehicle.
https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/NASA_AUTH_01_xml.pdf

So, gateway still is developed in some form (at least PPE and HALO, logistics services). CLPS goes ahead as well. At least 1 HLS still gets developed but uses SLS and is a goods based procurement and not a services based procurement. Europa Clipper probably would get moved off SLS. The "MTV" development gets started nearly immediately with the funds that would have gone to an accelerated lunar return. It is an interesting roadmap, not completely inconsistent with the Administration's approach and has some merit in advancing the mars transport vehicle. Paul Spudis wouldn't like this.
Some of it was premature... but I still don't like it.

If you ask me, the biggest flaw here is the total descoping of the Lunar campaign to something interim. That puts an early expiration date on the Lunar program, which is precisely what we don't want to do, because there's no guarantee the Mars follow-on this bill wants will materialize. After all this effort, I don't want to see NASA do an Apollo 2.0 and then get stuck in LEO for 30 years again.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 01/25/2020 04:51 pm
This Bill if passed will go to the senate, then what? I don't understand the US system very much sadly.

What we have now is a draft bill released by the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House's Committee on Space, Science and Technology.  The Subcommittee will "mark up" the draft next Wednesday (you can watch live (https://science.house.gov/markups/subcommittee-markup-of-hr-5666)), which means Subcommittee members will revise and then likely submit it to the full Committee for possible additional revision and submission to the entire House. 

In the meantime, another NASA authorization bill (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49428.msg2028998#msg2028998) going through a similar process in the Senate was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology late last year, after a bit of modification.  That bill is ready to go to the full Senate, though sometimes bills get stalled at some stage and simply fade away.

Usually, once the House and Senate have both approved bills, a House-Senate "conference committee" thrashes out a compromise, which is then voted on by each chamber.  If approved by both, the bill goes to the president for his approval.

Once in a while, the process is streamlined a bit in that one chamber votes directly on a bill from the other chamber.  The 2010 NASA authorization was drafted and approved by the Senate.  The House then voted to "suspend the rules," as it's called, and adopt the Senate's bill.  That required a two-thirds majority.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 01/25/2020 04:55 pm
Oh, and even all of this still doesn't get NASA any money.  It gives NASA permission ("authorizes") NASA to spend certain amounts of money on certain things but does not provide any money at all.  The business of actually transferring money to NASA -- "appropriation" -- is done by separate laws passed by different committees.  There is no guarantee that the appropriations bill will provide NASA with as much money as it is authorized to spend.

Kinda weird, huh?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/25/2020 05:41 pm
Without extended stay on surface they won't be able to determine effects of low gravity on  human health. We know long term exposure to 0g isn't good for us.
If 1/6g has same effects then 1/3g may also.

At least NASA will have Gateway from which to observe China as it builds a lunar base and ISRU facilities.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 01/25/2020 05:52 pm
After having read a good portion of the document, I think some of the hate was premature. For one, permanent lunar basing or ISRU could be done, but the budgeting would have to be separated out and itemized.

Quote
A Mars Transport Vehicle for the purposes of crewed transport to and around Mars. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate pre-formulation activities for a Mars transport vehicle.
https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/NASA_AUTH_01_xml.pdf

So, gateway still is developed in some form (at least PPE and HALO, logistics services). CLPS goes ahead as well. At least 1 HLS still gets developed but uses SLS and is a goods based procurement and not a services based procurement. Europa Clipper probably would get moved off SLS. The "MTV" development gets started nearly immediately with the funds that would have gone to an accelerated lunar return. It is an interesting roadmap, not completely inconsistent with the Administration's approach and has some merit in advancing the mars transport vehicle. Paul Spudis wouldn't like this.

I'm puzzled about the Mars Transport vehicle.  Unless you are Elon Musk, that's really, really far out there.   What's the politics behind this, and what politician is suddenly interested in Mars?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 01/25/2020 06:00 pm
I doubt Orion could go to ISS. The environment is quite different from Lunar orbit and knowing how mass is critical it must have been optimized for that Lunar mission.

It's possible that Orion was designed to be very, very environment specific (the solar panels for example have somewhat strict limits on acceleration, for example), but I don't think there is a huge difference between LEO and transit to moon, and lunar orbit.   

The apollo craft operated in both environments.

LEO puts the spacecraft into shadow/light cycles roughly once every 45 minutes, which doesn't seem too extreme.  Orion must have some way to control it's thermal condition. 

Do you have any specific information to think Orion can't operate in LEO?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: butters on 01/25/2020 06:10 pm
If you ask me, the biggest flaw here is the total descoping of the Lunar campaign to something interim. That puts an early expiration date on the Lunar program, which is precisely what we don't want to do, because there's no guarantee the Mars follow-on this bill wants will materialize.
It's hard for me to see Artemis as anything other than an interim program, destined to be superseded by that which shall not be mentioned here. We're not really going to establish an enduring human presence on the moon using this architecture. SLS can't achieve anything near a suitable launch cadence for that. Flags and footprints maybe. Lunar base? We gotta be kidding ourselves.

This is something to keep NASA busy until the existence of [BLEEP] becomes impossible to dispute. If we're going to get anything at all out of Artemis, they need to strip it down to the bare essentials, lay down some footprints, and take a bow before this architecture is shoved offstage. If we want a sustainable human presence on the moon, then NASA/Congress has made all the wrong decisions over the past 17+ years, and when it's time for SLS/Orion/Artemis to go to sleep, there's a bed all made up and ready for it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 01/25/2020 06:58 pm
I'm puzzled about the Mars Transport vehicle.  Unless you are Elon Musk, that's really, really far out there.   What's the politics behind this, and what politician is suddenly interested in Mars?

A nice contract for, say, Lockheed Martin, between now and whenever the whole thing is cancelled, perhaps?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/25/2020 07:32 pm
I'm puzzled about the Mars Transport vehicle.  Unless you are Elon Musk, that's really, really far out there.   What's the politics behind this, and what politician is suddenly interested in Mars?

A nice contract for, say, Lockheed Martin, between now and whenever the whole thing is cancelled, perhaps?
Or Boeing til Boeing cancels it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/25/2020 07:51 pm
Proponent,

There is no matching Senate bill at this time. You're looking at an old bill.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/25/2020 08:21 pm
If you ask me, the biggest flaw here is the total descoping of the Lunar campaign to something interim. That puts an early expiration date on the Lunar program, which is precisely what we don't want to do, because there's no guarantee the Mars follow-on this bill wants will materialize.
It's hard for me to see Artemis as anything other than an interim program, destined to be superseded by that which shall not be mentioned here. We're not really going to establish an enduring human presence on the moon using this architecture. SLS can't achieve anything near a suitable launch cadence for that. Flags and footprints maybe. Lunar base? We gotta be kidding ourselves.

This is something to keep NASA busy until the existence of [BLEEP] becomes impossible to dispute. If we're going to get anything at all out of Artemis, they need to strip it down to the bare essentials, lay down some footprints, and take a bow before this architecture is shoved offstage. If we want a sustainable human presence on the moon, then NASA/Congress has made all the wrong decisions over the past 17+ years, and when it's time for SLS/Orion/Artemis to go to sleep, there's a bed all made up and ready for it.
People have been claiming things like this on these forums for more than a decade at this point. Some of the names have changed, but the argument stays the same.

But sure, this is gonna be the time it'll finally be proven right. Just like the arguments claiming SLS was never going to get past preliminary design, or that there would never be political will for a Lunar landing program utilizing it, or that [insert thing here] would show it up and kill any political support for developing it (that last one in particular has had a lot of variations).

Okay, turning off the dripping sarcasm.

I think that, like in the past, people are generally just being overly-optimistic about their favored alternatives to the PoR. Not that Artemis as we know it is set in stone, mind you, but I am quite confident we'll see some sort of government BLEO program utilizing SLS and Orion continue through at least 2030. What that program will ultimately consist of is still in flux, but it seems it's going to have a Lunar surface exploration portion to it.

I personally would like Congress to focus on making maximal use of that Lunar exploration portion, and am not a fan of ideas that de-emphasize that in terms of Mars. But I'm quite confident we'll be getting a program either utilizing SLS either way at this point, and I expect it to last for at least a decade.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/25/2020 09:05 pm
After having read a good portion of the document, I think some of the hate was premature. For one, permanent lunar basing or ISRU could be done, but the budgeting would have to be separated out and itemized.

Quote
A Mars Transport Vehicle for the purposes of crewed transport to and around Mars. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate pre-formulation activities for a Mars transport vehicle.
https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/NASA_AUTH_01_xml.pdf

So, gateway still is developed in some form (at least PPE and HALO, logistics services). CLPS goes ahead as well. At least 1 HLS still gets developed but uses SLS and is a goods based procurement and not a services based procurement. Europa Clipper probably would get moved off SLS. The "MTV" development gets started nearly immediately with the funds that would have gone to an accelerated lunar return. It is an interesting roadmap, not completely inconsistent with the Administration's approach and has some merit in advancing the mars transport vehicle. Paul Spudis wouldn't like this.
Some of it was premature... but I still don't like it.

If you ask me, the biggest flaw here is the total descoping of the Lunar campaign to something interim. That puts an early expiration date on the Lunar program, which is precisely what we don't want to do, because there's no guarantee the Mars follow-on this bill wants will materialize. After all this effort, I don't want to see NASA do an Apollo 2.0 and then get stuck in LEO for 30 years again.

I look at it slightly different. This essentially seperates the gateway, the lunar lander and the MTV into 3 distinct independent programs with separately operating hardware. Together, they would form an ecosystem that could be mutually beneficial to each other but the fact that you could excise one and still have a credible BEO program makes the "stuck in LEO for 30 years" scenario less likely. This maintains "moral hazard" without precise duplication of effort which may be an improvement over 2 HLS systems to maintain competition. In this case, the MTV and the lunar lander would not be duplicating effort but would essentially be in competition with each other regardless. If the lunar lander contractor falls behind, they risk cancellation and the MTV contractor getting their slice of the pie(or vice versa). Maintaining competition without duplication is a significant advantage to this approach. Attacking the beyond cis-lunar problem and the lunar surface problem at the same time is also another advantage (rather than the serial approach previously considered where you would do each task separately, in sequence, with each one needing to be done in half the time). It is also a compromise position between Mars and the moon that both camps could get behind.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 01/25/2020 09:51 pm
What's old about S.2800?  It was passed by the Commerce Committee during the 116th Congress, which still sits.  Has some action been taken to withdraw or replace it?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 01/26/2020 12:15 am
If you ask me, the biggest flaw here is the total descoping of the Lunar campaign to something interim. That puts an early expiration date on the Lunar program, which is precisely what we don't want to do, because there's no guarantee the Mars follow-on this bill wants will materialize.
It's hard for me to see Artemis as anything other than an interim program, destined to be superseded by that which shall not be mentioned here. We're not really going to establish an enduring human presence on the moon using this architecture. SLS can't achieve anything near a suitable launch cadence for that. Flags and footprints maybe. Lunar base? We gotta be kidding ourselves.

This is something to keep NASA busy until the existence of [BLEEP] becomes impossible to dispute. If we're going to get anything at all out of Artemis, they need to strip it down to the bare essentials, lay down some footprints, and take a bow before this architecture is shoved offstage. If we want a sustainable human presence on the moon, then NASA/Congress has made all the wrong decisions over the past 17+ years, and when it's time for SLS/Orion/Artemis to go to sleep, there's a bed all made up and ready for it.

There's nothing unmentionable about Starship, Starship is already formally recognized as part of Artemis given its entrance to the CLPS program. I think NASA is quietly laying down the foundation for a gradual transition to Starship inside the framework of Artemis, note Artemis is never about SLS/Orion exclusively, it has a big commercial component since its inception.

Ironically, being both Moon and Mars capable, Starship is probably the least affected by this Moon vs Mars tug of war. It will have a role no matter where NASA is ordered to go, even if this role may be limited to cargo in the short term.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/26/2020 01:10 am
I doubt Orion could go to ISS. The environment is quite different from Lunar orbit and knowing how mass is critical it must have been optimized for that Lunar mission.

As unlikely as this is, Orion is still required, by law, to be a replacement for Commercial Crew should those spacecraft fail to become operational. Therefore it is explicitly designed for docking with the ISS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FiniteBurn on 01/26/2020 01:38 am
It would make me a lot happier if we stopped attaching arbitrary dates to pieces of legislation.

That's not the problem, IMO.  They all just don't do the work to achieve the date.  The President rarely leads, Congress just bickers, and the agency just keeps putzing along.

It is absolutely part of the problem. Arbitrary dates lead to decisions being made in a vain attempt to meet them. You can't make a baby in 4 months with any amount of leadership and chutzpah.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/26/2020 02:46 am
If you don't set an aggressive date you can count on no urgency to get anything done.  I don't think NASA could hit the 2024 target.  But I believe without 2024 as a target I don't believe they'll land in this decade.  All the money will be wasted again with a few visits to the Gateway.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 01/26/2020 10:29 am
I doubt Orion could go to ISS. The environment is quite different from Lunar orbit and knowing how mass is critical it must have been optimized for that Lunar mission.

As unlikely as this is, Orion is still required, by law, to be a replacement for Commercial Crew should those spacecraft fail to become operational. Therefore it is explicitly designed for docking with the ISS.

Let me take a single example. What is the mass of a debris shield for a 30 days mission to the Gateway in Lunar domain and what is the mass of a debris shield for a multi months mission to ISS. Which one do you think is installed on Orion?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/26/2020 10:55 am
As a contingency for an ISS mission: have they looked at mating Orion with a Vulcan launcher, which will be crew rated? Delta IV-Heavy is not man-rated.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/26/2020 12:38 pm
Which one do you think is installed on Orion?

It doesn't matter. It still does not negate the law. Unlikely as it is, Orion is still designated as the backup human crew provider to the ISS should Commercial Crew fail.

As a contingency for an ISS mission: have they looked at mating Orion with a Vulcan launcher, which will be crew rated? Delta IV-Heavy is not man-rated.

I assume the may have considered it but afaik there are no plans to do that. SLS is still the designated LV for Orion, which is what makes the backup provision of the law so laughable.

Hektor said that he doubted Orion could go to the ISS. I don't dispute what he said about the mass constraints, only his assertion that Orion couldn't go to the ISS when it was designed to specifically be able to do that.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 01/26/2020 01:23 pm
If both SpaceX and Boeing get their bugs out of their capsules, we have two for ISS.  Orion will not be needed for ISS.  Also, since SLS can only afford to launch once a year, this wouldn't work.  SpaceX and Boeing Capsules could launch many times a year.  Even if one is on stand down, there is the other. 

I say Orion will only be used for going around the moon. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/26/2020 01:34 pm
If both SpaceX and Boeing get their bugs out of their capsules, we have two for ISS.  Orion will not be needed for ISS.  Also, since SLS can only afford to launch once a year, this wouldn't work.  SpaceX and Boeing Capsules could launch many times a year.  Even if one is on stand down, there is the other. 

I say Orion will only be used for going around the moon. 

Which is why I said that provision of the law was laughable.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/26/2020 02:59 pm
If both SpaceX and Boeing get their bugs out of their capsules, we have two for ISS.  Orion will not be needed for ISS.  Also, since SLS can only afford to launch once a year, this wouldn't work.  SpaceX and Boeing Capsules could launch many times a year.  Even if one is on stand down, there is the other. 

I say Orion will only be used for going around the moon.

No, with commercial cargo there was a period of time when both providers were down. Cygnus had a failure in October 2014 and didn't return to service until December 2015. Dragon had a failure in June 2015 and didn't return to service until April 2016. There was a 6 month period when they both were down. And it doesn't matter if they could fly 100 times a year. If the vehicle is grounded, none of them would fly with crew.

Quote
Also, since SLS can only afford to launch once a year, this wouldn't work.

Both commercial crew vehicles are scheduled for 1 flight per year. Under that logic, they wouldn't be able to support the ISS either.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 01/26/2020 04:29 pm
If both SpaceX and Boeing get their bugs out of their capsules, we have two for ISS.  Orion will not be needed for ISS.  Also, since SLS can only afford to launch once a year, this wouldn't work.  SpaceX and Boeing Capsules could launch many times a year.  Even if one is on stand down, there is the other. 

I say Orion will only be used for going around the moon.

No, with commercial cargo there was a period of time when both providers were down. Cygnus had a failure in October 2014 and didn't return to service until December 2015. Dragon had a failure in June 2015 and didn't return to service until April 2016. There was a 6 month period when they both were down. And it doesn't matter if they could fly 100 times a year. If the vehicle is grounded, none of them would fly with crew.

Quote
Also, since SLS can only afford to launch once a year, this wouldn't work.

Both commercial crew vehicles are scheduled for 1 flight per year. Under that logic, they wouldn't be able to support the ISS either.
"Under that logic..." The 'logic' was "SLS can only afford one flight a year". I will add the timeline for having another SLS ready to launch a previously unplanned Orion, is likely to be problematic, and impact Artemis etc.
However it is very likely that SpaceX would have a Falcon9 ready to fly with weeks or less notice, (maybe impacting only the Starlink schedule if any) and a Dragon2 that could be reused or brought forward with only a few months of preparation, all at relatively low cost. So "that logic" would choose SX (if not currently stood down from service) over SLS for a hurriedly planned exceptional launch and the required funding.
Also the Russians may well be able to alter their schedule to provide seats, still at a lower cost in both $ and disruption than SLS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: joek on 01/26/2020 05:18 pm
...
Both commercial crew vehicles are scheduled for 1 flight per year. Under that logic, they wouldn't be able to support the ISS either.

Bit of apples-oranges there.  While there is only one commercial crew mission per provider per year scheduled, the launch vehicles that are integral to those missions (and their associated support) will fly many more times per year (potentially excluding Atlas V second stage DEC).  Open question as to how many ISS missions each of the contenders could support--and at what cost--but I would hazard a guess that systems which incorporate bits more frequently used would win--whether the comparison is cost, readiness or safety.  (Another discussion best taken to another thread as this has little to do with Artemis.)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 01/26/2020 08:19 pm
I was trying to remember what seemed so odd but familiar with an Oklahoma representative tabling a bill that was so pro-SLS.

Oklahoma appears to be a big SLS job state with suppliers there. I remember a series of tweets from the SLS_NASA account that highlight this that I got around to looking up:

https://twitter.com/NASA_SLS/status/966009563295215618

https://twitter.com/NASA_SLS/status/966794742175551488

And then this quote from Jim Bridenstine in an Ars Technica article by Eric Berger (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/an-alabama-representative-just-let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-with-the-sls-rocket/):

Quote
Bridenstine—who is himself a former representative who left the House to become administrator—called that a great point. SLS and Orion support an industrial base that keeps America at the forefront of global spaceflight. Then Bridenstine went further: "I can tell you, as a former member of Congress from Oklahoma, we have a lot of suppliers to those programs in Oklahoma that are doing critically important work."


If there is any hope for Artemis NASA management needs to stop dragging their butts on HLS and Cargo & Logistics awards. Finish the program cost estimate and lay it all out - good, bad or otherwise - so that the costs of every element of Artemis can be clearly laid out. See how the total cost of an SLS launched lander compare to a diverse set of commercial rockets and make rationale decisions.

Astronauts finally flying to SLS on commercial crew certainly would help provide some clarity.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 01/27/2020 04:39 pm
Bridenstine on the House bill:

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1221838787745144833
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 01/27/2020 11:27 pm
Prototype main-stage engine for Boeing's Human Lander System

https://twitter.com/Int_Machines/status/1221947987523514368
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/28/2020 01:31 am
Does anyone think Boeing's Crew Lander proposal will use the Starliner pressure vessel as the basis for their crew cabin; as Lockheed Martin did for their proposal, with the Orion?

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-10-03-Lockheed-Martin-Reveals-New-Human-Lunar-Lander-Concept
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 01/28/2020 01:40 am
Does anyone think Boeing's Crew Lander proposal will use the Starliner pressure vessel as the basis for their crew cabin; as Lockheed Martin did for their proposal, with the Orion?

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-10-03-Lockheed-Martin-Reveals-New-Human-Lunar-Lander-Concept

No, Starliner’s pressure vessel is nowhere near boxy enough to fit the profile of Boeing’s HLS design, the ascent-element is a clean-sheet design and Boeing apparently think it’s hip to be square...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TomH on 01/28/2020 11:15 pm
WaPo article today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/28/nasa-has-been-touting-trumps-moon-plan-nearly-year-now-it-faces-its-first-real-test-congress/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/30/2020 01:05 am
AJR study of varies HLS architectures, these are theoritical ones not landers proposed by varies commercial teams. Also some maybe similar.

http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Kokan_1-29-20/

They based their study on commercial LV's TLI performance. Estimated for some LVs as no public figures available.
In NG case they assume it delivered a 10mt descent stage to TLI. Didn't consider a 45mt descent stage delivered to LEO and making its own way to Gateway. I estimate it would arrive at Gateway as 19mt, considerably more than 10mt TLI version.

Storable propellant ascent stage used XLR132 engine, see below. At 340ISP is competitive with methane engines, plus no boiloff worries and smaller tanks.

Rocketdyne N2O4/MMH rocket engine. Out of Production. Pump-fed high performance upper stage engine for perigee/apogee stages. as well as transfer vehicles and lunar and Martian missions. Tested extensively but no production.
AKA: RS-47. Status: Out of Production. Date: 1983. Thrust: 16.70 kN (3,754 lbf). Specific impulse: 340 s. Burn time: 4,000 s. Height: 1.20 m (3.90 ft). Diameter: 0.60 m (1.96 ft).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/30/2020 01:38 am
I prefer the 3-element Lunar Lander approach, because it leverages available Commercial Medium/Heavy lift launchers. 3x mixed Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy expendables are still going to be cheaper than adding another SLS Block 1B launch to each crewed mission. Using a trio or mixed trio of Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy launches instead of an SLS save about $1 billion with a B per crewed Lunar mission. The second best option which mixes a commercial heavy lifter with a pair of SLS Block 1B only seems to make sense if the flight rate can be increased and the unit cost decreased for the SLS.

It also brings propellant transfer and in-space refueling overall into common use; which is essential for the future.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/30/2020 03:21 pm
From tweets I've read sounds like this bill is forcing NASA to use 2 stage lander and SLS, which isn't surprising given Boeing lobby money is behind it. Boeing isn't only big aerospace prime with lot of political clout, I'm not expecting LM sit idle while Boeing torpedo their HLS bid.


Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/30/2020 03:23 pm
From tweets I've read sounds like this bill is forcing NASA to use 2 stage lander and SLS, which isn't surprising given Boeing lobby money is behind it. Boeing isn't only big aerospace prime with lot of political clout, I'm not expecting LM sit idle while Boeing torpedo their HLS bid.

Why wouldn't the national team propose their 3 stage lander on a SLS rocket? None of the primary contractors have a problem with selling hardware (Blue Origin is selling engines to ULA, etc.).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 01/30/2020 05:47 pm
From tweets I've read sounds like this bill is forcing NASA to use 2 stage lander and SLS, which isn't surprising given Boeing lobby money is behind it. Boeing isn't only big aerospace prime with lot of political clout, I'm not expecting LM sit idle while Boeing torpedo their HLS bid.

Why wouldn't the national team propose their 3 stage lander on a SLS rocket? None of the primary contractors have a problem with selling hardware (Blue Origin is selling engines to ULA, etc.).

If it were cheaper than using their internally available rockets, they probably would. This is a competitive bid, anything they can do to reduce costs will be an advantage.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/30/2020 06:16 pm
From tweets I've read sounds like this bill is forcing NASA to use 2 stage lander and SLS, which isn't surprising given Boeing lobby money is behind it. Boeing isn't only big aerospace prime with lot of political clout, I'm not expecting LM sit idle while Boeing torpedo their HLS bid.

Why wouldn't the national team propose their 3 stage lander on a SLS rocket? None of the primary contractors have a problem with selling hardware (Blue Origin is selling engines to ULA, etc.).

If it were cheaper than using their internally available rockets, they probably would. This is a competitive bid, anything they can do to reduce costs will be an advantage.

I think you are confusing what I am saying. How does this legislation sink Lockheed Martin's bid? The legislation says that the HLS will launch on the SLS. So, in what way would the national team's 3 stage design not be readily adaptable to launch pre-integrated on the SLS rocket?.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 01/30/2020 06:27 pm
From tweets I've read sounds like this bill is forcing NASA to use 2 stage lander and SLS, which isn't surprising given Boeing lobby money is behind it. Boeing isn't only big aerospace prime with lot of political clout, I'm not expecting LM sit idle while Boeing torpedo their HLS bid.

Why wouldn't the national team propose their 3 stage lander on a SLS rocket? None of the primary contractors have a problem with selling hardware (Blue Origin is selling engines to ULA, etc.).

If it were cheaper than using their internally available rockets, they probably would. This is a competitive bid, anything they can do to reduce costs will be an advantage.

I think you are confusing what I am saying. How does this legislation sink Lockheed Martin's bid? The legislation says that the HLS will launch on the SLS. So, in what way would the national team's 3 stage design not be readily adaptable to launch pre-integrated on the SLS rocket?.

If they weren't already planning to bid it on SLS, that means they have a lower cost option available. Forcing it onto SLS would then arbitrarily raise their bid price, putting them in a worse position relative to Boeing then they were before.

I don't know if it will sink their bid. That depends how much cheaper than Boeing they were (if at all), and how much more expensive SLS is compared to whatever they were planning to use to launch it.

But certainly NASA is in a better position than Congress to make the risk and cost trades on that decision.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/30/2020 08:50 pm
From tweets I've read sounds like this bill is forcing NASA to use 2 stage lander and SLS, which isn't surprising given Boeing lobby money is behind it. Boeing isn't only big aerospace prime with lot of political clout, I'm not expecting LM sit idle while Boeing torpedo their HLS bid.

Why wouldn't the national team propose their 3 stage lander on a SLS rocket? None of the primary contractors have a problem with selling hardware (Blue Origin is selling engines to ULA, etc.).

If it were cheaper than using their internally available rockets, they probably would. This is a competitive bid, anything they can do to reduce costs will be an advantage.

I think you are confusing what I am saying. How does this legislation sink Lockheed Martin's bid? The legislation says that the HLS will launch on the SLS. So, in what way would the national team's 3 stage design not be readily adaptable to launch pre-integrated on the SLS rocket?.
The 2 stage version is better option but too big for current or near term LVs except SLS.

ISRU fuel would change that, even possible for LEO-Gateway-LEO trip to be done without Orion which means no need for SLS. Hence anti ISRU wording in bill.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 02/03/2020 12:54 pm
AJR study of varies HLS architectures, these are theoritical ones not landers proposed by varies commercial teams. Also some maybe similar.

http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Kokan_1-29-20/

They based their study on commercial LV's TLI performance. Estimated for some LVs as no public figures available.
In NG case they assume it delivered a 10mt descent stage to TLI. Didn't consider a 45mt descent stage delivered to LEO and making its own way to Gateway. I estimate it would arrive at Gateway as 19mt, considerably more than 10mt TLI version.

Storable propellant ascent stage used XLR132 engine, see below. At 340ISP is competitive with methane engines, plus no boiloff worries and smaller tanks.

Rocketdyne N2O4/MMH rocket engine. Out of Production. Pump-fed high performance upper stage engine for perigee/apogee stages. as well as transfer vehicles and lunar and Martian missions. Tested extensively but no production.
AKA: RS-47. Status: Out of Production. Date: 1983. Thrust: 16.70 kN (3,754 lbf). Specific impulse: 340 s. Burn time: 4,000 s. Height: 1.20 m (3.90 ft). Diameter: 0.60 m (1.96 ft).

Thanks for uploading this analysis. Makes for interesting reading, however, I think some of the assumptions and inputs in the utilitity analysis are suspect. In particular, the recurring cost and development schedules are "S" curves and very steep, and the cost attribute is underweighted IMO.

Especially true in light of NASA's evaluation criteria for HLS, which emphasizes cost. It would interesting to see how sensitive the analysis would be if this attribute was weighted higher and if the development timeline function was not as steep (thereby not penalizing WSB transfer).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/03/2020 03:00 pm
Wouldn't call it unbiased study, AJR make lot money per SLS launch ie 4xRS25 and upto 4xRL10. Any Boeing lander will use lot of ARJ engines as well.



Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 02/05/2020 02:27 am
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1224893233618194432

POTUS is definitely pro-Mars sooner rather then later. The house authorization bill aligns with his position though the VP and administrator might have different thoughts.

Edit: Full quote added. After reading it, POTUS quote is consistent with Administrator Artemis messaging.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200205/0c56a887bb3fccd8c7ede5b9230c01ff.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/06/2020 12:26 pm
Cargo and logistics awards are two months behind now. I wonder what is taking so long? Proposals were due mid October, coming up on 4 months now.

The HLS proposals submitted Nov5 seem to be on a similar timeline, last I heard awards are Feb or early March: https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1215019603090378752

I wonder if someone threw a wrench in things by making the two related (e.g. cargo system shares dev cost with crew ascent).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/06/2020 01:42 pm
Cargo and logistics awards are two months behind now. I wonder what is taking so long? Proposals were due mid October, coming up on 4 months now.

The HLS proposals submitted Nov5 seem to be on a similar timeline, last I heard awards are Feb or early March: https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1215019603090378752

I wonder if someone threw a wrench in things by making the two related (e.g. cargo system shares dev cost with crew ascent).

I believe the wrench your referring to is that the FY2020 appropriations bill limited the amount of funds NASA could spend on Gateway and HLS programs to 40%, until they released a detailed plan with cost estimates. This plan will be released February 10th, along with the Admin’s FY2021 request. There’s no coincidence that the HLS awards will be made a few weeks after this obligation is completed, I assume the logistics contracts will be awarded sometime afterwards in the following months. I actually contacted NASA’s head of the Gateway logistics program (before FY2020 passed) about this and he stated they were waiting on seeing how the budget pans out before deciding how to proceed.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/06/2020 06:56 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1225501677626761218
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 02/07/2020 06:45 pm
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-nasa-budget-will-earmark-12-boost-for-agency-in-2021-11581071402?mod=hp_lead_pos6

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1225785965190533121

Quote
President Trump will propose a 12% boost to NASA’s 2021 budget, with most of the increase aimed at fulfilling his goal of returning U.S. astronauts to the moon’s surface by 2024, according to administration officials. The increase includes nearly $3 billion in new funding to develop human landers, these officials said, with total agency outlays projected to climb to more than $25.2 billion in one of the largest overall spending increases requested for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since the 1990s.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/08/2020 03:44 am
It would be interesting to see what the out years projections are. If they keep $3B for 4 years, that's only $12B total, or $6B per provider, not a lot actually, I suspect not enough for some provider.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/08/2020 07:01 am
It would be interesting to see what the out years projections are. If they keep $3B for 4 years, that's only $12B total, or $6B per provider, not a lot actually, I suspect not enough for some provider.

It sounds like the 3 billion is on top of the .6 billion base budget which means 3.6 billion per year.

FY2020 - .6
FY2021 - 3.6
FY2022 - 3.6
FY2023 - 3.6
FY2024 - 3.6
3 months of FY2025 in CY2024 - .9

Total - 15.9
per provider - $7.95 billion
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 02/08/2020 12:44 pm
So Doug Loverro is supposed to be conducting a review of the Artemis architecture. I hear it’s supposed to wrap up soon. Any thoughts on what may or my not be tweaked?

Possible changes include (I’m spitballing):
- Using SLS more (back to back launches cargo, followed by crew)
- Skipping Gateway for first landing missions
- Upgrading SM propulsion by Artemis III
- Leverage Commercial Crew Program (crew to ISS, then ISS to Gateway)
- Use commercial launch vehicles more (not sure how, I guess you can find a way to launch Orion on something else)

Edit: added a few more.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/08/2020 03:14 pm
So Doug Loverro is supposed to be conducting a review of the Artemis architecture. I hear it’s supposed to wrap up soon. Any thoughts on what may or my not be tweaked?

Possible changes include (I’m spitballing):
- Using SLS more (back to back launches cargo, followed by crew)
- Skipping Gateway for first landing missions
- Upgrading SM propulsion by Artemis III
- Leverage Commercial Crew Program (crew to ISS, then ISS to Gateway)
- Use commercial launch vehicles more (not sure how, I guess you can find a way to launch Orion on something else)

Edit: added a few more.
If Orion is picking crew up from ISS then launching it unmmanned on commercial LV should be straight forward, with small saving of no LAS tower. In case of NG should fit under its 7m fairing, same for SS payload bay. Going need earth departure stage for Orion, as it happens 45t hydrolox EDS is enough to deliver Orion to Gateway orbit.
With NG, FH or SS options for launching EDS.

Edit. Crew launch to ISS could be x7 passengers,  Orion crew x4 and ISS crew ×3. Empty Orion would carry cargo for ISS crew. This means Orion crew launch is free as its part of standard ISS crew rotation.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 02/08/2020 05:52 pm
So Doug Loverro is supposed to be conducting a review of the Artemis architecture. I hear it’s supposed to wrap up soon. Any thoughts on what may or my not be tweaked?
I feel like we might see them transitioning to a higher landing cadence after the first few missions, but that's just a random hypothesis.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/10/2020 01:48 pm
It would make me a lot happier if we stopped attaching arbitrary dates to pieces of legislation.

That's not the problem, IMO.  They all just don't do the work to achieve the date.  The President rarely leads, Congress just bickers, and the agency just keeps putzing along.

It is absolutely part of the problem. Arbitrary dates lead to decisions being made in a vain attempt to meet them. You can't make a baby in 4 months with any amount of leadership and chutzpah.

Well, I certainly will admit that arbitrary dates are a "part" of the problem.  While it is true that nine women can't make a baby in a month, it is also true that that analogy fails because the nature of the process, landing two women on the Moon, can be significantly aided by focusing the workforce on the mission.  Also, the term "arbitrary" can mean whatever some poster wants it to mean, it is also a part of the problem that the workforce management seem to refuse to keep irrelevant "nice to haves" from clogging the schedule.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/10/2020 01:57 pm
No, with commercial cargo there was a period of time when both providers were down.

Keep in mind that the Russians are a "provider".
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/10/2020 02:25 pm
No, with commercial cargo there was a period of time when both providers were down.

Keep in mind that the Russians are a "provider".

As is JAXA with their HTV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/10/2020 02:47 pm
So Doug Loverro is supposed to be conducting a review of the Artemis architecture. I hear it’s supposed to wrap up soon. Any thoughts on what may or my not be tweaked?

Possible changes include (I’m spitballing):
- Using SLS more (back to back launches cargo, followed by crew)
- Skipping Gateway for first landing missions
- Upgrading SM propulsion by Artemis III
- Leverage Commercial Crew Program (crew to ISS, then ISS to Gateway)
- Use commercial launch vehicles more (not sure how, I guess you can find a way to launch Orion on something else)

Edit: added a few more.

How can they make changes when companies already submitted their proposal for HLS based on existing architecture? Seems to me if they make changes, they'll have to redo the bidding process, which will further delay things. Also I suspect the budget request number submitted to congress is based on existing HLS bids, which would be invalidated if they make big changes.

For the possible changes, I believe skipping Gateway for first landing is already possible in the current RFP. Alternative crew transport was asked in HLS RFP Q&A, a company asked if NASA is interested in commercial crew transport to Gateway, NASA said no. If they change their mind, I expect this would be a separate RFP from HLS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/10/2020 06:29 pm
In today's State of NASA speech Jim Bridenstine stated that HLS system will be awarded in the "coming months".  ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/10/2020 06:51 pm
In today's State of NASA speech Jim Bridenstine stated that HLS system will be awarded in the "coming months".  ::)

https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1226934547083911174

Quote
Bridenstine: NASA is serious about meeting our 2024 goal.  HLS team hard at work evaluating several proposals from industry and preparing to make awards in the coming months.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: AnalogMan on 02/10/2020 07:18 pm
Latest update on HLS on beta.sam.gov (contract opportunity) also confirming the above:

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/faba44e72bd342e7bcdaabbb7cdb5d09/view (https://beta.sam.gov/opp/faba44e72bd342e7bcdaabbb7cdb5d09/view)

"*February 10, 2020* - The purpose of this notice is to post the following update:  NASA now anticipates that awards for the NextSTEP-2 Appendix H Human Landing System BAA will be made in late March or early April, 2020."
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/10/2020 07:38 pm
It is absolutely part of the problem. Arbitrary dates lead to decisions being made in a vain attempt to meet them. You can't make a baby in 4 months with any amount of leadership and chutzpah.

Well, I certainly will admit that arbitrary dates are a "part" of the problem.  While it is true that nine women can't make a baby in a month, it is also true that that analogy fails because the nature of the process, landing two women on the Moon, can be significantly aided by focusing the workforce on the mission.

To a certain degree, sure. But what is required to do that is both resources (i.e. companies that can do the work required) and money to pay for the resources. And I would advocate that we are approaching the point where, short of declaring a national emergency, that there isn't enough time to make the 2024 date regardless if Congress gave NASA a blank check. And Congress is not going to give NASA a blank check.

Quote
Also, the term "arbitrary" can mean whatever some poster wants it to mean, it is also a part of the problem that the workforce management seem to refuse to keep irrelevant "nice to haves" from clogging the schedule.

Let's stick with the origin of the 2024 date. It was not picked based on a bottoms-up review of what was possible, it was a date created to coincide with the end of a potential 2nd Trump term in office. And politically mandated dates are not unusual, but we shouldn't ignore the problems that they create, which in this case that there isn't a cohesive plan yet and not a buy in from Congress that 2024 is the right date.

Which means there is a MASSIVE mismatch between management, resources, and money. Not a recipe for success.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/10/2020 09:09 pm
Let's stick with the origin of the 2024 date.

No, let's not.  Let's choose the also arbitrary 2015 date:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/president-bush-pledges-to-return-to-the-moon

"President Bush announced plans Wednesday to develop a new spacecraft to send humans back to the moon as early as 2015 and use it as a launching point for manned missions to Mars and beyond. Two experts debate whether the missions are the best use of science dollars."

All of these dates are arbitrary. 2024 is totally doable, but for the people who won't do it.  The NPR Transcript I just linked opens up in an interesting fashion:

RAY SUAREZ:  "So your quibble is with the idea of sending human beings onto Mars?" [He might as well have said the Moon.]

ROBERT PARK:  "Yes, exactly. It's a rather old-fashioned sort of idea."

Quote from: Coastal Ron

Which means there is a MASSIVE mismatch between management, resources, and money. Not a recipe for success.

The "mismatch" is that the team tasked with landing the next two women on the Moon lacks the will, I guess, to make this "old fashioned" idea happen.  Who on this thread is saying what I'm saying?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 02/10/2020 09:52 pm
It must be a real pain to work at NASA and cope with this political and funding c**p.  To have to rush to try to fulfill a presidents time scale, with enthusiasm, energy, skill and good judgement, whilst knowing there is a good chance that your efforts will be frustrated, must really undermine full engagement, and confident decision making. Then there is I assume, the process of trying to "hedge ones bets" so that urgent necessary actions and investments for the faster time scale, will not become a useless waste, if the tempo reverts to "normal"!
Too many of these soul destroying reversals, and the most passionate may chuck in the towel and go work for a different rocket company!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/10/2020 10:58 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1227017263221477377

Quote
One other tidbit from NASA's @DouglasLoverro today: He will release an updated Artemis I launch date in about six weeks when he testifies before Congress.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 02:28 am
Quote
NASA puts a price on a 2024 Moon landing—$35 billion
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-puts-a-price-on-a-2024-moon-landing-35-billion/

My calculation suggests that isn't the case at all.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/11/2020 02:29 am
All of these dates are arbitrary. 2024 is totally doable, but for the people who won't do it.

With the Apollo program we had both the administration and the Congress in sync on what the goal was - show up the USSR. And Kennedy provided a goal of "by the end of this decade", which was 8 years away.

Notice though that in order for NASA to meet that goal that it required up to 4% of the total Federal budget. As a reference, NASA currently only gets less than 0.5% of the Federal budget.

Now while it is true that getting back to the Moon should be a lot easier today than it was 50 years ago, it still isn't cheap, and it does take time.

But what we don't have today, that we had for Apollo, is a government-wide consensus that returning humans to the Moon is a NEED. Which is part of the reason why 2024 is NOT doable. And that is a failure on the part of Trump, since it was his proposal, and his responsibility to get government-wide buy-in.

Quote
Which means there is a MASSIVE mismatch between management, resources, and money. Not a recipe for success.

The "mismatch" is that the team tasked with landing the next two women on the Moon lacks the will, I guess, to make this "old fashioned" idea happen.

1. Pence has only said "The first woman, and the next man", no reference to two women.

2. NASA, as an organization, does not lack the will to go to the Moon. That is a silly statement. They lack official government-wide support.

3. Why do we need to do an "old fashioned" idea? Justify that and you'll get the funding. But so far Trump has failed to justify that, which is why Congress is not willing to commit to 2024.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/11/2020 03:36 am
Quote
NASA puts a price on a 2024 Moon landing—$35 billion
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-puts-a-price-on-a-2024-moon-landing-35-billion/

My calculation suggests that isn't the case at all.

The number came from Morhard (Deputy Administrator), NASA PAO issued a clarification later:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1227070410132512771

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: envy887 on 02/11/2020 12:28 pm
Quote
NASA puts a price on a 2024 Moon landing—$35 billion
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-puts-a-price-on-a-2024-moon-landing-35-billion/

My calculation suggests that isn't the case at all.

Your $19B is the cost over what we're already spending on SLS/Orion, since SLS/Orion are included in that 2019 budget. That's the lander, surface systems, etc.

The $35B is the total for Artemis 1, 2, and 3 hardware and ops.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 02/11/2020 12:28 pm
If you do the math, $17.8 billion goes to the HLS through 2024 (see attached file).

That $17.8 billion is probably for more than one proposals (at least two). Cut that number in half, around $9, for a single proposal. One of the teams, probably Blue, has pledged to self-finance up to 30%, which leaves around $6 that NASA would need to finance to get one of the proposals to the flight hardware stage in time for Artemis III in 2024.

So let the budget games begin. Should be interesting to watch.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2020 12:48 pm

1. Pence has only said "The first woman, and the next man", no reference to two women.


What I've said is that the first American woman on the Moon should be a black woman, and the next American after her should also be a woman.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/11/2020 01:04 pm
If you do the math, $17.8 billion goes to the HLS through 2024 (see attached file).

That $17.8 billion is probably for more than one proposals (at least two). ...

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1226999099947470850

So it is either a made up number or they are waiting to select what they can afford after the politics are done...  :o

I just can't get over how drawn out this process is.

The first synopsis was issued April 8, 2019.
Proposals were due November 5, 2019.

7 months for vendors to design and commit to firm fixed price on lunar landers.

5 to 6 months for NASA to make a decision....

And apparently SLS and Orion still can't get to FFP....
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 02/11/2020 05:38 pm
3. Why do we need to do an "old fashioned" idea? Justify that and you'll get the funding. But so far Trump has failed to justify that, which is why Congress is not willing to commit to 2024.

So long as the Congress continues in the makeup that it is, Congress will not be willing to commit to 2024 or anything else that begins with the President. Why waste political capital on a guaranteed loser? Better to wait until after the election and see how the House shakes out. Does it stay Democrat? The stalemate will continue. Does it flip Republican? The stalemate dies and it'll be a different picture.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 05:50 pm
3. Why do we need to do an "old fashioned" idea? Justify that and you'll get the funding. But so far Trump has failed to justify that, which is why Congress is not willing to commit to 2024.

So long as the Congress continues in the makeup that it is, Congress will not be willing to commit to 2024 or anything else that begins with the President. Why waste political capital on a guaranteed loser? Better to wait until after the election and see how the House shakes out. Does it stay Democrat? The stalemate will continue. Does it flip Republican? The stalemate dies and it'll be a different picture.

Well, Congress is a bicameral legislature. The senate, on most matters, has the same authority as the house does and the majority in the senate has a natural disposition to agree with their current party leadership. 2024 isn't the wall. The Democratic house won't sink a bill because half of 1% of the budget is going to NASA. If the president says that this has to be in the bill, it will show up in the senate and it will make it through conference, nearly guaranteed. And it is worth pointing out that your hypothesis that everything that comes from the administration is DOA has been proven wrong. Look at gateway, HLS, CLPS, etc. All of that originated from the current administration.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/11/2020 07:21 pm
3. Why do we need to do an "old fashioned" idea? Justify that and you'll get the funding. But so far Trump has failed to justify that, which is why Congress is not willing to commit to 2024.

So long as the Congress continues in the makeup that it is, Congress will not be willing to commit to 2024 or anything else that begins with the President. Why waste political capital on a guaranteed loser? Better to wait until after the election and see how the House shakes out. Does it stay Democrat? The stalemate will continue. Does it flip Republican? The stalemate dies and it'll be a different picture.

I agree that were the House and Senate in GOP majorities, that the President could get more work done for the country, some of that work possibly  being the accomplishment of the next human return to the Moon.  Still, the work itself comes down to NASA, and if the sentiment here reflects the sentiment there, then a lunar return remains an "old fashioned" idea, and the rank and file, directed by upper level management will slow walk the mission.

Every target date for human exploration of the Moon has been arbitrary, starting with JFK's date.  I would like to feel less cynical.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/11/2020 07:50 pm
3. Why do we need to do an "old fashioned" idea? Justify that and you'll get the funding. But so far Trump has failed to justify that, which is why Congress is not willing to commit to 2024.

So long as the Congress continues in the makeup that it is, Congress will not be willing to commit to 2024 or anything else that begins with the President.

Returning Americans to the Moon is not unique to Trump. He just happens to be the latest President proposing doing it, and he wants it done before the end of a potential second term.

The current Congress is OK with returning Americans to the Moon, but what they have resisted is A) not knowing the cost, and B) not knowing why 2024 is important to America, and not just Trump.

So no, Congress is not treating the return to Moon like the regular crazy stuff Trump tries to do, this is something that has long been an interest, and assets and opportunities seem to be lining up. As for Trump himself, this is what he has said (https://www.space.com/trump-us-space-program-nasa-moon-mars-and-australia.html):
Quote
I said, 'Hey, we've done the moon. That's not so exciting.' So we'll be doing the moon. But we'll really be doing Mars."

So Trump himself has been sending mixed signals on what is important.

Quote
Why waste political capital on a guaranteed loser? Better to wait until after the election and see how the House shakes out. Does it stay Democrat? The stalemate will continue. Does it flip Republican? The stalemate dies and it'll be a different picture.

You've built stuff, so you understand that there is a limit to where money can make a difference to a schedule, and I think we have already passed that point for the 2024 landing. If Trump is re-elected, the Senate stays in Republican control (with a super majority), and the House reverts to Republican control, the legislation that they could enact won't go into effect until September 2021, and that would definitely be too late to make a significant change in program speed. Too much human-rated hardware has to be developed, built, tested and certified to have that happen in 3 short years.

No, I think this budget year will make or break the 2024 date, but Congress has said they do support a 2028 landing on the Moon, regardless what Trump wants.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/11/2020 08:03 pm
Every target date for human exploration of the Moon has been arbitrary, starting with JFK's date.  I would like to feel less cynical.

Kennedy based his goal on what his advisors were telling him MIGHT be possible when he addressed Congress and announced the goal in 1961. I think everyone understood that it was a soft goal, not a hard one, with the pay off being to burnish America's image in the Cold War - so not something that would benefit Kennedy.

The Constellation program had the goal of a "return to the Moon no later than 2020", which was 15 years into the future. Which had a hard date, but with 15 years to make it. Which if Michael Griffin hadn't screwed it up they could have made it. And this goal was part of the reaction to the Columbia accident, so again, a national goal.

There was no such assessment done for the 2024 date by the Trump administration, and the surprise goal of 2024 was announced by V.P. Pence March 26, 2019, giving just over 5 years to make the goal. No direct connection to a national need has been identified, just the desire to have it happen during a 2nd Trump term in office.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/11/2020 08:33 pm
Every target date for human exploration of the Moon has been arbitrary, starting with JFK's date.  I would like to feel less cynical.

Kennedy based his goal on what his advisors were telling him MIGHT be possible when he addressed Congress and announced the goal in 1961. I think everyone understood that it was a soft goal, not a hard one, with the pay off being to burnish America's image in the Cold War - so not something that would benefit Kennedy.

That sort of contradicts the 1961 speech itself...

Quote
Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share...
-John F. Kennedy, May 1961.

As such, if Apollo just makes America look like a wasteful decadent system that throws away resources on vanity projects, it would still be required under "whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share...".
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: goretexguy on 02/11/2020 08:37 pm
Every target date for human exploration of the Moon has been arbitrary, starting with JFK's date.  I would like to feel less cynical.

Kennedy based his goal on what his advisors were telling him MIGHT be possible when he addressed Congress and announced the goal in 1961. I think everyone understood that it was a soft goal, not a hard one, with the pay off being to burnish America's image in the Cold War - so not something that would benefit Kennedy.

The Constellation program had the goal of a "return to the Moon no later than 2020", which was 15 years into the future. Which had a hard date, but with 15 years to make it. Which if Michael Griffin hadn't screwed it up they could have made it. And this goal was part of the reaction to the Columbia accident, so again, a national goal.

There was no such assessment done for the 2024 date by the Trump administration, and the surprise goal of 2024 was announced by V.P. Pence March 26, 2019, giving just over 5 years to make the goal. No direct connection to a national need has been identified, just the desire to have it happen during a 2nd Trump term in office.

Personal cynicism aside, I'm anxious for something useful to be done with my tax dollars, as well as the debt being foisted upon my children and grandchildren. At the rate we're (not) going, we'd get to the moon faster just by stacking up the money and building a tower.

Apollo developed whole new technologies, the benefits of which we're still enjoying. Apollo was worth every penny spent.

Artemis... I don't know what new rocket tech areas we're going to develop to *get off* Earth, but I'm confident that what we learn from ISRU and Remote Long Duration Spaceflight (RLDS anyone?) will have considerable value. I also suspect we'll develop some very useful energy storage technologies.

$35 Billion is a mountain of money, but Apollo cost (roughly adjusted) ten times this amount. I'd estimate that we stand to gain half the benefit of Apollo, but for around 1/10th the cost.

If Artemis is successful and the President gets his face on Rushmore, so be it, so long as my children, my country and the world also see worthwhile benefits. So... let's stop goofing around and get on with it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 02/11/2020 08:55 pm
Every target date for human exploration of the Moon has been arbitrary, starting with JFK's date.  I would like to feel less cynical.

Kennedy based his goal on what his advisors were telling him MIGHT be possible when he addressed Congress and announced the goal in 1961. I think everyone understood that it was a soft goal, not a hard one, with the pay off being to burnish America's image in the Cold War - so not something that would benefit Kennedy.

That sort of contradicts the 1961 speech itself...

Quote
Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share...
-John F. Kennedy, May 1961.

As such, if Apollo just makes America look like a wasteful decadent system that throws away resources on vanity projects, it would still be required under "whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share...".
The quote you provide does not contradict Coastal Ron's statements, in fact other quotes from that speech directly support the statements:

Quote
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not.

And from the speech at Rice:
Quote
only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.
For anyone who has read through these original speeches, and looked at the context it is absolutely clear that this was a peaceful way of fighting the cold war, of showing the superiority of democracy and capitalism over communism. The point was to demonstrate the USA as being superior to the USSR. the assurance that the activities in space would themselves be peaceful does not change that.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JAFO on 02/11/2020 09:09 pm
An over budget, behind schedule program has been given a goal for no reason by a president who has never broken 50% approval rating and who’s latest budget proposal takes an axe to social welfare programs, including for those of the elderly, that he promised never to touch.



Aside from that, I don’t see any obstacles.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/12/2020 05:03 am
$35 Billion is a mountain of money, but Apollo cost (roughly adjusted) ten times this amount.

Nonsense. In then year dollars Apollo cost $19.4B which is $134.1B in 2020 dollars. This is adjusting each year for inflation, using standard inflation values, and not not made up ones like NASA's newstart index. This is 3.8 times $35B. Attached is my spreadsheet.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

R. W. Orloff and D. M. Harland, "Apollo: The definitive sourcebook," Springer-Praxix Publishing, Chichester, UK, 2006.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 02/12/2020 12:23 pm
... adjusting each year for inflation, using standard inflation values, and not not made up ones like NASA's newstart index....

There are good reasons (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33022.msg1107882#msg1107882) that the rate of inflation most applicable to a NASA project would differ from the rate applicable to, say, consumer products.

On the other hand, the suitability of a particular inflation index depends on the purpose.  If one wants to know what NASA could do with $1 billion today compared to what it could do in 1965, then an aerospace-specific inflation rate is relevant.  If one wants to know how much consumption Americans forego for NASA today compared to how much they forewent in 1965, a consumer-product-specific rate is more appropriate.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2020 12:35 pm
Every target date for human exploration of the Moon has been arbitrary, starting with JFK's date.  I would like to feel less cynical.

Kennedy based his goal on what his advisors were telling him MIGHT be possible when he addressed Congress and announced the goal in 1961. I think everyone understood that it was a soft goal, not a hard one...

You don't say whether or not any of the succeeding Presidents announcing a human return to the Moon were advised.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
The Constellation program had the goal of a "return to the Moon no later than 2020", which was 15 years into the future. Which had a hard date, but with 15 years to make it. Which if Michael Griffin hadn't screwed it up they could have made it. ...

You don't say why some hard dates are better than other hard dates, or even soft dates.  Is there a magic about fifteen years and Mohs hardness scale?  And Michael Griffin was the sole person responsible for the failure to accomplish a clear goal?

Quote from: Coastal Ron
There was no such assessment done for the 2024 date by the Trump administration, and the surprise goal of 2024 was announced by V.P. Pence March 26, 2019, giving just over 5 years to make the goal. No direct connection to a national need has been identified, just the desire to have it happen during a 2nd Trump term in office.

How do you know there was "no such assessment"? Because Trump?  Good answer.

Was Kennedy's announcement not a surprise?  Bush's? A "surprise" announcement about NASA would be any such announcement from Bernie.

Is five years some kind of universally accepted date that guarantees failure?  Do we not have the design skills, technology, and manufacturing capability to get back to the Moon?  After all, the US had the design skills, technology, and manufacturing capability to re-enact an unmanned Mercury flight for only $11B in way less than fifteen years. 

Suddenly and surprisingly, Pence's comments identifying our national need to enact a human return to the Moon are completely invalid per some well known metric?  The 'Because Pence' metric?

Quote from: Pence
The United States must remain first in space in this century as in the last, not just to propel our economy and secure our nation but, above all, because the rules and values of space, like every great frontier, will be written by those who have the courage to get there first and the commitment to stay.

https://www.space.com/us-astronauts-moon-return-by-2024.html

Finally, it must be a complete surprise to some that President Trump would dare to contemplate his legacy as a proponent for peaceful purposes, opening up the Moon for the Common Heritage of Mankind.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2020 12:40 pm

... The point was to demonstrate the USA as being superior to the USSR. the assurance that the activities in space would themselves be peaceful does not change that.

Bingo.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2020 12:41 pm
An over budget, behind schedule program...

JWST is in a different thread.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2020 12:51 pm
$35 Billion is a mountain of money, but Apollo cost (roughly adjusted) ten times this amount.

Nonsense. In then year dollars Apollo cost $19.4B which is $134.1B in 2020 dollars. This is adjusting each year for inflation, using standard inflation values, and not not made up ones like NASA's newstart index. This is 3.8 times $35B. Attached is my spreadsheet.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

R. W. Orloff and D. M. Harland, "Apollo: The definitive sourcebook," Springer-Praxix Publishing, Chichester, UK, 2006.

Sadly, this is the math error on the budget for Artemis that is dominating the airwaves. $35B is how much extra money NASA is saying that they want in order to return two women to the Moon.  The $35B does not count the development work on Constellation, Orion, SLS, or any of the work done to date.

As an aside, it is my idea to specify the race and gender of the next two Americans to return to the Moon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 02/12/2020 01:02 pm
I made the comment I did wrt the political makeup of Congress vs the President simply to state an obvious observation - that the current Congress was not going to support any discretionary spending (like NASA) that it didn't have to, just because of the animosity between the House and the President, NOT to start an OT sub-thread, like it appears this is going. Please return to the subject itself and cease political commentary. There are other threads for that. Thanks.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 02/12/2020 01:04 pm
$35 Billion is a mountain of money, but Apollo cost (roughly adjusted) ten times this amount.

Nonsense. In then year dollars Apollo cost $19.4B which is $134.1B in 2020 dollars. This is adjusting each year for inflation, using standard inflation values, and not not made up ones like NASA's newstart index. This is 3.8 times $35B. Attached is my spreadsheet.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

R. W. Orloff and D. M. Harland, "Apollo: The definitive sourcebook," Springer-Praxix Publishing, Chichester, UK, 2006.

Sadly, this is the math error on the budget for Artemis that is dominating the airwaves. $35B is how much extra money NASA is saying that they want in order to return two women to the Moon.  The $35B does not count the development work on Constellation, Orion, SLS, or any of the work done to date.

As an aside, it is my idea to specify the race and gender of the next two Americans to return to the Moon.
Why's that?   Who would your 2 picks be?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: goretexguy on 02/12/2020 02:51 pm
$35 Billion is a mountain of money, but Apollo cost (roughly adjusted) ten times this amount. I'd estimate that we stand to gain half the benefit of Apollo, but for around 1/10th the cost.

My goal with this statement was not to debate politics or the exact inflation rate over the last 50(!) years, but to point out that this money should be a worthwhile expenditure, so long as we actually get to Luna or Mars and Do The Things.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/20/2020 02:14 am
https://twitter.com/jmorhard/status/1230266218696843264

Quote
Preference is to use Gateway, but for early missions to the lunar surface (Artemis III & IV), offerors could propose Orion, & crew would dock directly with HLS or dock to Gateway. For Artemis V & beyond, to support sustainable exploration, use of Gateway would be required.

So no sign of any change of plan in terms of HLS, I thought one way of speeding things up is to skip Gateway altogether, but it looks like they're sticking to it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 02/21/2020 04:57 pm
Could it be possible to bolt the PPE and HALO on ground and launch them together with SLS? That would simplify the implementation of the Gateway.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/22/2020 12:50 am
Could it be possible to bolt the PPE and HALO on ground and launch them together with SLS? That would simplify the implementation of the Gateway.

There is no SLS available. They plan to launch them in 2022/2023, there is only Artemis-2 available at that time frame, and it's a block 1, couldn't co-manifest.

SLS launch rate is designed to be very low, which is why it's a bad idea to rely on it to do the heavy lifting for Artemis.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 02/22/2020 09:36 am
I guess the mass would be too large for FH ?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: pochimax on 02/22/2020 11:16 am
NASA wants to do on orbit tests of PPE before attaching anything to it, so there is zero chances of launching PPE+HALO at the same time, no matter how cheap or expensive launching them.

Of course, launching both with an SLS is incredible more expensive in comparison with commercial launches.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 02/22/2020 12:25 pm
Could it be possible to bolt the PPE and HALO on ground and launch them together with SLS? That would simplify the implementation of the Gateway.
Either this is an extreme coincidence or you’re hearing some of the stuff I’m hearing.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/22/2020 01:24 pm
NASA wants to do on orbit tests of PPE before attaching anything to it, so there is zero chances of launching PPE+HALO at the same time, no matter how cheap or expensive launching them.

Of course, launching both with an SLS is incredible more expensive in comparison with commercial launches.

The testing is to make sure that the criteria, "no matter how cheap", is not met.  Ever.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 02/22/2020 06:46 pm
Plus, the PPE and HALO are the easiest modules to make free-flying.

The PPE already needs to have fully-capable propulsion and navigation systems as part of its job description, so it doesn't need any significant modifications to place itself into NRHO.

HALO is essentially a Lunar Cygnus with extra life support tacked-on, and I'd imagine Northrop Grumman gave NASA a good price for it, considering the advantage having those systems already in production will give them in the Gateway resupply bidding.

It's only once you start talking about the more specialized modules that hauling around the dead weight of propulsion and guidance systems becomes an issue. With EUS you can use Orion to do that, meaning more of that 10t CPL can be useful payload. Without it or some substitute, you need to take the Russian approach.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 02/22/2020 06:52 pm
Could it be possible to bolt the PPE and HALO on ground and launch them together with SLS? That would simplify the implementation of the Gateway.

What better way to subvert the intent of small modules than to bolt them together and therefore "define" a reason for an SLS launch.

What part of 3 billion dollar rocket launches once every two years makes sense to anybody?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/23/2020 03:22 am
I guess the mass would be too large for FH ?

You mean the combined mass? I'm not sure. PPE is less than 7.5t, if HALO is also less than 7.5t, it can fit on FH mass wise, not sure about fairing though, maybe they can launch it on New Glenn.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: lucspace on 02/26/2020 03:54 pm
During vice president Pence's Langley visit some large images were use as a background. Would anyone have a link to the full original ones?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 02/27/2020 03:57 pm
During vice president Pence's Langley visit some large images were use as a background. Would anyone have a link to the full original ones?
The lander image is an original Constellation image, showing the Altair lander. You’ll have to dig in 12+ years old NASA archives to find it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: primer_black on 02/27/2020 04:32 pm
During vice president Pence's Langley visit some large images were use as a background. Would anyone have a link to the full original ones?

Fun to see the LSMS prototype holding the simulated equipment box in the air in the foreground, mirroring the illustration on the backdrop poster. Good to see that old crane still getting some use.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/27/2020 05:41 pm
Could it be possible to bolt the PPE and HALO on ground and launch them together with SLS? That would simplify the implementation of the Gateway.

What better way to subvert the intent of small modules than to bolt them together and therefore "define" a reason for an SLS launch.

What part of 3 billion dollar rocket launches once every two years makes sense to anybody?

To reiterate something for the original poster: the total PRICE to NASA for PPE including launch is $375 Million.
https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-maxar-to-build-first-gateway-element/
That's development, hardware, testing and launch.

Even optimistic cost estimated for SLS pretty much double the total mission cost. One could literally build an operating spare for less than the cost increase.

Now carry that same logic to the rest of the program....
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/27/2020 11:14 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1233181981598527488

Quote
Story: arstechnica.com/science/2020/0…

NASA says this isn't really the plan. I think it probably is. We'll find out in a few weeks.

Quote
NASA planning document may offer clues to changes in Artemis program
The plan asks a lot of Boeing.

ERIC BERGER - 2/27/2020, 11:55 PM

NASA is close to finalizing a plan to land humans on the Moon in 2024 and is expected to publicly discuss it next month. While the space agency has not released its revised strategy publicly, a recently updated "mission manifest" for the Space Launch System rocket may provide some clues about the new Artemis Program.

According to a planning document circulated at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center this week, titled "Moon 2024 Mission Manifest," the space agency has set target launch dates for its first 10 Artemis Moon missions. In doing so, the agency has shaken up the order of launches and emphasized the use of NASA's Space Launch System in the lunar return.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 02/27/2020 11:56 pm
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1233190552826515456
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/28/2020 12:20 am
https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1233198873524436994

Quote
Absolutely bizarre. Now not only are Congress and the White House giving NASA extreme whiplash, the space agency is itself internally divided to the point that an entire Space Flight Center (Marshall) has created & distributed a detailed plan that is somehow not the actual plan
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/28/2020 12:31 am
One possibility is that Doug Loverro has commissioned a team of folks over at MSFC to study a plan using to go full steam on Artemis with just SLS and no Gateway. Another team is analyzing the HLS bids in conjunction with all the Gateway components (cargo still hasn't been awarded).

Neither team is made aware of the other in order to keep the study as blind as possible.

This would also be the best possible method, get both plans side by side and decide which direction to move based on merit.

So like Schrodinger's cat this is both the plan and not the plan, we'll only know when Doug tells us.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/28/2020 12:39 am
https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1233198873524436994

Quote
Absolutely bizarre. Now not only are Congress and the White House giving NASA extreme whiplash, the space agency is itself internally divided to the point that an entire Space Flight Center (Marshall) has created & distributed a detailed plan that is somehow not the actual plan

No, it is Eric Berger causing drama...again. NASA needs to find whoever is talking to him and fire him. This isn't whistle blowing. The administrator is a busy guy, he shouldn't be having to respond to inaccurate leaks over and over again. Who ever is speaking to him, likely has his own agenda, is not authorized as a public affairs officer and doesn't speak for the agency. My guess is this was an internal document drawn up to evaluate the HLS bids, one of which included an HLS launched on a block 1B (Boeing's proposal, possibly Dynetics/Blue Origin's proposal as well). Either that, or it was something drawn up to evaluate possible effects of the house's nasa authorization act. Of course, taken completely out of context.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/28/2020 01:37 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/28/2020 01:46 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?

It is completely possible that this is a auto-generated email to find the leaker. That is why it doesn't make sense.  Each person would get their own version. Whichever one gets published traces the leaker. Microsoft actually embedded a code into their xbox 360 console that showed on an animation on screen. This allowed them to trace leakers based on footage posted online.
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 02/28/2020 02:09 am
This isn’t the plan. I hope Eric corrects the record once the actual plan is released in the coming weeks. He loves to paint anything SLS related in the worst possible light.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/28/2020 02:16 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?

There are a bunch of cargo flights, some of the architectures study make use of drop tanks for the lander. May be a possibility there.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/28/2020 02:23 am
I have to wonder what Lockheed and their Orion team have to be thinking about all the uncertainty going on.  If Orion switched to a cheaper commercial launcher, they might get significantly more flights and revenue.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: geza on 02/28/2020 02:47 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?

There are a bunch of cargo flights, some of the architectures study make use of drop tanks for the lander. May be a possibility there.

Maybe, they reuse that single lander. They can refuel it with either the cargo capacity of SLS, or by commercial launcher,s or both. No Gateway.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/28/2020 03:07 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?

There are a bunch of cargo flights, some of the architectures study make use of drop tanks for the lander. May be a possibility there.

Maybe, they reuse that single lander. They can refuel it with either the cargo capacity of SLS, or by commercial launcher,s or both. No Gateway.

There is no cargo flight around 2026, the cargo flight for 2028 happens 6 months after Orion flight, so I don't think it's refueling. Besides, Boeing lander is two stages, the TLI capability of Block 1B is limited, they can't afford the mass for a single stage lander.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 02/28/2020 12:37 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/)

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?

It is completely possible that this is a auto-generated email to find the leaker. That is why it doesn't make sense.  Each person would get their own version. Whichever one gets published traces the leaker. Microsoft actually embedded a code into their xbox 360 console that showed on an animation on screen. This allowed them to trace leakers based on footage posted online.

If this was a plan to find a leaker than Jim B. would not openly react on Twitter because it would have the adverse effect of implying a turf war between NASA HQ and MSFC.

The fact that Jim B. DID openly counter this on Twitter is a clear indicator there IS a turf war going on.
Shifting everything to SLS, not using commercial launchers and steering towards a fully integrated lander has all the hall-marks of the pet-company of a certain senator from Alabama.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 02/28/2020 12:43 pm
https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1233198873524436994 (https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1233198873524436994)

Quote
Absolutely bizarre. Now not only are Congress and the White House giving NASA extreme whiplash, the space agency is itself internally divided to the point that an entire Space Flight Center (Marshall) has created & distributed a detailed plan that is somehow not the actual plan

No, it is Eric Berger causing drama...again. NASA needs to find whoever is talking to him and fire him. This isn't whistle blowing. The administrator is a busy guy, he shouldn't be having to respond to inaccurate leaks over and over again. Who ever is speaking to him, likely has his own agenda, is not authorized as a public affairs officer and doesn't speak for the agency. My guess is this was an internal document drawn up to evaluate the HLS bids, one of which included an HLS launched on a block 1B (Boeing's proposal, possibly Dynetics/Blue Origin's proposal as well). Either that, or it was something drawn up to evaluate possible effects of the house's nasa authorization act. Of course, taken completely out of context.

You state that the information is an inaccurate leak. However, your evidence to back this up is wrapped in "my guess", "likely", "possibly" and "either that, or".

Which indicates that you don't really know if the information is incorrect, or not. All we have so far is the word of Jim B. versus the word of Eric B. Basically switching arsenic for cyanide.


Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 02/28/2020 02:37 pm
All this shows only one thing : the sooner NASA rolls out the Plan and provides the actual Artemis launch dates, the better. Otherwise we will continue to have these rumors, totally false, half true, biased, or the real thing.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 02/28/2020 02:39 pm
It is completely possible that this is a auto-generated email to find the leaker. That is why it doesn't make sense.  Each person would get their own version. Whichever one gets published traces the leaker. Microsoft actually embedded a code into their xbox 360 console that showed on an animation on screen. This allowed them to trace leakers based on footage posted online.
I very much doubt that's the case. I think this document was very real, if perhaps taken out of context.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: tesla66 on 02/28/2020 05:36 pm
The way I took that potential new schedule was an option A/option B plan. Let Boeing have their cake and eat it too. Allow Boeing to rush development on EUS and speed up SLS production and develop a commercial launched option in parallel. If Boeing is successful you get a lander and EUS/block 1B, if not you rely on the commercial option with the added benefit of expedited EUS development for relatively small added pork.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/28/2020 06:27 pm
https://twitter.com/BettinaInclan/status/1233470893252382724

The head of communications at NASA is saying the inaccurate plan circulating wasn’t even considered by NASA leadership, which suggests this whole debacle originates internally from Marshall.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/28/2020 06:47 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/)

This plan is strange, there is only one launch of integrated lander on SLS in 10 years, what happens after 2024? No more landings? Move lander to commercial LV? There's an Orion flight in 2026/2028 but nothing else accompany it, it goes to Gateway? Commercial launched lander accompanying it?

It is completely possible that this is a auto-generated email to find the leaker. That is why it doesn't make sense.  Each person would get their own version. Whichever one gets published traces the leaker. Microsoft actually embedded a code into their xbox 360 console that showed on an animation on screen. This allowed them to trace leakers based on footage posted online.

If this was a plan to find a leaker than Jim B. would not openly react on Twitter because it would have the adverse effect of implying a turf war between NASA HQ and MSFC.

The fact that Jim B. DID openly counter this on Twitter is a clear indicator there IS a turf war going on.
Shifting everything to SLS, not using commercial launchers and steering towards a fully integrated lander has all the hall-marks of the pet-company of a certain senator from Alabama.

This was a sting. They published it Monday, withdrew it on Wednesday. Bridenstine went on twitter and squashed it within an hour which means he probably knew it was coming. There are months associated with the launch date out to 2030. If you assign 3 different launch months to each of the different launch dates, you can generate 531441 different permutations which means that if 1 of say 5000 email permutations gets put on Ars Technica, you can be pretty sure that it isn't a coincidence that the launch months match exactly.

Cyber security is a very big deal at NASA, and so they don't take documents walking out the door lightly. Doug Loverro previously worked at the DOD and NRO. Tracing leaks and counter espionage techniques like this are certainly part of his background and in his wheel house.
 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/28/2020 07:22 pm
Y’all at NASA need to find out whoever is leaking to Berger and dispose of them, what he’s writing is half-baked to the point that it’s becoming misinformation and is hurting NASA’s image.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/28/2020 07:23 pm
Is this a Tom Clancy novel or just a reality?

Quote
Two NASA supervisors were criminally indicted Tuesday under U.S. espionage laws for “willfully violating” national security regulations while allowing a visiting Chinese foreign national to gain “complete and unrestricted access” to the space agency’s Langley Research Center, according to the U.S. Attorneys office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
https://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/nasa-supervisors-charged-in-chinese-spy-case/

A little context is in order. This leak via Eric Berger has been generating nearly exclusively negative Artemis stories for a while now. NASA management seems to care about the program.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 02/28/2020 07:31 pm
But wait... there’s more... Now he’s claim Gateway is essentially cancelled (based on his sources)


https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1233480914547757058
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 02/28/2020 07:45 pm
No, it is Eric Berger causing drama...again. NASA needs to find whoever is talking to him and fire him.
NASA creates many internal documents for planning that don't always get publicized. Some information from them ends up in places like L2, and may or may not make it into articles eventually. Other news sites also get inside info on launch dates and plans and publish them when they think they are sufficiently reliable or noteworthy. This is in no way "causing drama" it is just reporting.

In this case the plan was particularly noteworthy, but sufficiently unreliable that the article included a quote disavowing the schedule presented. Eric Berger clearly found it noteworthy in combination with the other statements he provided about Orion directly docking. I come to a different conclusion looking at this information (it is at best just one option, or maybe a suggestion being pushed by Boeing), and importantly, he provided enough information so that I could make my own judgement.

This whole "they must have been trying to root out leakers" really is not worthy of speculation. Yes, that is a thing that can be done, but no it doesn't make sense to do it all the time, you would do it when you suspect an actual serious problem. If it was a leak from inside the relatively small team doing proposals, that could have potentially serious implications. Someone sharing a notional schedule from a site wide e-mail or all hands meeting is just not important enough to care as long as it doesn't disclose some form of privileged information.

A little context is in order. This leak via Eric Berger has been generating nearly exclusively negative Artemis stories for a while now. NASA management seems to care about the program.
Yes some context is needed. This is not a negative article about SLS, it is indicating a possibility of increased usage of SLS. If anything, it is bad news for commercial companies that would do work related to the gateway, because that is the real story being presented: that there is consideration of cancelling the gateway. (Which should not be a surprise, while I am against cancelling the gateway, in terms of getting people back on the moon ASAP using SLS, it doesn't make much sense.) Please just stop with the conspiracy type posts.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/28/2020 07:59 pm
Quote
NASA creates many internal documents for planning that don't always get publicized. Some information from them ends up in places like L2, and may or may not make it into articles eventually. Other news sites also get inside info on launch dates and plans and publish them when they think they are sufficiently reliable or noteworthy. This is in no way "causing drama" it is just reporting.

Reporting can cause drama. NASA can't go after Eric Berger. He has rights under the 1st amendment that protect him. What the 1st amendment doesn't give you a right to is a job in the federal government. I don't think I have to repeat that people have been indicted for not following information security protocols at NASA. The people or person behind these leaks are not safe. These are supposedly innocent leaks that don't provide proprietary commercial, export restricted or other wise confidential or classified information, but it isn't necessarily a precedent that you want to set that this behavior of computer files or documents walking out the door without clearance for publication goes unpunished. And yes, Eric Berger does refer to a document:

Quote
According to a planning document circulated at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center this week,
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/28/2020 08:17 pm
This leak via Eric Berger...

Also called "good reporting". Oh, and every reporter that deals with anonymous sources is also aware that they could be given a document in order to find a "leaker". They know about it, and have ways to deal with it.

Quote
...has been generating nearly exclusively negative Artemis stories for a while now.

What is so negative about the schedule he posted?

Quote
NASA management seems to care about the program.

Seems? Wouldn't it be news if they DIDN'T care about a program? Though with 17K employees there will be divergent thoughts about every topic, so don't assume just because NASA management is pushing something that the rank and file automatically think its a good idea.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 02/28/2020 08:21 pm
These are supposedly innocent leaks that don't provide proprietary commercial, export restricted or other wise confidential or classified information, but it isn't necessarily a precedent that you want to set that this behavior of computer files or documents walking out the door without clearance for publication goes unpunished.
And since it is none of those things you just listed, it is not worth a dozen posts hypothesizing how they can catch the person responsible, just as it is probably not worth them tracking down. Different information should be subject to different levels of control, setting a precedent of unimportant information being equivalent to highly sensitive information would cause problems. The type of information being shared here is similar in level to what is sometimes seen in L2 on this site.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/28/2020 08:26 pm

What is so negative about the schedule he posted?

It is how it is presented:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1233188605973221378

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1233107454860374016

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1233181981598527488

This all started with "DC based sources" about the $8 billion dollars per year for 5 years additional cost projection that wasn't accurate. Could be the same people, could be different people. Yes, that was a negative story. The description of the sources could be obfuscated as you suggest.

Quote
High cost, lack of support spell trouble for 2024 Moon landing [Updated]
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/cost-politics-and-bureaucracy-may-doom-plan-for-2024-moon-landing/

This was the first story that Jim Bridenstine responded to (in congressional testimony no less).

Quote
Also called "good reporting".

How is inaccurate reporting "good reporting".
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 02/28/2020 08:37 pm
Boeing made their desires known last summer with this tweet:
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1156655836514738177

At the time this tweet ran contrary to NASA's official plans, and as of my writing it still does.

When a NASA document is found which directly contradicts the agency's official plan, that constitutes news. If you disagree, ask yourself: would you feel differently were a different byline attached?

There's a lot of 'shooting the messenger' in this thread. You may not like him, but he's still only a messenger. Berger didn't author this schedule.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 02/29/2020 01:34 am
Boeing made their desires known last summer with this tweet:
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1156655836514738177

At the time this tweet ran contrary to NASA's official plans, and as of my writing it still does.

When a NASA document is found which directly contradicts the agency's official plan, that constitutes news. If you disagree, ask yourself: would you feel differently were a different byline attached?

There's a lot of 'shooting the messenger' in this thread. You may not like him, but he's still only a messenger. Berger didn't author this schedule.

Complete agreement, also I want to add: Berger never said this is the current plan, he said this is likely to be the future plan since there may be a change in Artemis' direction, that's the message. People come up and say "no, that's just one of the plans" is missing the point: Someone in NASA and probably congress is pushing hard for this plan to become the plan, that's what Berger is trying to convey.

And if I put on my tinfoil hat: For people who opposite this plan (I mean who doesn't want to opposite this plan, it's crazy), leaking this plan is a good thing, it puts the internal struggle under the light and alerts other shareholders now it's the time to act to stop this monstrosity. That's probably the reason this leak occurred in the first place.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/29/2020 01:52 am
Note that the MSFC plan has a lower flight rate compared to the old plan. The old plan had 10 flights of SLS to 2028 (two Europa missions and eight Artemis missions). The new plan has eight SLS flights (two Europa missions and six Artemis missions).

Old Plan
https://web.archive.org/web/20200224224654/http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 02/29/2020 06:12 am
Y’all at NASA need to find out whoever is leaking to Berger and dispose of them, what he’s writing is half-baked to the point that it’s becoming misinformation and is hurting NASA’s image.

NASA needs to make a decision and move forward already.  Confusion and leaks like this happen in a vacuum of decision making and leadership.

HLS proposals were submitted in early November.  The decision won't be made till late March or early April? That's up to 6 months just to pick a direction that leads to a down select at a later date.
6 months is a full 10% of the total development time of the HLS program from TODAY if they want to hit the end of the 2024 target. The fact that 3 months of this hand wringing is equivalent to 5% of total program development time shouldn't be lost on folks.

Delaying a decision on HLS while studies are done to determine if SLS can be ramped up or be cost effective?  How isn't that already known? What exactly are the folks at NASA doing to still be asking questions like this?

A study like this (if it were a study) should have  been performed  priot to or concurrently to the HLS bidding process, not retroactively.  Doing so now is just doing a disservice to the entire affair.

Gateway logistics and cargo awards are even further behind. Y'all need to keep that in mind when you take exception to Eric Berger's tweet that Gateway may be canceled, cus it's clearly stalling.

That lack of clarity and purposefulness in my opinion hurts NASA's image a lot more than an article that is basically stating "WTF is happening", like so many of us are feeling at this point.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 02/29/2020 07:07 am
Delaying a decision on HLS while studies are done to determine if SLS can be ramped up or be cost effective?  How isn't that already known? What exactly are the folks at NASA doing to still be asking questions like this?
I think your cause and effect here might be reversed.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/29/2020 08:04 am
Y’all at NASA need to find out whoever is leaking to Berger and dispose of them, what he’s writing is half-baked to the point that it’s becoming misinformation and is hurting NASA’s image.

NASA needs to make a decision and move forward already.  Confusion and leaks like this happen in a vacuum of decision making and leadership.

HLS proposals were submitted in early November.  The decision won't be made till late March or early April? That's up to 6 months just to pick a direction that leads to a down select at a later date.
6 months is a full 10% of the total development time of the HLS program from TODAY if they want to hit the end of the 2024 target. The fact that 3 months of this hand wringing is equivalent to 5% of total program development time shouldn't be lost on folks.

Delaying a decision on HLS while studies are done to determine if SLS can be ramped up or be cost effective?  How isn't that already known? What exactly are the folks at NASA doing to still be asking questions like this?

A study like this (if it were a study) should have  been performed  priot to or concurrently to the HLS bidding process, not retroactively.  Doing so now is just doing a disservice to the entire affair.

Gateway logistics and cargo awards are even further behind. Y'all need to keep that in mind when you take exception to Eric Berger's tweet that Gateway may be canceled, cus it's clearly stalling.

That lack of clarity and purposefulness in my opinion hurts NASA's image a lot more than an article that is basically stating "WTF is happening", like so many of us are feeling at this point.

I’ve already gotten an answer from NASA officials why the awards have been delayed and it’s not because of stalling. Remember that little caveat Congress put in the FY2020 funding bill? NASA are obligated to give a detailed plan, with detailed cost estimates to Congress before being able to spend more than 40% of the money appropriated for HLS and Gateway programs. NASA aren’t going to award any contracts until all the money is available and it will be when Doug Loverro releases his plan.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 03/01/2020 01:09 am
Exploration EVA System
Concept of Operations Summary
for Artemis Phase 1:
 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20200001071.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/01/2020 05:33 am
NASA needs to make a decision and move forward already.  Confusion and leaks like this happen in a vacuum of decision making and leadership.

I’ve already gotten an answer from NASA officials why the awards have been delayed and it’s not because of stalling. Remember that little caveat Congress put in the FY2020 funding bill? NASA are obligated to give a detailed plan, with detailed cost estimates to Congress before being able to spend more than 40% of the money appropriated for HLS and Gateway programs. NASA aren’t going to award any contracts until all the money is available and it will be when Doug Loverro releases his plan.

Doug Loverro as associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is exactly who (among others) I am singling out for not providing clarity and leadership.

They have all the proposals for Gateway cargo and HLS, they sole sourced the minimal habitation module, PPE is awarded (and cheap! the selected proposal was about 1/2 the price of the competitors), Orion contracts are set, SLS is priced to a large extent, CLPS can operate within budget constraints. What's left?

Provisional awards metering out 40% of the appropriations would go FAR further to move things along then the current path of delay will. One can't lay out a detailed plan and costs without selecting contractors if there is a significant price difference (see PPE). 

A complete plan and cost details comes down to knowing costs (they do on the commercial front) and putting together the pieces to wrap that up. That's on Loverro and the personnel he is working with, aka NASA leadership.

And let's be real here, anything they put together is a SWAG, trying to be perfectionist on it isn't doing anyone any favors.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/01/2020 06:34 am
These are supposedly innocent leaks that don't provide proprietary commercial, export restricted or other wise confidential or classified information, but it isn't necessarily a precedent that you want to set that this behavior of computer files or documents walking out the door without clearance for publication goes unpunished.
And since it is none of those things you just listed, it is not worth a dozen posts hypothesizing how they can catch the person responsible, just as it is probably not worth them tracking down. Different information should be subject to different levels of control, setting a precedent of unimportant information being equivalent to highly sensitive information would cause problems. The type of information being shared here is similar in level to what is sometimes seen in L2 on this site.

Does L2 publish documents that are clearly marked not for distribution? Because that is exactly what happened on Ars Technica back in May 2019.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost/

The document is clearly marked "Predecisional - For NASA Internal Use Only".

We don't know who in NASA saw this, but presumably some people that work there have. We don't know how they reacted or who they were. And you can see how ignoring document control labeling for an agency that handles confidential information is not something that NASA is necessarily obliged to ignore. It also appears to be a digital file, meaning documents from NASA computer systems were transferred between private and government computers (presumably with a thumb drive). Thumb drives are potentially problematic...

Quote
It was a USB drive loaded with malware.

That's how U.S. defense networks were compromised in 2008, according to U.S Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who today offered the first official confirmation of a data breach that led to restrictions on the use of removable USB drives in the military.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2514879/infected-usb-drive-blamed-for--08-military-cyber-breach.html

NASA IT might not even care that these documents got leaked. They might only care that some person might be moving files from a NASA center back and forth on a thumb drive.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: meberbs on 03/01/2020 06:55 am
Does L2 publish documents that are clearly marked not for distribution? Because that is exactly what happened on Ars Technica back in May 2019.
Yes, actually, usually a note is put in the associated post mentioning not to worry, proper permission was given. Not always though, FPIPs are a popular post and contain the exact text you quoted, but no mention is required, because everyone knows they are legitimately shared. Pieces of them have sometimes been used as images in articles. However, nothing in your post is actually relevant to this thread.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/02/2020 03:07 pm
Some good notes on Artemis SLS schedule and HLS.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/jurczyk-artemis-i-to-launch-in-mid-late-2021-hls-contracts-within-weeks/#.Xl0oyFdoG5w.twitter

SLS mid 2021 to "mid-late 2021".
HLS requirement review must happen 90 days.

Quote
We can’t thrash on the requirements. So on HLS, we said 90 days, we’re going to nail down the requirements. And if we can’t agree, NASA’s just going to tell you, use ours.  We’re going to negotiate technical standards. Either use ours or show equivalency to yours, but after 90 days if we can’t get agreement, you’re going to use ours. …  90 days and we’re done with Human Landing System requirements.

Also HLS decision in a few weeks or end of March but that isn't news.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 03/12/2020 09:18 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-first-science-instruments-to-send-to-gateway

Gateway seems alive and well to me.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/13/2020 03:03 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238491017088819203

Quote
NASA’s Doug Loverro at NAC Science Committee meeting: in Apollo, lunar module put on contract 6.5 years before landing; how can we do things faster? Try to avoid doing things we haven’t done before (citing as one example launching lander modules as 3 individual pieces.)

twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238491983225794561

Quote
Loverro said the revised plan for getting humans to the moon by 2024 was not yet “locked into stone” but that he was confident that it was achievable.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238492647276363777

Quote
Loverro: have yet to see if our plan is protected against various kinds of failure, including effects of coronavirus. Just had discussions about whether we need to take temperature checks of those working on core stage at Stennis to avoid having everyone out sick a month.

twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238493774340390913

Quote
Loverro: taking Gateway out of the critical path for 2024 landing, because of “high possibility” of getting behind schedule; also making changes to reduce its cost. Still 100% committed to it, working with int’l partners, who were not counting on it until 2026 anyway.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238494248934297600

Quote
Loverro: it is absolutely impossible for me to figure out how to get to the Moon on the current schedule without SLS. It is mandatory.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/13/2020 03:45 pm
^Liked your post for your reliable posts of new information.

Dislike for the context.

It keeps looking more and more likely that - as Berger reported - Gateway is going to be delayed indefinitely and mass arm waving will ensue to justify an EUS flown lander.
Despite years of SLS delays, despite an EUS design that still isn't complete after $500 million in spending to date (not including the $300M allocated tor FY2020), despite having to build a whole new transporter, despite the very obvious outcome that flying a new variant of a crew rated rocket with a brand new stage is going to be mired in development hell just like every other aspect of that program.

The best possible scenario for schedule on all SLS hardware is they punt all the crew rating of EUS & Block 1B and then use Block 1 to fly crew. Basically Constellation 2.0, retch.

But yeah let's go an punt all the long term infrastructure that would make for an actual meaningful return to the moon, cus flags and footprints y'all!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 03/13/2020 04:37 pm
^Liked your post for your reliable posts of new information.

Dislike for the context.

It keeps looking more and more likely that - as Berger reported - Gateway is going to be delayed indefinitely and mass arm waving will ensue to justify an EUS flown lander.
Despite years of SLS delays, despite an EUS design that still isn't complete after $500 million in spending to date (not including the $300M allocated tor FY2020), despite having to build a whole new transporter, despite the very obvious outcome that flying a new variant of a crew rated rocket with a brand new stage is going to be mired in development hell just like every other aspect of that program.

The best possible scenario for schedule on all SLS hardware is they punt all the crew rating of EUS & Block 1B and then use Block 1 to fly crew. Basically Constellation 2.0, retch.

But yeah let's go an punt all the long term infrastructure that would make for an actual meaningful return to the moon, cus flags and footprints y'all!

Your jumping to a lot of conclusions here, let’s just wait for the full plan before throwing our toys out of the pram. Who mentioned SLS Block 1B? The only things we know for sure is that Gateway’s assembly has been deferred and that NASA has possibly fallen out of love with 3-segment landers, likely after realising the technical difficulties associated with such an approach.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/13/2020 04:51 pm
I am reading between the lines - its painfully obvious what is implied.

Lander stages are dictated by lift capacity of any rocket to TLI, you can't do it in two or less stages without B1B. The only possible work arounds are if one docks in LEO with a dedicated transfer stage or a "super tug" crasher stage. And if you can so those things, ya don't need SLS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 03/13/2020 05:13 pm
I have no doubts that a sustainable moon program can be had without Gateway. I find it difficult to believe it must all happen with SLS.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2020 06:48 pm
I have no doubts that a sustainable moon program can be had without Gateway. I find it difficult to believe it must all happen with SLS.
Definitely need SLS to deliver crew for early missions, long term there maybe cheaper commercial options. I'm all for HLS that doesn't rely on SLS, its only way to lower cost of lunar missions increase frequency of missions. Commercial LVs could support a few missions a year without a problem, with SLS we are stuck with one a year, two if not using it for lander.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 03/13/2020 07:28 pm

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238494248934297600

Quote
Loverro: it is absolutely impossible for me to figure out how to get to the Moon on the current schedule without SLS. It is mandatory.

This is the second time in the last month that Loverro has made pronouncements about how things are impossible except for odd way that NASA and Boeing wish to do them.   

I'm not OK with that.   Does Mr. Loverrro really think that?   Or is this political battlefield shaping in order to get what he appears to want?

There are a lot of ways to get to the Moon.   There are a lot trade offs to be made.   But it is not "impossible".   Please stop insulting our intelligence and forestalling valuable alternate solutions from being considered.


Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 03/13/2020 07:54 pm

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1238494248934297600

Quote
Loverro: it is absolutely impossible for me to figure out how to get to the Moon on the current schedule without SLS. It is mandatory.

This is the second time in the last month that Loverro has made pronouncements about how things are impossible except for odd way that NASA and Boeing wish to do them.   

I'm not OK with that.   Does Mr. Loverrro really think that?   Or is this political battlefield shaping in order to get what he appears to want?

There are a lot of ways to get to the Moon.   There are a lot trade offs to be made.   But it is not "impossible".   Please stop insulting our intelligence and forestalling valuable alternate solutions from being considered.




You are slowly beginning to see why Gerst was shoved aside by Bridenstine. Loverro is the type of guy that says things that sit well with certain politicians.
Gerst on the other hand had a tendency to speak the (sometimes inconvenient) truth. In todays political landscape the truth is something certain folks don't want to hear.

But I digress.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/13/2020 08:30 pm
Good. Cheap. Fast. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle) Those are the only three attributes you can adjust in a program.

Which means as long as "Fast" (i.e. 2024) is unchangeable, and we all know that "Good" should not be ignored, that means "Cheap" has to be ignored.

One of the big debates is why 2024 is so important, since that drives a LOT of cost, and that cost is borne by the U.S. Taxpayer, so what ROI are they getting from a 2024 landing versus, say, 2028 or later?

Of course it is not up to Bridenstine or Loverro to change the date, but it is their job to be keep the President aware of what the tradeoffs are for meeting that date. And depending on what Congress funds, they are the ones that need to tell the President if the date is still achievable. Because at some point - and we may long past it - that date will not be achievable.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/13/2020 08:54 pm
Good. Cheap. Fast. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle) Those are the only three attributes you can adjust in a program.

Which means as long as "Fast" (i.e. 2024) is unchangeable, and we all know that "Good" should not be ignored, that means "Cheap" has to be ignored.

One of the big debates is why 2024 is so important, since that drives a LOT of cost, and that cost is borne by the U.S. Taxpayer, so what ROI are they getting from a 2024 landing versus, say, 2028 or later?

Of course it is not up to Bridenstine or Loverro to change the date, but it is their job to be keep the President aware of what the tradeoffs are for meeting that date. And depending on what Congress funds, they are the ones that need to tell the President if the date is still achievable. Because at some point - and we may long past it - that date will not be achievable.
I personally think 2024 means 2025 or 2026.  I believe 2028 means no urgency, insufficient funding, and actually maybe not until 2034 or later.
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 03/13/2020 11:31 pm
As a Gateway and commercially launched HLS amazing people, this is pretty discouraging.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/13/2020 11:43 pm
One reason I would like to see the 2024 goal met is that I would like to see it happen when some of the people that have been to the Moon will still be around to see the return.  This reason probably doesn't carry a lot of weight with decision makers.  But I think it would be cool and inspirational.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 03/14/2020 02:54 am
One reason I would like to see the 2024 goal met is that I would like to see it happen when some of the people that have been to the Moon will still be around to see the return.  This reason probably doesn't carry a lot of weight with decision makers.  But I think it would be cool and inspirational.
I agree. One of the most depressing things for me was reading an article about the dedication of Mission Control to Chris Kraft, and seeing him stating his wish to see the next generation of explorers set foot on the Moon from this control room.

It may be too late for him now, but I hope it's not too late for others.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/14/2020 03:54 am
The only way that a 2024 landing goal might be met is if Gateway is removed from the critical path to the first or even second crewed lunar landing. We know Orion lacks the delta-v to both get into and out of low lunar orbit. It needs some sort of auxiliary propulsion module or 'Tug' to do this. As would a Human Landing System sent to the Moon to brake into lunar orbit first and await the Crewed Orion later. Block 1 SLS upper stage (from D-IVH) could not do both TLI and LOI burns. So what about upgrading the SLS upper stage to the 2x RL-10 engined Centaur V from the Vulcan launcher? The Centaur V will hold about 45% more propellants than the Delta IV-Heavy upper stage's 27 tons of propellants. With a 'long-duration kit' added to the stage; could this also perform the LOI burn into lunar orbit for Orion - or at least most of that burn?

The other alternative is to have the Orion/SLS Block 1 upper stage meet a previously launched, 10 ton propulsion Tug. Options could be one made by SpaceX from a cluster of 9x Draco thrusters coupled with hypergolic propellant tanks, coupled to a docking mechanism. Or a stripped down Orion Service Module: bereft of oxygen, nitrogen, water tanks and solar arrays and a simplified RCS system. A couple of batteries could substitute for the solar arrays. I 'dummied up' a rough picture of the Orion Service Module Tug. It could go up on a number of different launchers first, being met in LEO later on by Orion, before TLI.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/14/2020 04:17 am
I said from the beginning that the Gateway for the first return back to the moon was unnecessary, so this is a good thing. For future ops we'll see...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/14/2020 04:27 am
I said from the beginning that the Gateway for the first return back to the moon was unnecessary, so this is a good thing. For future ops we'll see...
If SLS adopted the Vulcan's Centaur V upper stage - that stage should have enough propellants to get Orion into LLO. Gateway could be re-scoped later into a small Propellant Depot that serviced reusable Crew and Cargo Landers.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/14/2020 05:01 am
Good. Cheap. Fast. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle) Those are the only three attributes you can adjust in a program.

Which means as long as "Fast" (i.e. 2024) is unchangeable, and we all know that "Good" should not be ignored, that means "Cheap" has to be ignored.

One of the big debates is why 2024 is so important, since that drives a LOT of cost, and that cost is borne by the U.S. Taxpayer, so what ROI are they getting from a 2024 landing versus, say, 2028 or later?

Of course it is not up to Bridenstine or Loverro to change the date, but it is their job to be keep the President aware of what the tradeoffs are for meeting that date. And depending on what Congress funds, they are the ones that need to tell the President if the date is still achievable. Because at some point - and we may long past it - that date will not be achievable.
I personally think 2024 means 2025 or 2026.

You can believe whatever you want, but the 2024 date has political significance that goes away after 2024. So for the Trump administration 2024 is the date that everyone has to be targeting.

Quote
I believe 2028 means no urgency, insufficient funding, and actually maybe not until 2034 or later.

Why does there need to be urgency?

The U.S. Taxpayer, who is under great financial stress right now from the COVID-19 pandemic, doesn't care about sending U.S. Government employees back to the Moon, regardless of when. Even without the pandemic the U.S. Taxpayer ranked returning to the Moon as their last space priority (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-believe-it-is-essential-that-the-u-s-remain-a-global-leader-in-space/).

Which gets back to the Good, Fast, Cheap - I would advocate that it is better to focus on "Good" than "Fast".
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/14/2020 08:05 am
The only way that a 2024 landing goal might be met is if Gateway is removed from the critical path to the first or even second crewed lunar landing. We know Orion lacks the delta-v to both get into and out of low lunar orbit. It needs some sort of auxiliary propulsion module or 'Tug' to do this. As would a Human Landing System sent to the Moon to brake into lunar orbit first and await the Crewed Orion later. Block 1 SLS upper stage (from D-IVH) could not do both TLI and LOI burns. So what about upgrading the SLS upper stage to the 2x RL-10 engined Centaur V from the Vulcan launcher? The Centaur V will hold about 45% more propellants than the Delta IV-Heavy upper stage's 27 tons of propellants. With a 'long-duration kit' added to the stage; could this also perform the LOI burn into lunar orbit for Orion - or at least most of that burn?

The other alternative is to have the Orion/SLS Block 1 upper stage meet a previously launched, 10 ton propulsion Tug. Options could be one made by SpaceX from a cluster of 9x Draco thrusters coupled with hypergolic propellant tanks, coupled to a docking mechanism. Or a stripped down Orion Service Module: bereft of oxygen, nitrogen, water tanks and solar arrays and a simplified RCS system. A couple of batteries could substitute for the solar arrays. I 'dummied up' a rough picture of the Orion Service Module Tug. It could go up on a number of different launchers first, being met in LEO later on by Orion, before TLI.

And if you wanted the tug to be reusable, you could use a solar-electric tug left in a lunar halo orbit between missions to do this.

...Wait a moment...


Seriously though, I like the original NASA plan for Artemis, but it seems like it would be better to use the Gateway to get to LLO, rather than adding a third stage to the Lander.

Let's also remember that the Gateway serves a political purpose; to keep us at the Moon.
The idea is that Gateway would be to the Moon what the ISS is to LEO; a big investment that is actively making aerospace companies money, and congress refuses to cancel. That's something that expendable tugs cannot do.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/14/2020 08:33 am
I think you're largely right. But the reason I chose the Orion Service Module as an adaptation was precisely because it would not be an all-new, expensive and purpose-built hardware design; just an adaptation of an existing one. I do believe Gateway would be a valuable thing to base and refuel reusable Landers at in future. And adapting the Vulcan Centaur V stage to SLS would not be a bad thing if it increased the SLS performance for future missions; along with other projected upgrades such as better solid boosters. Using Centaur V would 'do no harm'.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 03/14/2020 09:17 pm
As a Gateway and commercially launched HLS amazing people, this is pretty discouraging.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

I agree. I see Lovarro's point about avoiding technical risk but if the plan is to move away from a commercially launched HLS and instead launch everything on SLS that is a much bigger threat to mission success (especially considering Boeing's atrocious performance on SLS so far).

The "old plan" seemed to me better and well thought out. Its flexibility (e.g. not requiring one, two, or three stages, using or not using Gateway, launcher agnostic) and inclusion of both oldspace and new space were great strengths. Artificially limiting proposals now would be a big mistake, especially since there is buy-in from across the industry. 

We will have to see the full "new plan" to get the entire context. One big question I have is what will happen to the HLS proposal from the "National Team" (BO, LM, NG, and Draper) which uses a 3 stage lander. Are they up the creek without a paddle?

The only way that a 2024 landing goal might be met is if Gateway is removed from the critical path to the first or even second crewed lunar landing. We know Orion lacks the delta-v to both get into and out of low lunar orbit. It needs some sort of auxiliary propulsion module or 'Tug' to do this. As would a Human Landing System sent to the Moon to brake into lunar orbit first and await the Crewed Orion later. Block 1 SLS upper stage (from D-IVH) could not do both TLI and LOI burns. So what about upgrading the SLS upper stage to the 2x RL-10 engined Centaur V from the Vulcan launcher?

Another option could be to use a distributed launch architecture (at least for the HLS). Falcon Heavy could launch a fully fueled HLS to LEO while Vulcan or New Glenn launch a second stage that docks with the HLS and performs TLI. Then launch Orion on an SLS Block I, dock it with the lander in NRHO or HLO, and proceed with the mission. No need for Orion to go into LLO assuming the HLS has enough delta-V.

This would be similar to the architecture proposed for the commercial EM-1 mission but it avoids the issue of human rating.
Title: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 03/14/2020 09:32 pm
As a Gateway and commercially launched HLS amazing people, this is pretty discouraging.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

I agree. I see Lovarro's point about avoiding technical risk but if the plan is to move away from a commercially launched HLS and instead launch everything on SLS that is a much bigger threat to mission success (especially considering Boeing's atrocious performance on SLS so far).

The "old plan" seemed to me better and well thought out. Its flexibility (e.g. not requiring one, two, or three stages, using or not using Gateway, launcher agnostic) and inclusion of both oldspace and new space were great strengths. Artificially limiting proposals now would be a big mistake, especially since there is buy-in from across the industry. 

We will have to see the full "new plan" to get the entire context. One big question I have is what will happen to the HLS proposal from the "National Team" (BO, LM, NG, and Draper) which uses a 3 stage lander. Are they up the creek without a paddle?

The only way that a 2024 landing goal might be met is if Gateway is removed from the critical path to the first or even second crewed lunar landing. We know Orion lacks the delta-v to both get into and out of low lunar orbit. It needs some sort of auxiliary propulsion module or 'Tug' to do this. As would a Human Landing System sent to the Moon to brake into lunar orbit first and await the Crewed Orion later. Block 1 SLS upper stage (from D-IVH) could not do both TLI and LOI burns. So what about upgrading the SLS upper stage to the 2x RL-10 engined Centaur V from the Vulcan launcher?

Another option could be to use a distributed launch architecture (at least for the HLS). Falcon Heavy could launch a fully fueled HLS to LEO while Vulcan or New Glenn launch a second stage that docks with the HLS and performs TLI. Then launch Orion on an SLS Block I, dock it with the lander in NRHO or HLO, and proceed with the mission. No need for Orion to go into LLO assuming the HLS has enough delta-V.

This would be similar to the architecture proposed for the commercial EM-1 mission but it avoids the issue of human rating.
My guess is that there will be multiple HLS selections with each having separate readiness dates. The 2024 HLS will be the one that likely skips Gateway, it’ll be an integrated 2-stage lander that requires SLS (likely B1B). This will be (is being) justified as eliminating risk to meeting the 2024 mandate. The primary risk being autonomously assembly of a multi stage lander in lunar orbit.

The other HLS selections will still be launched commercially (distributed) and be able to aggregate at the Gateway. Likely 3 stage landers but possibly 2 stage as well.

More speculation: it’ll be Boeing, National Team, and SpaceX.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/14/2020 11:04 pm
I think you're largely right. But the reason I chose the Orion Service Module as an adaptation was precisely because it would not be an all-new, expensive and purpose-built hardware design; just an adaptation of an existing one. I do believe Gateway would be a valuable thing to base and refuel reusable Landers at in future.

There are other problems with using the European Service Module as a tug. For instance, the ESM uses old shuttle OMS engines as its main engine, and last I heard, there were only enough of those left for a few missions. If you need two ESM on every mission, you're now using up the OMS engines at twice the rate.

Which of course could lead to a discussion of the new Service Module that Orion will eventually need (I quite like the idea of using a stripped-down Blue Moon lander myself, and that would make for an even better tug.), but that's outside of the scope of the point I was making.

You'd also have to figure out if the Europeans would be able to double their production rate on the ESM. I have no idea how plausible that is.


And once again, the political role of Gateway is almost, or perhaps even more important than the technical one. If NASA really is removing Gateway from the critical path, as some of the reporting suggests, I find it hard to believe the Artemis program has any chance of actually flying.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/15/2020 01:44 am
I think you're largely right. But the reason I chose the Orion Service Module as an adaptation was precisely because it would not be an all-new, expensive and purpose-built hardware design; just an adaptation of an existing one. I do believe Gateway would be a valuable thing to base and refuel reusable Landers at in future.

There are other problems with using the European Service Module as a tug. For instance, the ESM uses old shuttle OMS engines as its main engine, and last I heard, there were only enough of those left for a few missions. If you need two ESM on every mission, you're now using up the OMS engines at twice the rate.

Which of course could lead to a discussion of the new Service Module that Orion will eventually need (I quite like the idea of using a stripped-down Blue Moon lander myself, and that would make for an even better tug.), but that's outside of the scope of the point I was making.

You'd also have to figure out if the Europeans would be able to double their production rate on the ESM. I have no idea how plausible that is.


And once again, the political role of Gateway is almost, or perhaps even more important than the technical one. If NASA really is removing Gateway from the critical path, as some of the reporting suggests, I find it hard to believe the Artemis program has any chance of actually flying.
The Shuttle OMS engine is from the Aerojet AJ10 family of engines, which is still in production, albeit rather limited production. The production line for the AJ10-118K as used on the recently retired Delta II launcher could be easily revived.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/15/2020 03:19 am
My guess is that there will be multiple HLS selections with each having separate readiness dates. The 2024 HLS will be the one that likely skips Gateway, it’ll be an integrated 2-stage lander that requires SLS (likely B1B). This will be (is being) justified as eliminating risk to meeting the 2024 mandate. The primary risk being autonomously assembly of a multi stage lander in lunar orbit.

The other HLS selections will still be launched commercially (distributed) and be able to aggregate at the Gateway. Likely 3 stage landers but possibly 2 stage as well.

More speculation: it’ll be Boeing, National Team, and SpaceX.

I hope you're right, otherwise Artemis will become Constellation 2.0, with Doug Loverro being the new Mike Griffin...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/15/2020 03:44 am
Using an additional Orion SM to do LOI won't work. Its too damn heavy at 6,858 kg inert mass. For an Orion mass of 25,722 kg (includes three crew), a delta-V of 970 m/s (includes 1% margin) and Isp of 3069.5 m/s, the propellant mass is 12,108 kg, which far exceeds the SM propellant mass of 8,602 kg. The total mass is 44,688 kg, which also exceeds the capability of SLS Block IB of 37 t to TLI.

Under a constraint of 37 t to TLI, the dry mass of the tug using a pressure fed AJ10-118K engine with an Isp of 3143 m/s would need to be 1,453 kg and carry 9,825 kg of propellant, for a propellant mass fraction of 87%. The pressure fed Delta II second stage carried 6,063 kg of usable propellant with an inert mass of 920 kg, giving a propellant mass fraction of 87%, so such a stage for Orion should be possible, but it will need to be custom designed. AJ10-118K thrust is 43.38 kN, compared to 26.7 kN for the OMS engine used on Orion.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/15/2020 05:41 am
Yeah; I thought it was a bit heavy, which is why I advocated deleting all crew breathing gases and water supplies, the solar arrays and some of the RCS systems which should strip out about 1.5 tons mass. An all-new, purpose built propulsion Tug with about 10 metric tons of propellants, an AJ10-118K engine, a docking mechanism and a predominantly carbon-fiber structure is also what I thought of. A bit like Russia's 'BRIZ' upper stage, I suppose. If interested/motivated, SpaceX could offer a module based on a single Super Draco engine and enough propellants. Or a cluster of 12x ordinary Draco thrusters.

But the simplest thing I thought of recently was Tory Bruno revealing that the new Centaur V stage was going to have twice the propellant quantity of the Centaur III - 40 tons. This is 46% more than the ICPS currently assigned to SLS. With a 'life extension kit' including being fed power from Orion's solar arrays; there should be enough propellants left in the Centaur V to perform an LOI burn for the Orion. Or would they need the follow-on ACES for that...?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/16/2020 05:03 am
But the simplest thing I thought of recently was Tory Bruno revealing that the new Centaur V stage was going to have twice the propellant quantity of the Centaur III - 40 tons. This is 46% more than the ICPS currently assigned to SLS. With a 'life extension kit' including being fed power from Orion's solar arrays; there should be enough propellants left in the Centaur V to perform an LOI burn for the Orion. Or would they need the follow-on ACES for that...?

Centaur V might not be powerful enough to LOI on its own. EUS could do it, but it would need to have larger tanks and be able to last the three days to the Moon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/16/2020 09:13 am
If they don't end up funding an actual EUS; there's got to be a way Centaur V or ACES can be made to decelerate the 27 ton Orion into medium or low lunar orbit. For Orion to do a TEI burn near the end of the mission - I wonder how much propellant supply margin is built into that 8,600kg supply of hypergolics that it has? Centaur V has 2x RL-10s for thrust - though if the ICPS needs more than 20 tons to give the Orion it's TLI delta-v: how much delta-v does deceleration into LLO of the Orion require by comparison? I'm basing my question on whether Centaur V would need to burn about 27 tons or more of it's 40 ton propellant load and would the remaining 13 tons (approx) be enough for the deceleration of the same mass into the Moon's smaller gravity well? Would ULA have to field a slightly stretched version of Centaur V to get the job done - followed by a circularization burn from Orion's own prop, load?

I'm sorry for all the questions - but I cannot offhand think of a better person to ask.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/16/2020 03:48 pm
I think this news bears repeating in this thread:

“The core stage for the third SLS flight is also in production. The liquid hydrogen tank was originally built for the first core stage, but was shelved because welds did not meet strength requirements. After studying repair techniques to strengthen the welds, the tank has re-entered production and will be proof tested for strength.”

In other words, NASA has decided to take the original tanks fabricated for CS-1, which were shelved due to welding issues, and repair them for use in CS-3. My speculation is that this is being done as a move to allow the manifesting of another SLS flight prior to 2024.

Huh. That would be quite something if it happens. Fitting in a new SLS flight - what could it be for?
Certainly not for a lander with hardware procured on the tax payers dime outside of on of the HLS bidders.....

Can you imagine? One of the bidders gets a bunch of free hardware to support flight of their proposal on SLS and the hardware is moving through the factory before any awards have been announced?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 03/16/2020 07:53 pm
I think this news bears repeating in this thread:

“The core stage for the third SLS flight is also in production. The liquid hydrogen tank was originally built for the first core stage, but was shelved because welds did not meet strength requirements. After studying repair techniques to strengthen the welds, the tank has re-entered production and will be proof tested for strength.”

In other words, NASA has decided to take the original tanks fabricated for CS-1, which were shelved due to welding issues, and repair them for use in CS-3. My speculation is that this is being done as a move to allow the manifesting of another SLS flight prior to 2024.

Huh. That would be quite something if it happens. Fitting in a new SLS flight - what could it be for?
Certainly not for a lander with hardware procured on the tax payers dime outside of on of the HLS bidders.....

Can you imagine? One of the bidders gets a bunch of free hardware to support flight of their proposal on SLS and the hardware is moving through the factory before any awards have been announced?
If it's any consolation, I've got a nagging feeling that if it is for what I think it is, it won't be for just one of the HLS bidders to use.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/17/2020 12:33 am
The issue with that is it isn't true fair and open competition. 
If the use of commercially procured launch vehicles provided a price advantage to any bidder that advantage is now void.

Government furnished equipment with SLS provides a leg up to any bidder that was proposing a 2 stage architecture,  and a disadvantage to those with 3 stages who would have needed to obtain LV costs to put in their bid. For vertically integrated companies this could be a very big issue.

Ultimately its limiting to innovation if said companies were able to make things work without said GFE. Which I thought was the whole point of this program, to try alternative ways of doing things.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/17/2020 06:20 am
I wonder how much propellant supply margin is built into that 8,600kg supply of hypergolics that it has?

TEI is 1168.7 m/s, with Orion having 1234.9 m/s, giving a margin of 5.7%.

Quote
Centaur V has 2x RL-10s for thrust - though if the ICPS needs more than 20 tons to give the Orion it's TLI delta-v: how much delta-v does deceleration into LLO of the Orion require by comparison?

LOI is 960.4 m/s.

Quote
I'm basing my question on whether Centaur V would need to burn about 27 tons or more of it's 40 ton propellant load and would the remaining 13 tons (approx) be enough for the deceleration of the same mass into the Moon's smaller gravity well?

Required dv = 1.01*(3184.9+960.4) = 4186.8 m/s

I don't know the dry mass of Centaur V, so I'll use a model base on Centaur IIIB.

ms = alpha*mp^0.848
ms = 1,793 kg (dry mass, excluding engine mass)
mp = 20,829 kg (propellant mass)
alpha = ms/mp^0.848 = 0.39026

Centaur 5 has a propellant mass of mp = 54,431 kg, which gives a dry stage mass, excluding engines of ms = alpha*mp^0.848 = 4049 kg.

The RL-10C-1-1 used on Centaur has the following specs:

Fv = 105,979 N (vacuum thrust)
ve = 4450.3 m/s (vacuum Isp)
me = 188 kg

We'll need an adaptor between Orion and Centaur V. I'll use the same one I used for Block II SLS.

ma = 510 kg (adaptor mass)
mc = 25,722 kg (Orion mass, including three crew)

From the rocket equation

dv = ve*ln(1+mp/(ms+2*me+ma+ms))
mp = (exp(dv/ve)-1)*(ms+2*me+ma+ms)
mp = 1.562*(4049+2*188+510+25722) = 1.562*30657

This gives mp = 47,886 kg. The required payload into LEO is 47,886+30657 = 78,543 kg. A Centaur V on its own will only have 54,431-47,886 = 6,545 kg to put itself into LEO which I don't believe is sufficient.

Quote
Would ULA have to field a slightly stretched version of Centaur V to get the job done - followed by a circularization burn from Orion's own prop, load?

You would need to stretch it by 130% and add another two RL-10 engines to get the job done. In order words, design an EUS. :-)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/17/2020 06:48 am
That's what I was afraid of. I figured that the delta-v into LLO was about 1km/s. So; Orion would need a stretched ACES stage at least to make LLO! That sure makes the Apollo CSM with it's 18.6 tons of propellants and 91kn thrust SPS engine an engineering triumph by comparison! :( Orion should have had a smaller Command Module - 4.5 or even just 4 meters - and larger propellant tanks :'(
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/17/2020 11:09 am
:( Orion should have had a smaller Command Module - 4.5 or even just 4 meters - and larger propellant tanks :'(
If I remember correctly, when John Young first looked at an Orion mock up he said it was too big.  He was not wrong.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/17/2020 11:15 am
4.5 meters would have been ample for 4x or even more crew. It would be thousands of pounds lighter than the 21,000 lb 5 meter crew module they have now. That's mass that could have been devoted to more Service Module propellants. And imagine how light a 4 meter version would have been, made out of modern materials!
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 03/17/2020 12:08 pm
Side note: Didn't they flirt with the idea of a composite Orion back in the Ares days?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JEF_300 on 03/17/2020 12:52 pm
In many ways, Starliner is just what Orion should've been: smaller, lighter, lands on land, but still maintains the same crew count and full-sized docking port. Now there's a capsule made to have a lunar architecture designed around it. That's part of what made/makes Cis-Lunar 1000 so interesting.


Getting back on topic, I'd like to acknowledge politics without making the thread political. We'll see how that goes...

America may elect a new President in November. This is not the place to discuss whether or not that will happen, or who that will be, or what the space policies of candidates are.

It is, however, important to be aware that a manned spaceflight and rocket program behind schedule, way over budget, generally in chaos, with a new president, is exactly the sort of situation NASA found itself in back in 2010.

I can't predict the future. I have no idea what is going to happen. But I think the potential for another year like 2010 exists, and will as long as the Artemis program doesn't get it's act together.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 03/17/2020 12:55 pm
Side note: Didn't they flirt with the idea of a composite Orion back in the Ares days?

Yes. They did. It wasn't pursued, beyond a prototype pressure module, for schedule reasons (amongst others). How ironic. The other significant finding was that a composite pressure module did not offer any significant mass savings.

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/home/Feature_CCM.html (https://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/home/Feature_CCM.html)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2020 08:29 am
I think this news bears repeating in this thread:

“The core stage for the third SLS flight is also in production. The liquid hydrogen tank was originally built for the first core stage, but was shelved because welds did not meet strength requirements. After studying repair techniques to strengthen the welds, the tank has re-entered production and will be proof tested for strength.”

In other words, NASA has decided to take the original tanks fabricated for CS-1, which were shelved due to welding issues, and repair them for use in CS-3. My speculation is that this is being done as a move to allow the manifesting of another SLS flight prior to 2024.

Huh. That would be quite something if it happens. Fitting in a new SLS flight - what could it be for?
Certainly not for a lander with hardware procured on the tax payers dime outside of on of the HLS bidders.....

Can you imagine? One of the bidders gets a bunch of free hardware to support flight of their proposal on SLS and the hardware is moving through the factory before any awards have been announced?
The tanks maybe free but engines, SRBs and US aren't. Still going be $1B+ LV.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 03/20/2020 08:53 pm
Two idle thoughts:

1. Given Orion's limited delta-V, has any thought been given to a variation on Constellation's architecture, whereby the lander's propulsion system is used to put the stack into a relatively low lunar orbit?  I don't believe two SLS launches would give the throw weight to the moon of Constellation's 1.5-launch architecture, but is there some scope for staging in a lunar orbit lower than NRO to avoid a 3-stage lander?

2. Completely forgetting about Orion and its limitations, suppose you wanted to do a clean-sheet Apollo lunar architecture now.  How much lower would the mass through TLI be than in the 1960's?

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/20/2020 10:43 pm
Just going to throw this out there, although I could see where deep discussion should be done on the politics thread, but...

I would not be surprised if Congress decides that now is not the time for our nation to be spending gobs of money on redoing Apollo. For a number of reasons, including the fact that the U.S. Congress is going to be prioritizing spending over the next year or more on getting Main Street America back up and functioning.

Shutting down the Artemis program would be easy, since in the whole scheme of things not much has been funded yet. The bigger issues would be what to do with the SLS and Orion, but the best time to make heartbreaking decisions is in the middle of a crisis.

In other words, the COVID-19 pandemic could be a "tipping point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point)" moment for NASA funding, and NASA goals.

We are now in a recession, and it will get deep. Normally government spending helps to power the economy out of recessions, but unlike past recessions where just parts of the economy were hit, this recession is hitting the entire economy of the world.

Anyways, just wanted to be the first to point out this possibility...  ::)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/21/2020 02:29 am
I wouldn't write off Artemis just yet, yes there will be a deep recession, but it could be a fairly short one. China is already on its way to recovery after 3 months, the US can do the same if it handles the crisis correctly. Given the interest rate is zero and about to go negative, the government may find it beneficial to pump some borrowed money into aerospace industry.

My guess is, assuming the US doesn't totally mess up the crisis response, Artemis will continue but 2024 would be off the table, and the NASA budget increase wouldn't be anywhere near the requested level, which means NASA will need to find more cost effective ways to do Artemis if they want to return to the Moon any time soon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/21/2020 02:52 am
1. Given Orion's limited delta-V, has any thought been given to a variation on Constellation's architecture, whereby the lander's propulsion system is used to put the stack into a relatively low lunar orbit?  I don't believe two SLS launches would give the throw weight to the moon of Constellation's 1.5-launch architecture, but is there some scope for staging in a lunar orbit lower than NRO to avoid a 3-stage lander?

This is not an efficient way to do that, since the HLS descent stage is not mass efficient, as demonstrated by Altair. My preference is to have EUS do LOI for both the HLS and Orion, however, that has been precluded in the current EUS design. This means a separate tug is required to do LOI, which can also be used for both the HLS and Orion. This requires two Block IB launches, plus the design of the tug.

Quote
2. Completely forgetting about Orion and its limitations, suppose you wanted to do a clean-sheet Apollo lunar architecture now.  How much lower would the mass through TLI be than in the 1960's?

If you follow the N-1 architecture with staged Lunar descent using kerolox propellants, you could get it down to 33.6 t!

18.20 t Block D
  9.85 t LOK
  5.56 t LK
-----------------
33.61 t Total

http://www.astronautix.com/n/n1blockd.html
http://www.astronautix.com/s/soyuz7k-lok.html
http://www.astronautix.com/l/lk.html
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/21/2020 04:49 am
If Block 1B with EUS has a 39 metric ton TLI figure: with Orion massing 27 tons including crew and consumables, that leaves about 12 tons of co-manifested ability. If the LOI Tug massed 12 tons including propellants; would a hypergolic fueled Tug have enough delta-v to slow Orion or HLS into LLO? Or would the Tug need to be cryogenic? Apparently, the more advanced BOLE solid boosters would allow an additional 3 metric tons to go TLI. With that, you get a 15-ton Tug. Would that be good enough?

I tend to agree with Dr Steve that the EUS or whatever passes for one (big ACES derivative?) should be able to do both the TLI and LOI burns. If the SLS 'had to be' the prime Artemis launcher; then that flight rate would have to be 2x SLS Block 1B or 1B+ launches per year - for only one crewed lunar landing! :( And once the Gateway was up and running and a reusable Lander entered service: then all SLS launches could be devoted to 2x crewed landings per year. Propellants would have to be shipped to the Gateway on Commercial launchers to replenish the Lander. If the SLS flight rate could be increased to 3x per year - what I've heard to be the maximum theoretical launch rate - then this could service overlapping crews at an Outpost. Though I guess they'd need 2x Landers for that...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2020 06:56 am
If Block 1B with EUS has a 39 metric ton TLI figure: with Orion massing 27 tons including crew and consumables, that leaves about 12 tons of co-manifested ability. If the LOI Tug massed 12 tons including propellants; would a hypergolic fueled Tug have enough delta-v to slow Orion or HLS into LLO? Or would the Tug need to be cryogenic? Apparently, the more advanced BOLE solid boosters would allow an additional 3 metric tons to go TLI. With that, you get a 15-ton Tug. Would that be good enough?

I did this calculation in the previous page.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2058393#msg2058393

The 39 t value is with cargo only. With Orion, the payload is 37 t. For an Orion mass of 25.7 t, an 11.3 t tug can put Orion into LLO.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/22/2020 08:18 am
Oh right; thank you.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/22/2020 11:08 am
Not sure where to put this, but the headline is that NASA will not use the Gateway for the 2024 landing.  This is absolutely how they should proceed for the next human return to the Moon's surface.  It removes costs and complexity.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: pochimax on 03/22/2020 06:07 pm
Not sure where to put this, but the headline is that NASA will not use the Gateway for the 2024 landing.  This is absolutely how they should proceed for the next human return to the Moon's surface.  It removes costs and complexity.
What 2024 landing?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/23/2020 03:56 am
Not looking likely at the moment; is it?! :) :'(
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/23/2020 12:00 pm
Not sure where to put this, but the headline is that NASA will not use the Gateway for the 2024 landing.  This is absolutely how they should proceed for the next human return to the Moon's surface.  It removes costs and complexity.
What 2024 landing?

The one previously scheduled for 2028.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: pochimax on 03/23/2020 12:09 pm
Yes, I know. Only being sarcastic. (or trying to be  ;))

As others have pointed at, if a 2024 landing is no longer a US priority then 2024 Gateway is not at the critical path of anything so my bet is Gateway will be built and will be needed for a more slow-progress but at the end far more sustainable and reusable lunar lander.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: brickmack on 03/23/2020 03:42 pm
With Gateway no longer needed until the late 2020s, I wonder if they'll go for a more ambitious design. The PPE and HALO modules were both selected mainly on the basis of minimal schedule risk (the latter was even sole-sourced in the name of schedule), but if schedule is no longer a priority it seemed like other bids for both were superior technically. And of course more modules can be accommodated now, and they can more assume the existence of bigger commercial vehicles to carry large modules.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 03/24/2020 02:28 am
I think it's very unlikely the designs of those two modules will significantly change.

Reading between the lines, the problem Loverro was having was getting Congress to fund Gateway and HLS development simultaneously for 2024. By taking Gateway off the critical path, that allows some of the Gateway yearly funding slice to be redirected to HLS in future budget requests, at the cost of dragging out Gateway's development time.

If this is the case, the incentive is still very much to keep the costs of the initial Gateway modules down. HLS is the big ticket item, and needs the most attention and funding.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/24/2020 03:26 am
Study recommends minimizing elements for Artemis lunar lander (https://spacenews.com/study-recommends-minimizing-elements-for-artemis-lunar-lander/)

Quote
WASHINGTON — A study by a space propulsion company concludes that a human return to the moon by 2024 will require minimizing the launches needed for the lunar lander and also using storable, rather than cryogenic, propellants.

So this idea of betting everything on SLS comes from Aerojet Rocketdyne, but they're hardly unbiased in this given they'll get $400M to $500M from each extra SLS.

Also this study (and Doug Loverro's explanation for not picking 3 stage lander) is predicated on the assumption that 2024 is the hard deadline, now this deadline is looking increasingly unlikely given the stop work of SLS/Orion, I wonder how this will change the equation.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 03/24/2020 03:15 pm
The objective still is to buy-down political risk by moving as fast as possible. That still holds even as a hard 2024 date looks increasingly unattainable.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: dglow on 03/25/2020 02:07 am
Buying down political risk with vehicle development decisions of long-term consequence... just like when NASA turned Shuttle into an oversized spysat launcher, right?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/25/2020 02:45 am
Good. Cheap. Fast. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle) Those are the only three attributes you can adjust in a program....
No. There are more considerations, like political ones. Those actually CAN be adjusted.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/25/2020 02:57 am
Good. Cheap. Fast. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle) Those are the only three attributes you can adjust in a program....
No. There are more considerations, like political ones. Those actually CAN be adjusted.

Those influence Good, Fast, and Cheap, but they don't supplement them.

The Artemis program is a good example of where the political consideration is "Fast", and since politicians don't like failure "Good" cannot be sacrificed. So "Cheap" is the attribute that ends up being flexible - which with Artemis means the cost goes up.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 03/27/2020 05:47 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services)
Quote from: NASA
NASA has selected SpaceX of Hawthorne, California, as the first U.S. commercial provider under the Gateway Logistics Services contract to deliver cargo, experiments and other supplies to the agency’s Gateway in lunar orbit.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2020 12:03 am
An update on Gateway:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/nasa-officials-outline-plans-for-building-a-lunar-gateway-in-the-mid-2020s/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2020 02:10 am
According to the article, Loverro should be giving an update in mid-April which corresponds to the next NAC HEO Committte meeting. Loverro is scheduled to talk at that NAC HEO meeting from 1:05 pm to 2 pm.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

 

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 03/31/2020 03:09 am
An update on Gateway:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/nasa-officials-outline-plans-for-building-a-lunar-gateway-in-the-mid-2020s/

Quote
Ars: In terms of internal cubic meter capacity, or whatever, is it double, or like 50 percent more than a cargo or Crew Dragon?

Wiese: Right now we're not really disclosing too much of the details.

Not sure why they're so cagey about the details, still in negotiation? Waiting for Loverro's big reveal?

BTW, does anyone think the fact that SpaceX became the sole provider in a $7B max Gateway resupply contract decreases the possibility of them winning HLS? Ideally winning one contract shouldn't affect other unrelated contracts, but in reality I think there is going to be some balancing act behind the scenes, trying to spread the funding among all companies, can't have one company winning all contracts (except Boeing of course).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 03/31/2020 04:29 am
Yeah I kind of feel like they were thrown a bone with this cargo contract. With the winner being the company that shall not be named.

The long, long delay in HLS awards seems very suspect to me.

I could speculate on a really cool architecture involving a Dragon XL variant but its best to wait and see.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 03/31/2020 06:03 am
Here's my best guess at where the Artemis architecture and contracts will go based on Loverro's statements to date:

* pushing to minimize docking / assembly / refueling events
* Very happy with SLS
* Very unhappy with other launchers ability to throw to TLI.   It's "simple physics" that you can't land on the moon unless you can throw 26T to TLI (in one shot). *

Therefore it's likely his choice for the 2024 "plant another flag" mission to consist of two SLS launches, with a rendezvous and docking in Lunar orbit.    Guessing that the Lander contract will go to Blue/NG/LM.

So the contracts are spread to Boeing, Blue/NG/LM. 

How this is plausible schedule risk reduction I can't imagine without laughing out loud.

The runner up prizes are at the gateway for the EU, Canada, JAXA, Roscosmos and SpaceX gets to carry the water.

=====

*  From a comment here: 
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-planning-document-may-offer-clues-to-changes-in-artemis-program/?comments=1

Quote
This was Loverro's response to a post of mine on NASAwatch:

"...I can assure you I am well familiar with all the new launch capabilities brought to us by the wonderful and unstoppable force known as American Entrepreneurial fervor. While in DoD I was a prime advocate in working to enhance our cooperation with those companies, both for launch and satellites. I awarded the first two Air Force Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches in 2012 which led to their eventual certification for DoD. That said, our journey to the moon is not yet possible on any commercial launch vehicle -- it's simple physics -- they just can't get there. That may not be true sometime in the future, but for right now, our national success is linked to the success of SLS. It worries me that some folks believe this is an "either or" situation. It's not. We must have SLS and we must make it successful. We must also have a vibrant commercial launch sector and NASA must help empower that as well."
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 04/01/2020 12:44 am
An update on Gateway:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/nasa-officials-outline-plans-for-building-a-lunar-gateway-in-the-mid-2020s/

Quote
Ars: In terms of internal cubic meter capacity, or whatever, is it double, or like 50 percent more than a cargo or Crew Dragon?

Wiese: Right now we're not really disclosing too much of the details.

Not sure why they're so cagey about the details, still in negotiation? Waiting for Loverro's big reveal?

BTW, does anyone think the fact that SpaceX became the sole provider in a $7B max Gateway resupply contract decreases the possibility of them winning HLS? Ideally winning one contract shouldn't affect other unrelated contracts, but in reality I think there is going to be some balancing act behind the scenes, trying to spread the funding among all companies, can't have one company winning all contracts (except Boeing of course).

I am not sure that each contract will have the same selecting officer.

Senator Shelby may have insisted on SLS being used for the lander.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/01/2020 04:01 am
I am not sure that each contract will have the same selecting officer.

I think for big contracts like these the head of HEOMD would make the final selection, so it would be Doug Loverro's decision.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 04/01/2020 06:42 am
Senator Shelby may have insisted on SLS being used for the lander.
I'll eat my hat if anyone can ever find a shred of proof he even discussed the lander with NASA.

Every piece of evidence points to these discussions (in regards to an integrated lander) originating wholly within NASA.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Proponent on 04/01/2020 02:29 pm
I'll eat my hat if anyone can ever find a shred of proof he even discussed the lander with NASA.

Every piece of evidence points to these discussions (in regards to an integrated lander) originating wholly within NASA.

It certainly got a big boost from Doug Cook, who is literally paid by Boeing.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DistantTemple on 04/01/2020 02:40 pm
I'll eat my hat if anyone can ever find a shred of proof he even discussed the lander with NASA.

Every piece of evidence points to these discussions (in regards to an integrated lander) originating wholly within NASA.

It certainly got a big boost from Doug Cook, who is literally paid by Boeing.
(EDIT Responding mainly to jadebenn)
I don't think "he" needs to have personally spoke to NASA!  There are other ways for NASA to understand that the use of the SLS is important to important people in government who influence NASA's finance!

However ISTM you are right to resist those who shout "pork conspiracy" at every chance. Factual connections like the Doug Cook comment above though need more careful analysis.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 04/01/2020 02:59 pm
Senator Shelby may have insisted on SLS being used for the lander.
I'll eat my hat if anyone can ever find a shred of proof he even discussed the lander with NASA.

Every piece of evidence points to these discussions (in regards to an integrated lander) originating wholly within NASA.

This seems likely to me. It's the completely unsurprising result where the same center that is taking the lead on SLS development is responsible for overseeing the HLS program. The
"not built here" bias against alternative launchers is just human nature having its predictable effect on the decision.

HLS was SUPPOSED to be a competitive procurement process, one in which any entrant could secure commercial procurement of SLS if they chose to do so. If SLS offered the best path forward in any particular bid that bid would shine as the winner when the details of all the plans are released.

The continued delays and behind the curtain maneuvering really seems indicative of thumbs on the scale and a very questionable process.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/02/2020 03:16 am
Senator Shelby may have insisted on SLS being used for the lander.
I'll eat my hat if anyone can ever find a shred of proof he even discussed the lander with NASA.

Every piece of evidence points to these discussions (in regards to an integrated lander) originating wholly within NASA.

The Aerojet Rocketdyne study did not originate from within NASA.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 04/02/2020 06:01 am
The Aerojet Rocketdyne study did not originate from within NASA.
Why are you assuming this stems from that study?

Besides, what AR rates as the best configuration (CLV-launched AM + SLS-launched DM) is different than what NASA is looking at (SLS-launched AM and DM).
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/03/2020 12:56 am
New report came out...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 04/03/2020 01:22 am
New report came out...
Do we learn anything new in this report? Nothing sticks out to me. Just formality?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/03/2020 01:37 am
New report came out...
Do we learn anything new in this report? Nothing sticks out to me. Just formality?

Artemis Base Camp, consisting of an unpressurized rover, a pressurized rover and a fixed habitat, might be at Shackleton crater. The plans for a gateway/lunar surface mars analog mission is also new to me:

Quote
In addition to establishing Artemis Base Camp, another core element of the sustained lunar presence that feeds forward to Mars will be the expansion of habitation and related support systems at the Gateway. This evolution of the Gateway’s systems to include large-volume deep space habitation would allow our astronauts to test, initially in lunar orbit, how they will live on their voyage to and from Mars. Gateway can also support our first Mars mission analogs on the lunar surface. For such a mission, we currently envision a four-person crew traveling to the Gateway and living aboard the outpost for a multi-month stay to simulate the outbound trip to Mars, followed by two crew travelling down to and exploring the lunar surface with the habitable mobility platform, while the remaining two crew stay aboard. The four crew are then reunited at the Gateway for another multi-month stay, simulating the return trip to Earth, before landing back home. These missions will be by far the longest duration human deep space missions in history. They will be the first operational tests of the readiness of our long-duration deep space systems, and of the split crew operations that are vital to our approach for the first human Mars mission. 
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/a_sustained_lunar_presence_nspc_report4220final.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 04/03/2020 01:47 am
New report came out...
Do we learn anything new in this report? Nothing sticks out to me. Just formality?

Yes, NASA were tasked with producing a report on sustainable lunar surface exploration and the development of crewed missions to Mars for the National Space Council, this is it. The main thing that sticks out to me from the report is the “Artemis Base Camp”, we hadn’t heard much about NASA’s plans for surface habitation modules up until now.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/03/2020 02:54 am
The Aerojet Rocketdyne study did not originate from within NASA.
Why are you assuming this stems from that study?

Why are you assuming it didn't stem from this study? We don't know one way or the other, yet you're making an absolute claim without evidence.

Quote
Besides, what AR rates as the best configuration (CLV-launched AM + SLS-launched DM) is different than what NASA is looking at (SLS-launched AM and DM).

AJR changed its result to single launch later on, read the article.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 04/03/2020 05:03 am
Why are you assuming it didn't stem from this study? We don't know one way or the other, yet you're making an absolute claim without evidence.
I did no such thing. It's on the onus of those who wish to prove outside forces have unduly influenced NASA's decisions to do so.

Look, if you want to take the approach of GWH and just grumble about it being "business-as-usual at MSFC," or whatever, that's fine. I fundamentally can't take issue with the factuality of what he says, because it's clearly his opinion and not a scenario that'd fit better in a political thriller.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 04/03/2020 05:06 am
Do we learn anything new in this report? Nothing sticks out to me. Just formality?

Yes, NASA were tasked with producing a report on sustainable lunar surface exploration and the development of crewed missions to Mars for the National Space Council, this is it.
I am quite confident this is not that. Maybe a portion of it, but that is going to be much bigger in scope than a 14 page document.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/03/2020 05:44 am
Why are you assuming it didn't stem from this study? We don't know one way or the other, yet you're making an absolute claim without evidence.
I did no such thing.

"Every piece of evidence points to these discussions (in regards to an integrated lander) originating wholly within NASA"

1. The word "wholly" shows you're making an absolute claim
2. You mentioned "Every piece of evidence", yet you have shown none of them

So my assessment stands.

Quote
It's on the onus of those who wish to prove outside forces have unduly influenced NASA's decisions to do so.

We have presented two pieces of evidence:
1. Doug Cooke
2. AJR's study

But note we're not making absolute claims, the whole thing started with the comment "Senator Shelby may have insisted on SLS being used for the lander.", this is a conjecture, not a claim, unlike yours.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 04/03/2020 06:13 pm
Here is an article on the report:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-report-outlines-vision-for-long-term-human-lunar-exploration/

See also NASA's article on it:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-outlines-lunar-surface-sustainability-concept
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/04/2020 03:00 am
Quote
One year ago, NASA embarked upon a journey to send humans back to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo Program. At the direction of the White House, NASA seeks to land astronauts at the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Only recently, in February, did the space agency put a price on this Artemis Moon plan—$35 billion over the next five years above its existing budget.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/nasa-wants-to-spend-35-billion-returning-to-the-moon-is-it-worth-it/

Pretty sure that $35 billion dollars over 5 years above its existing budget has been debunked. But here it is again.

It is a fun article though. It just sucks that it is premised on false numbers.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/04/2020 09:21 pm
Gateway got pretty beastly in the last few months.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: freddo411 on 04/05/2020 12:58 am
Quote
One year ago, NASA embarked upon a journey to send humans back to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo Program. At the direction of the White House, NASA seeks to land astronauts at the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Only recently, in February, did the space agency put a price on this Artemis Moon plan—$35 billion over the next five years above its existing budget.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/nasa-wants-to-spend-35-billion-returning-to-the-moon-is-it-worth-it/

Pretty sure that $35 billion dollars over 5 years above its existing budget has been debunked. But here it is again.

It is a fun article though. It just sucks that it is premised on false numbers.

The recent contract for lunar commercial cargo is capped at 7 billion.   

Do I understand you that you don't think that the human lunar lander development and execution + all other supporting work + launch costs won't amount to 28 billion over 5 years (assuming a landing goes forward)?

I don't know what the number will turn out to be, but I find 28 billion over 5 years on the low side.
   
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/05/2020 01:28 am
Quote
One year ago, NASA embarked upon a journey to send humans back to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo Program. At the direction of the White House, NASA seeks to land astronauts at the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Only recently, in February, did the space agency put a price on this Artemis Moon plan—$35 billion over the next five years above its existing budget.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/nasa-wants-to-spend-35-billion-returning-to-the-moon-is-it-worth-it/

Pretty sure that $35 billion dollars over 5 years above its existing budget has been debunked. But here it is again.

It is a fun article though. It just sucks that it is premised on false numbers.

The recent contract for lunar commercial cargo is capped at 7 billion.   

Do I understand you that you don't think that the human lunar lander development and execution + all other supporting work + launch costs won't amount to 28 billion over 5 years (assuming a landing goes forward)?

I don't know what the number will turn out to be, but I find 28 billion over 5 years on the low side.
 

I'm saying that NASA would have spent about ~160 billion dollars in the 7 years between FY 2019 and FY 2025 with no lunar landing goal and the associated costs (simply moderately increasing NASA's budget to match inflation). They are now projecting they will spend $180 billion dollars between the same time frame (an increase of about 12-13%). The additional cost of the lunar landing, above and beyond their normal budget before they were planning a 2024 landing and funding gateway/HLS/ACSC is therefore $20 billion out to September 2025 (presumably around where the lunar landing is supposed to occur). You are measuring completely different things. The GLS contract value over 15 years has nothing to do with the 5 year time frame and shouldn't be subtracted from the $35 billion dollar figure.

Quote
One year ago, NASA embarked upon a journey to send humans back to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo Program. At the direction of the White House, NASA seeks to land astronauts at the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Only recently, in February, did the space agency put a price on this Artemis Moon plan—$35 billion over the next five years above its existing budget.

Anyways, here is how Artemis contributes substantially to half of the 10 identified alternatives.

1.)Find asteroids, then deflect or mine them.

The heavy capabilities used here can help with deflection(whether that is the high power solar electric propulsion used on the PPE or the SLS heavy lift rocket).

2.)Explore the Solar System

Humans on the lunar surface will conduct planetary science, return samples, and the CLPS program will do unmanned science flights.

6.)Support commercial space

A large portion of the money for Artemis is going to private companies to develop expertise and technology - Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, Maxar, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc.

8.)Fund big astronomy

The platforms and locations developed and accessed could be locations for telescopes (both the lunar far-side and lunar gateway), the manned capabilities in cis-lunar space could be used for construction and/or servicing of telescope platforms in range and the heavy lift capabilities utilized, tested and maintained can be used by more capable telescopes in the future.

9.)Starship to Mars

Starship is a CLPS provider for logistics to the lunar surface

So, instead of doing just 1 of the 10 things, through Artemis, we are going to accomplish at least half of them.

Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/05/2020 03:17 am
Quote
One year ago, NASA embarked upon a journey to send humans back to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo Program. At the direction of the White House, NASA seeks to land astronauts at the South Pole of the Moon by 2024. Only recently, in February, did the space agency put a price on this Artemis Moon plan—$35 billion over the next five years above its existing budget.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/nasa-wants-to-spend-35-billion-returning-to-the-moon-is-it-worth-it/

Pretty sure that $35 billion dollars over 5 years above its existing budget has been debunked. But here it is again.

It is a fun article though. It just sucks that it is premised on false numbers.
If Boeing is involved in lander expect that $35B to turn into $50-100B and forget about human landings in 2020s.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woog on 04/07/2020 09:36 am
[UNOFFICAL RENDER] Astronauts approaching The Lunar Terrain Vehicle at Artemis Base Camp
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Paul451 on 04/07/2020 01:30 pm
Re: Lunar Terrain Vehicle

That forward bar is odd. Is it a grab-rail, roll-bar, or the frame of a dust-shield?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woog on 04/07/2020 10:16 pm
Re: Lunar Terrain Vehicle

That forward bar is odd. Is it a grab-rail, roll-bar, or the frame of a dust-shield?
i have no idea why there are some white bars in front. i just put it there since the offical renders also show it
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ltv-climbinghill-viper.jpg
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/09/2020 02:59 am
According to the article, Loverro should be giving an update in mid-April which corresponds to the next NAC HEO Committte meeting. Loverro is scheduled to talk at that NAC HEO meeting from 1:05 pm to 2 pm.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Note this meeting is now "Postponed Until Further Notice"
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Hog on 04/09/2020 02:38 pm
Re: Lunar Terrain Vehicle

That forward bar is odd. Is it a grab-rail, roll-bar, or the frame of a dust-shield?
A light bar?  No self respecting dune buggy doesn't have a light bar.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 04/09/2020 03:28 pm
According to the article, Loverro should be giving an update in mid-April which corresponds to the next NAC HEO Committte meeting. Loverro is scheduled to talk at that NAC HEO meeting from 1:05 pm to 2 pm.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Note this meeting is now "Postponed Until Further Notice"

So the question is will they get on with it and just make an announcement without having to wait for one of these pompous meetings?
Noone who isn't already interested in the public will care given the current state of affairs.  A low key rollout would be better.

Engineering teams can still work remotely, designs can move forward, and a small amount of money can still flow through the economy.  Delays won't help anyone.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2020 05:08 pm
According to the article, Loverro should be giving an update in mid-April which corresponds to the next NAC HEO Committte meeting. Loverro is scheduled to talk at that NAC HEO meeting from 1:05 pm to 2 pm.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Note this meeting is now "Postponed Until Further Notice"

So the question is will they get on with it and just make an announcement without having to wait for one of these pompous meetings?
Noone who isn't already interested in the public will care given the current state of affairs.  A low key rollout would be better.

Engineering teams can still work remotely, designs can move forward, and a small amount of money can still flow through the economy.  Delays won't help anyone.

What I find puzzling is that the RFP (which provides for commercial LVs) hasn't changed, despite what Loverro said. Technically, the Demo mission (Option A) will not be triggered upon initial award. So perhaps, they could change option A after the initial awards. Hard to say.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/10/2020 03:17 am
According to the article, Loverro should be giving an update in mid-April which corresponds to the next NAC HEO Committte meeting. Loverro is scheduled to talk at that NAC HEO meeting from 1:05 pm to 2 pm.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Note this meeting is now "Postponed Until Further Notice"

So the question is will they get on with it and just make an announcement without having to wait for one of these pompous meetings?
Noone who isn't already interested in the public will care given the current state of affairs.  A low key rollout would be better.

Engineering teams can still work remotely, designs can move forward, and a small amount of money can still flow through the economy.  Delays won't help anyone.

I think NAC HEO meeting is the low key rollout, nobody but space reporters will be listening in to this meeting. I doubt finding the right meeting to rollout is the cause of delay.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DreamyPickle on 04/10/2020 01:52 pm
"NASA’s Plan for Sustained Lunar Exploration and Development" is still quite confused and tries to give something for everybody but the "Artemis Base Camp" is a very good idea and it's what HSF should be working towards. People are still stuck on "SLS sucks" but Artemis has a lot of potential beyond just giving the SLS something to do.

Screw Mars, building a moon base supplied by multiple commercial contractors would be both sustainable and worthwhile. Having boots on the ground on the Moon means that ISRU experiments can finally be flown and operated by astronauts.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: saturnsky on 04/10/2020 02:14 pm
Great point,,,,China already aware of commercial value of the Moon,,,let NASA explore the Polar regions, and working with commercial partners, build an industrial, mining facility on the Moon....
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/10/2020 04:40 pm
https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1248651499917455365

Quote
We're sending science and technology to the lunar surface ahead of #Artemis astronauts with our Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiative. Today, I’m excited to ask for new, innovative ideas to help us build a catalog of @NASAMoon payloads. Details:

Quote
April 10, 2020

NASA Releases PRISM Call for Potential Lunar Surface Investigations

NASA hopes to capture a broader spectrum of information from the scientific community for potential future payloads to deliver to the lunar surface through the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative.

Responses to the new Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon (PRISM) request for information (RFI) will help NASA generate an internal database of investigations that could ultimately make up the manifest of future CLPS deliveries. In addition, the information collected will help determine future CLPS landing sites and new lander capabilities that need to be developed to broaden the spectrum of future lunar surface investigations.

“With this innovative approach for soliciting science investigations and technology demonstration payloads for future deliveries by our CLPS providers, we are building a more robust portfolio of available payloads to enable more groundbreaking science at the Moon and support the Artemis program objectives in diverse and meaningful ways,” said Steve Clarke, deputy associate administrator for exploration at NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. “We’re excited to provide more opportunities to the science, technology, and exploration communities with PRISM to expand our knowledge of the Moon, the Earth and the universe.

NASA has already contracted with three companies to make CLPS deliveries of science and technology demonstrations to the Moon for the agency beginning in 2021. The new PRISM RFI will begin the process of identifying additional payloads that may be available for delivery in the coming years as the agency’s Artemis program prepares to send the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024. The potential payloads would be available for CLPS launches beginning in 2023.

NASA is interested in investigations that maximize basic and applied science and technology demonstrations at different lunar locations, as well as individual investigation components that would be valuable at multiple locations.

CLPS is designed to provide a minimum of two delivery opportunities to the lunar surface each year starting in 2021. While investigations for the first four deliveries in 2021 and 2022 have been selected, there is a continuing need for 2023 and beyond. The fifth planned delivery is NASA’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover or VIPER, and the agency plans to make a CLPS delivery award to one of its providers in the near future. PRISM will be the primary process for selecting future CLPS investigations.

Responses to the PRISM RFI are being sought broadly from U.S. industry, universities, non-profit organizations, NASA centers and other U.S. government agencies, and will be used by NASA to focus its planning and acquisition strategy.

PRISM will operate in two stages.

The first, this PRISM Stage-1 RFI, requests information on all investigation components and suites that are available, including those that can be ready as early as 2023, and will remain open for 30 days. However, the RFI will open again periodically to collect further responses from the community as new ideas, opportunities for flight, and priorities are identified.

The second, PRISM Stage-2, will call for specific solicitations for science and technology investigations. NASA anticipates multiple PRISM Stage-2 calls at regular intervals. The first of these, expected in the Summer 2020 timeframe, will utilize the data from this RFI to determine the likely locations for the next several CLPS deliveries and will call for full proposals via a Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (ROSES) solicitation.

CLPS is a key part of NASA’s Artemis lunar exploration efforts. The science and technology payloads sent to the Moon’s surface as part of the project will help lay the foundation for human missions and a sustainable human presence on the lunar surface.
 

Last Updated: April 10, 2020
Editor: Cheryl Warner

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-releases-prism-call-for-potential-lunar-surface-investigations
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 04/10/2020 05:18 pm
I'm getting the feeling that Gateway is emerging as a very lean and cost effective program, and it feels strange to see it taken off the critical path.

First the PPE was awarded, at a very inexpensive fixed price of $375M
Now SpaceX has the cargo award - price not known - however we know it was substantially less than the competition. Whatever this cost was, the existence of a $7B cap and knowledge of a significant price delta suggests it would only be $1 to $2B at the absolute maximum.
I'm really curious as to what the pricing for Northrop Grumman's HALO will be. $1 to $2B?

What will it say about Artemis as a whole if the lean Gateway comes out as a $2.5-4.5 billion dollar program all in? How will it compare to the total development costs of the OTHER elements of Artemis, SLS & Orion, and decisions made on the HLS?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: RonM on 04/10/2020 05:26 pm
Gateway seems to be coming along just fine, but it makes sense to take it off the critical path for 2024.

Captain Obvious says SLS/Orion and a lander has to be ready for 2024 landing. Gateway is optional, so there's no reason to put it on the critical path. If everything goes well Gateway might be ready anyway and they can still use it. Just don't count on it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DreamyPickle on 04/10/2020 06:36 pm
Maybe all "taking Gateway off the critical path" means is that companies can offer a lander that docks with Orion in free space.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/11/2020 03:18 am
I'm getting the feeling that Gateway is emerging as a very lean and cost effective program, and it feels strange to see it taken off the critical path.

Yes, it is lean and cost effective, that's what you get by competition and fixed cost contracts. As for taking it off the critical path, I suspect it's because Loverro wants to move some of the Gateway funding to HLS. Gateway is currently fully funded, but HLS funding is only $600M out of the $1B they asked for.

Maybe all "taking Gateway off the critical path" means is that companies can offer a lander that docks with Orion in free space.

No, that's not it, the final version of the lander RFP already allows this.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 04/11/2020 06:39 am
As for taking it off the critical path, I suspect it's because Loverro wants to move some of the Gateway funding to HLS. Gateway is currently fully funded, but HLS funding is only $600M out of the $1B they asked for.
I cannot agree more. Some of his remarks have hinted at this as well, such as him stating the alternative was cancellation (which only really makes sense in a budgetary context).

Before someone pounces on this and states that NASA does not have the ability to move funds around without the assent of Congress, I'd like to clarify I mean this in the sense that this allows NASA to keep the overall budget requests more flat while still proposing increases to HLS, which should be more palatable to Congress than the alternative.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/11/2020 12:53 pm
Personally, I think the COVID-19 pandemic has taken 2024 off the critical path...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/12/2020 04:19 am
Personally, I think the COVID-19 pandemic has taken 2024 off the critical path...

2024 was never on the critical path. :-)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/12/2020 11:53 pm
Personally, I think the COVID-19 pandemic has taken 2024 off the critical path...

2024 was never on the critical path. :-)
Completely agree.  I never thought the next human landing on the Moon was going to happen by 2024,  I did like the goal because it pushed people to think about how it could be done fast.  It was a political target too.  And it would have been nice if it was reachable.  I always  thought problems would pop up to delay it like happens on every other program.  I just didn't expect the first really big problem would be a pandemic.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/15/2020 05:47 pm
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1250476239472726016

Quote
NASA's "still on track for 2021 for Artemis 1," Jim Bridenstine tells the Planetary Society, and if "coronavirus goes on for a number of more months," it may get pushed to 2022. If it keeps slipping, "eventually it's going to impinge on Artemis 2."
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woog on 04/16/2020 06:46 am
Artemis Base Camp
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/17/2020 03:39 pm
https://youtu.be/eh8D3OxHX0A
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 04/21/2020 01:24 pm
NASA adjusting its strategy for LEO commercialization (https://spacenews.com/nasa-adjusting-its-strategy-for-leo-commercialization/)

Quote
Loverro declined in the webinar to address other aspects of his directorate outside of LEO commercialization, notably any changes to the Artemis program for returning humans to the moon. “We are going to have a big rollout ceremony for the rest of the Artemis program in just a short, short while,” he promised.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 04/24/2020 12:57 pm
The NAC HEO meeting has now been re-scheduled to May 13 and 14th:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1253652677675888643

Presumably an announcement on the human lander and on gateway strategy is likely to precede this meeting.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: soltasto on 04/24/2020 02:52 pm
I heard it was coming today but it looks like there might be a delay
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 04/24/2020 03:00 pm
Loren Grush said that she’d heard it would happen next week
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 04/24/2020 03:11 pm
Loren Grush said that she’d heard it would happen next week

https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1253359540432756737

Sad face. Double sad face for continued ambiguity.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 04/29/2020 12:56 am
Here is an article about the base camp:
https://appel.nasa.gov/2020/04/28/nasa-report-outlines-plan-for-sustained-moon-presence/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/29/2020 07:55 am
Here's the report.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: sevenperforce on 04/29/2020 05:49 pm
A lot of people who know I'm a rocket nerd have asked me things like "why can't we just use the Saturn V again" for Artemis. I put together a launch calculator that might be interesting....

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50786.msg2074795#msg2074795 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50786.msg2074795#msg2074795)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: lrk on 04/30/2020 04:58 pm
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1255902514542718976

Wow, everyone except Boeing is moving forward! 

Apparently SpaceX's proposal is ...a Starship without fins?  I did not expect that, I thought we heard that SpaceX's design was FH-launched.  Maybe that was confusion with the Gateway Logistics proposal?

The National Team design looks ...complicated.

And Dynetics' proposal looks very interesting. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 04/30/2020 05:07 pm
Lol....Starship is sooooo tall...what happens if that “elevator” breaks down...be a loooong climb up by rope...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: lrk on 04/30/2020 05:26 pm
Lol....Starship is sooooo tall...what happens if that “elevator” breaks down...be a loooong climb up by rope...

Lunar gravity is 1/6th of Earth gravity, so it shouldn't be nearly as bad as it sounds.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 04/30/2020 07:42 pm
Lol....Starship is sooooo tall...what happens if that “elevator” breaks down...be a loooong climb up by rope...

Nope. emergency sport-like grips (as in the sports of a ladder) will be integrated into the leeward side of Starship for exactly this type of malfunction.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/01/2020 12:07 am
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but in reading the story in the Washington Post (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/science/nasa-moon-lander.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage) about the lunar lander contract awards, they had this:
Quote
The NASA administrator was also optimistic that Congress would finance Artemis even with the federal government facing huge deficits because of economic fallout from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. He said that NASA accounted for a small fraction of federal spending, and that the agency enjoyed broad support from both Republicans and Democrats.

“It’s important that this agency do this now, because our country and in fact the whole world has been shaken by this coronavirus pandemic,” Mr. Bridenstine said. “And yet we need to give people hope. We need to give them something that they can look up to, dream about.”


People tend to think that just because NASA is spending money that the entire Artemis program is funded, but it is not. In fact the last action Congress assigned NASA was to provide Congress with detailed spending profiles for the Artemis program - which we haven't heard has been provided yet.

So while the U.S. Government is spending $Trillions in propping up the American economy due to the global pandemic, I'm not sure it is a given that NASA will be funded for Artemis.

That said, with these new players for the actual mission hardware, I think it would make it easier to remove the current transportation hardware (i.e. Orion & SLS) and replace it with something less complex and lower cost. So the Artemis goal could be kept, just cut out some bloated middleware...  ;)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 05/01/2020 05:29 am
That said, with these new players for the actual mission hardware, I think it would make it easier to remove the current transportation hardware (i.e. Orion & SLS) and replace it with something less complex and lower cost. So the Artemis goal could be kept, just cut out some bloated middleware...  ;)
That drum's looking pretty worn after 10 years of banging it.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woods170 on 05/01/2020 07:08 am
That said, with these new players for the actual mission hardware, I think it would make it easier to remove the current transportation hardware (i.e. Orion & SLS) and replace it with something less complex and lower cost. So the Artemis goal could be kept, just cut out some bloated middleware...  ;)
That drum's looking pretty worn after 10 years of banging it.

Yes, 10 years already and SLS has still not launched.







Don't look at me that way. It was you who provided the wide open door  ;)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 05/01/2020 09:17 am
Nah, twas fair. Live by the sword...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: DreamyPickle on 05/01/2020 09:50 am
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin explicitly commited to unmanned test landing, and Blue even said the test landing will be "close" to the manned one.

It's nasa that gets to pick the landing site, correct? I think all of them should be clustered around the sound pole and be within at least driving distance of each other if not immediately adjacent.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: woog on 05/01/2020 10:45 am
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin explicitly commited to unmanned test landing, and Blue even said the test landing will be "close" to the manned one.

It's nasa that gets to pick the landing site, correct? I think all of them should be clustered around the sound pole and be within at least driving distance of each other if not immediately adjacent.
I wonder why the Dynetics HLS doesn't have an explicitly stated pre-2024 test flight. Considering it's the highest rated (very good in both technical and management) you'd think they would plan for a demonstration flight to get rid of technical risk on that crewed demonstration mission in 2024.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 05/01/2020 10:51 am
What rocket would launch the Dynetics HLS?  It has to get to moon somehow. 
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Paul451 on 05/01/2020 11:16 am
What rocket would launch the Dynetics HLS?  It has to get to moon somehow.

SLS 1B or Vulcan-Centaur, according to the company.

https://www.dynetics.com/newsroom/news/2020/dynetics-to-develop-nasas-artemis-human-lunar-landing-system (https://www.dynetics.com/newsroom/news/2020/dynetics-to-develop-nasas-artemis-human-lunar-landing-system)
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/01/2020 07:57 pm
Quote
May 1, 2020
RELEASE 20-050

NASA Commits to Future Artemis Missions with More SLS Rocket Engines

NASA has awarded a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, to manufacture 18 additional Space Launch System (SLS) RS-25 rocket engines to support Artemis missions to the Moon.

The follow-on contract to produce 18 engines is valued at $1.79 billion. This includes labor to build and test the engines, produce tooling and support SLS flights powered by the engines. This modifies the initial contract awarded in November 2015 to recertify and produce six new RS-25 engines and brings the total contract value to almost $3.5 billion with a period of performance through Sept. 30, 2029, and a total of 24 engines to support as many as six additional SLS flights.

“This contract allows NASA to work with Aerojet Rocketdyne to build the rocket engines needed for future missions,” said John Honeycutt, the SLS program manager at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “The same reliable engines that launched more than 100 space shuttle missions have been modified to be even more powerful to launch the next astronauts who will set foot on the lunar surface during the Artemis missions.”

Each SLS rocket uses four RS-25 engines, providing a total of 2 million pounds of thrust to send SLS to space. The SLS rocket leverages the assets, capabilities, and experience of NASA’s Space Shuttle Program, using 16 existing RS-25 shuttle engines for the first four SLS missions. These engines were updated with new controllers – the brains that control the engine – and upgraded and tested to fly at the higher performance level necessary to launch the SLS, which is much larger and more powerful than the shuttle.

The rocket engines are mounted at the base of the 212-foot-tall core stage, which holds more than 700,000 gallons of propellant and provides the flight computers that control the rocket’s flight. The engines for the Artemis I mission to the Moon have already been assembled as part of the core stage, which is undergoing Green Run testing.

“We’ve already begun production on the first six new RS-25 engines,” said Johnny Heflin, the SLS engines manager. “Aerojet Rocketdyne has restarted the production lines, established a supplier base and is building engines using advanced techniques that reduce both the cost and time for manufacturing each engine.”

The engines are built at Aerojet Rocketdyne’s factory in Canoga Park, California. Working with NASA, Aerojet has implemented a plan to reduce the cost of the engines by as much as 30% by using more advanced manufacturing techniques to modify some of the rocket components. Some of these modified components have already been tested during engine tests that replicate the conditions of flight.The new digital controllers are built by Honeywell Aerospace in Clearwater, Florida,  a major subcontractor to Aerojet Rocketdyne.

The SLS rocket, Orion spacecraft, Gateway and Human Landing System are part of NASA’s backbone for deep space exploration. Work is well underway on both the Artemis I and II rockets. The Artemis I core stage and its RS-25 engines are in the B-2 test stand at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Here, the stage is undergoing Green Run testing, an integrated test of the entire new stage that culminates with the firing of all four RS-25 engines. Upon completion of the test, NASA’s Pegasus barge will take the core stage to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida where it will be integrated with other parts of the rocket and Orion for Artemis I.

The Artemis program is the next step in human space exploration. It’s part of America’s broader Moon to Mars exploration approach, in which astronauts will explore the Moon and experience gained there to enable humanity’s next giant leap, sending humans to Mars.

For more information about SLS visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/sls

-end-

Kathryn Hambleton
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1409
[email protected]

Tracy McMahan
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
256-544-0034
[email protected]

Last Updated: May 1, 2020
Editor: Sean Potter

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-future-artemis-missions-with-more-sls-rocket-engines

Photo caption:

Quote
NASA has awarded a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, to manufacture 18 additional Space Launch System (SLS) RS-25 rocket engines to support Artemis missions to the Moon. The four RS-25 engines, shown here, are attached to the SLS core stage that will send the Artemis I mission to the Moon. Currently, the stage is undergoing a series of Green Run tests in a test stand at Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The additional engines will support future SLS flights to deep space.
Credits: NASA/Jude Guidry
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Markstark on 05/01/2020 08:34 pm
Some in Congress not happy with yesterday’s news


https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Tulse on 05/01/2020 08:41 pm
$100 million per RS-25 engine? So $400 million per SLS launch just for the expended first-stage engines?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/01/2020 08:50 pm
$100 million per RS-25 engine? So $400 million per SLS launch just for the expended first-stage engines?
A total of $3.5 billion for 24 engines through 2029.  It's only $ 145.8 million per engine.  So just under $600 million per launch.
 :o :o
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 05/01/2020 08:50 pm
$100 million per RS-25 engine? So $400 million per SLS launch just for the expended first-stage engines?

No, the contract likely pays for tooling, manufacturing, paying employees, testing and qualifying the engines for SLS etc. The actual manufacturing cost of each RS-25E is in the neighbourhood of $30 million, according to Phillip’s recent article.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/01/2020 09:00 pm
Some in Congress not happy with yesterday’s news

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards

And to emphasis a point that tends to be ignored, from that letter
Quote
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK)... “Unfortunately, more than a year after their announcement to accelerate the Artemis program, NASA has yet to provide Congress a transparent architecture and technical and cost assessment, despite our repeated requests..."

NASA, and the Trump administration, has only themselves to blame if Congress doesn't fund what they want, since NASA has not provided the information that Congress requested.

I know Trump likes to think that he doesn't have to listen to Congress, but there is a limit to how much money he can steal from other departments and agencies. At some point he is going to have to provide the info - no matter how expensive it will look. Putting it off will only make things worse.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/01/2020 09:03 pm
All three proposals have prime contractors that are by privately owned companies that don't need to justify their expenditure to shareholders. Which means they are willing to put lot more skin(money) into game compared to likes of Boeing.

National team is mainly Blue ie Jeff Bezos, with Blue having most technically challenging module but also access to unlimited $$. LM and NGIS modules shouldn't pose any technical issues so should stay with budget.

Dynetics main contractor is SNC which is privately owned.

SpaceX we all know.



Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Eric Hedman on 05/01/2020 09:05 pm
Some in Congress not happy with yesterday’s news

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards

And to emphasis a point that tends to be ignored, from that letter
Quote
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK)... “Unfortunately, more than a year after their announcement to accelerate the Artemis program, NASA has yet to provide Congress a transparent architecture and technical and cost assessment, despite our repeated requests..."

NASA, and the Trump administration, has only themselves to blame if Congress doesn't fund what they want, since NASA has not provided the information that Congress requested.

I know Trump likes to think that he doesn't have to listen to Congress, but there is a limit to how much money he can steal from other departments and agencies. At some point he is going to have to provide the info - no matter how expensive it will look. Putting it off will only make things worse.
How do you come up with costs without knowing what lander you are going to use?  These 10 month contracts should allow them to finally come up with an estimate that isn't just a wild guess.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Tulse on 05/01/2020 09:08 pm
$100 million per RS-25 engine? So $400 million per SLS launch just for the expended first-stage engines?

No, the contract likely pays for tooling, manufacturing, paying employees, testing and qualifying the engines for SLS etc. The actual manufacturing cost of each RS-25E is in the neighbourhood of $30 million, according to Phillip’s recent article.
So, again, the total cost is $400 million per SLS launch just for the expended first-stage engines?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 05/01/2020 09:11 pm
I know Trump likes to think that he doesn't have to listen to Congress, but there is a limit to how much money he can steal reappropriate from other departments and agencies.
Fixed that for ya. Supreme Court ruled that what he has done is completely legal, therefore it's not "stealing".
Let's all be careful about our choice of words so as to keep this excellent topic thread on track.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/01/2020 09:12 pm
$100 million per RS-25 engine? So $400 million per SLS launch just for the expended first-stage engines?

No, the contract likely pays for tooling, manufacturing, paying employees, testing and qualifying the engines for SLS etc. The actual manufacturing cost of each RS-25E is in the neighbourhood of $30 million, according to Phillip’s recent article.

You can't ignore NRE (non-recurring engineering) and other one-time costs. It's not like they don't exist, or are "free". If NASA didn't order these engines its not like Aerojet Rocketdyne would have spent the money for another customer anyways - there is no other customer for RS-25 engines.

In low-rate production it is perfectly acceptable to take total contract cost and divide by total units produced. Everyone knows most of the cost is for producing unit #1, but that is still the only transparent way to understand what it costs to produce not only unit #1, but unit number #24 too.

Overall the total the U.S. Taxpayer is paying for 24 engines is about $3.5B, or ~$145M each. That puts a flight set RS-25 engines for the first 6ea SLS flights at $580M. That amount as to be taken into account for any "marginal cost" calculations...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/01/2020 09:19 pm
All three proposals have prime contractors that are by privately owned companies that don't need to justify their expenditure to shareholders. Which means they are willing to put lot more skin(money) into game compared to likes of Boeing.

National team is mainly Blue ie Jeff Bezos, with Blue having most technically challenging module but also access to unlimited $$. LM and NGIS modules shouldn't pose any technical issues so should stay with budget.

Dynetics main contractor is SNC which is privately owned.

SpaceX we all know.

Dynetics is owned by Leidos that is a public company. They are a very large company - 32,000 employees with $10 billion in revenue. Dynetics is the prime, not SNC.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Prettz on 05/01/2020 09:28 pm
Some in Congress not happy with yesterday’s news


https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards
The language about "privatizing the Moon program" is dismaying. Like she doesn't understand what's actually going on.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Paul451 on 05/02/2020 04:21 am
Some in Congress not happy with yesterday’s news
https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards (https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards)
The language about "privatizing the Moon program" is dismaying. Like she doesn't understand what's actually going on.

Quoting in full because there's no copyright on Congressional statements:

Quote
MAY 01, 2020
CHAIRWOMEN JOHNSON AND HORN STATEMENTS ON ARTEMIS HUMAN LANDER SYSTEMS CONTRACT AWARDS
(Washington, DC) – Yesterday, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that Blue Origin, Dynetics, and Space X have been awarded contracts to design and develop Artemis program human landing systems, one of which NASA plans to use for a 2024 lunar landing. 

“I am troubled that NASA has decided to ignore congressional intent and instead press forward with Human Landing System awards to try to meet an arbitrary 2024 lunar landing deadline,” said Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). “As the Apollo program showed us, getting to the Moon and back safely is hard.  The multi-year delays and difficulties experienced by the companies of NASA’s taxpayer-funded Commercial Crew program—a program with the far less ambitious goal of just getting NASA astronauts back to low Earth orbit—make clear to me that we should not be trying to privatize America’s Moon-Mars program, especially when at the end of the day American taxpayers—not the private companies—are going to wind up paying the lion’s share of the costs.  I want our Nation to pursue the inspiring goals of returning to the Moon and then heading to Mars, but we need to do it sensibly and safely while we also protect the interests of the tax paying public.”

“America’s human space exploration program has inspired generations and led to discovery, development and innovation,” said Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK). “Returning humans to the Moon safely is an important and worthy endeavor for our nation. It is also a challenging one that requires significant investment of taxpayer dollars to achieve. I was disappointed to see that NASA’s decision on lunar landing systems development starkly contrasts the bipartisan House NASA Authorization bill and the advice of experts on minimizing risk and ensuring the highest likelihood of success in landing humans on the Moon.”

“Unfortunately, more than a year after their announcement to accelerate the Artemis program, NASA has yet to provide Congress a transparent architecture and technical and cost assessment, despite our repeated requests. The American taxpayer deserves to know their money is being spent wisely, especially if they are being asked to invest billions of taxpayer dollars in a private lunar landing system. Our nation should dream boldly and pursue aspirational goals but we have to do so thoughtfully and intentionally. I look forward to working with NASA in good faith to steer our nation’s space program in a direction that allows our country to achieve inspiring goals and explore space in a responsible and measured way.”

Emphasis mine.

The use of "private/privatise" is not based on a lack of understanding, it is intentional framing. Presumably at the behest of lobbyists working for a different commercial vendor.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MoaMem on 05/02/2020 10:57 am
No, the contract likely pays for tooling, manufacturing, paying employees, testing and qualifying the engines for SLS etc. The actual manufacturing cost of each RS-25E is in the neighbourhood of $30 million, according to Phillip’s recent article.
The R&D, tests and production restarts are all payed for in the 1st $1.7 billions contracts. So at least $100 millions per engine is the PRICE we pay no matter how you want to cut it. The cost is irrelevant to this conversation since if you assume a cost of  $30 millions that only means AR is pocketing $70 millions for every engine they sell us.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: jadebenn on 05/02/2020 08:50 pm
No, the contract likely pays for tooling, manufacturing, paying employees, testing and qualifying the engines for SLS etc. The actual manufacturing cost of each RS-25E is in the neighbourhood of $30 million, according to Phillip’s recent article.
The R&D, tests and production restarts are all payed for in the 1st $1.7 billions contracts. So at least $100 millions per engine is the PRICE we pay no matter how you want to cut it. The cost is irrelevant to this conversation since if you assume a cost of  $30 millions that only means AR is pocketing $70 millions for every engine they sell us.
Paying the salaries of AJR's RS-25 engineering team and the testing and certification of the parts over 9 years is almost certainly costing more than the hardware being built as part of this contract.

This is an area where a higher launch/production cadence would bring costs down per-unit.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/02/2020 09:16 pm
SLS engine cost is not really Artemis related, and if you want a detailed breakdown of RS-25 costs per flight for SLS flights 1-10 see my post on the SLS thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50297.msg2076530#msg2076530
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 05/02/2020 09:40 pm
Well its been two days since the HLS announcement and I have to say I'm really feeling optimistic towards Artemis again. Also I really have to eat some crow over frustration I expressed about the long delays in awards and the maneuvering that seemed to be happening in the back ground and Doug Loverro's involvement and statements in particular.

I think NASA has set up Artemis to be an excellent plan - the best seen in decades - and should be quite resilient to changes in commercial capabilities and future growth. The 3 landers all look to be excellent contenders each with a lot of future optimization possible. I feared we were going to see a Boeing led Apollo redux and fortunately that does not seem to be the case.

The lander selection where SLS Block 1B can be a nice to have option - but not critical - was really a brilliant play IMO to provide the political leverage to the program where give and take doesn't risk derailing the whole affair.

I think there is a really good chance that SLS Block 1B ends up flying either, or both, the Blue Moon and Dynetics proposals.... which really isn't that bad. Its the likely political compromise that will have to happen to get buy in, but fortunately its not a permanent choice and backup launchers are available for increased cadence missions or other users. In the long run I wouldn't be surprised either if a surface hab is flown on SLS using one of these commercial landers (except SpaceX), which would truly be a worth use of that rocket.

With both SpaceX's Starship, Blue Origins plans for utilizing lunar resources, and whatever Dynetics along with ULA want to cook up I really feel optimistic about a future expansion of cis-lunar space being a possibility. Ad Astra.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: Paul451 on 05/03/2020 06:47 am
Aside: Did anyone notice the PR image on the press release (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-names-companies-to-develop-human-landers-for-artemis-moon-missions) showing (or at least strongly implying) Artemis astronauts doing EVAs during lunar night?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/03/2020 07:14 am
That would be a cool thing to see! Even if the Earth above was only half full, it would be much brighter than a full Moon.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: titusou on 05/03/2020 08:23 am
From Blue Origin's CG video, at 41sec...
https://youtu.be/und5nNosJI0?t=41

Is that Earth on lower-left and Moon on upper-right?
The rendering was assuming NRHO crew transfer? HMMMMM~~~
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/03/2020 01:50 pm
NASA, and the Trump administration, has only themselves to blame if Congress doesn't fund what they want, since NASA has not provided the information that Congress requested.

I know Trump likes to think that he doesn't have to listen to Congress, but there is a limit to how much money he can steal transfer from other departments and agencies. At some point he is going to have to provide the info - no matter how expensive it will look. Putting it off will only make things worse.

In the first case  I would leave Trump out of th equation.  NASA owns its lack of accomplishment and it's failure to provide good info to Congress..

In the second case, the President has pretty broad leeway to transfer money between departments and agencies.  We may not like all of those transfers, but Trump is doing what every president before him has done.

As to "providing the info", Trump has no idea how much Artemis will cost; all he can do is report what NASA has told him.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/03/2020 01:52 pm
I know Trump likes to think that he doesn't have to listen to Congress, but there is a limit to how much money he can steal reappropriate from other departments and agencies.
Fixed that for ya. Supreme Court ruled that what he has done is completely legal, therefore it's not "stealing".
Let's all be careful about our choice of words so as to keep this excellent topic thread on track.

I said "transfer", but hey.  Totally agree.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: su27k on 05/04/2020 03:36 am
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/4/nasa-announces-top-three-competitors-to-design-artemis-human-landing-system

Quote
April 30, 2020
WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today released the following statement after the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced the selection of three from among five bidders to study and design the Artemis Human Landing System (HLS). These U.S. companies will produce a design, mission concept, and plan for the Artemis HLS, two of which NASA will eventually select for production.

“The Apollo Program was possible only because of public investments in spacefaring technologies,” said Wicker. “Making good use of commercial partnerships lowers the long-term cost of space exploration, and it allows the American aerospace industry to do what it does best – innovate. These competitors’ designs will play a major role in producing a brand-new human lander that will enable our astronauts to access important areas of the Moon’s surface and sustain our nation’s deep space exploration efforts.”

In November 2019, the NASA Authorization Act was reported favorably by the Committee. The bill broadly supports and authorizes funding for NASA’s Artemis program and a commercial services acquisition strategy for lunar landers. 

The Commerce Committee exercises jurisdiction over NASA.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 05/04/2020 02:25 pm
Some in Congress not happy with yesterday’s news

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards

And to emphasis a point that tends to be ignored, from that letter
Quote
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK)... “Unfortunately, more than a year after their announcement to accelerate the Artemis program, NASA has yet to provide Congress a transparent architecture and technical and cost assessment, despite our repeated requests..."

NASA, and the Trump administration, has only themselves to blame if Congress doesn't fund what they want, since NASA has not provided the information that Congress requested.

I know Trump likes to think that he doesn't have to listen to Congress, but there is a limit to how much money he can steal from other departments and agencies. At some point he is going to have to provide the info - no matter how expensive it will look. Putting it off will only make things worse.

The cost estimate was provided as part of the FY2021 budget (which had a 5 year projection that included the 2024 Moon landing).

It is unlikely that the Moon landers would have been awarded without some kind of approval from the appropriators in the House and Senate.  Johnson and Horn aren't appropriators. Their NASA authorization bill wouldn't have passed in the Senate. The Moon lander has bipartisan support in the Senate.

In any event, a CR is likely for FY21 until after the election.

See this post for more on this:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.msg2077188#msg2077188
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 05/04/2020 06:28 pm
NASA, and the Trump administration, has only themselves to blame if Congress doesn't fund what they want, since NASA has not provided the information that Congress requested.
It was provided as part of the FY2021 budget (which had a 5 year projection that included the 2024 Moon landing).

It is unlikely that the Moon landers would have been awarded without some kind of approval from the appropriators in the House and Senate.  Johnson and Horn aren't appropriators. Their NASA authorization bill wouldn't have passed in the Senate.


The choice to select both the landers and the cargo delivery ahead of a total official program cost is interesting and I wonder if it is to provide additional leverage.

The previous budget request added up to $35 billion over the next for years for a 2024 landing.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-puts-a-price-on-a-2024-moon-landing-35-billion/

The source selection statement on landers mentioned the costs of all the options are much lower than estimated. I really wonder what Boeing's cost was on SLS.

With luck Jim Bridenstine and Doug Loverro will be able to present a much less expensive 2024 landing budget that shows the benefits of a commercial approach and the contrast to a very expensive and delayed cost plus government led approach with SLS and Orion.

I see the launch vehicle being a major point of contention and debate, and see either Blue or Dynetics being baselined to fly on SLS, if not both.
Some negotiation to keep everyone happy is pretty well guaranteed to happen, and that seems like the ideal item to make concessions without derailing the whole program like the Authorization Act would.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 05/05/2020 10:44 pm
Update from the NASA Administrator (video):
https://www.csis.org/events/online-event-nasas-moon-mars-plan-administrator-jim-bridenstine

https://youtu.be/WR5YxmbngrM
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/06/2020 01:18 pm
https://youtu.be/q3kxXjwmtPo
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 05/06/2020 02:32 pm
This is really surprising to hear, seems the new plan is to stack PPE with HALO and launch on a Falcon Heavy (or another vehicle if it's ready). Wonder what the total mass and orbit would be at separation?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-planning-to-launch-an-integrated-lunar-gateway-in-2023/
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: yg1968 on 05/06/2020 03:27 pm
This is really surprising to hear, seems the new plan is to stack PPE with HALO and launch on a Falcon Heavy (or another vehicle if it's ready). Wonder what the total mass and orbit would be at separation?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-planning-to-launch-an-integrated-lunar-gateway-in-2023/

It had been mentionned before as a possibility. But it's not clear, does the article say that FH would need an extended fairing?
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 05/06/2020 03:29 pm
It had been mentionned before as a possibility. But it's not clear, does the article say that FH would need an extended fairing?

Yes.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/06/2020 06:11 pm
A question.

Is there any info on why NASA dropped Boeing from the HLS possible winners since they did send in a proposal? Was it they failed to meet the basic proposal requirements (usual case), or was it they failed to meet at least an acceptable level for the two source selection evaluation criteria? Management and technical. The other three contractors had at least acceptable evaluation on these two criteria.  NOTE: SpaceX was shown as having for Starship only an acceptable level for both Management and Technical.
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: hektor on 05/06/2020 06:40 pm
NASA wants to do on orbit tests of PPE before attaching anything to it, so there is zero chances of launching PPE+HALO at the same time, no matter how cheap or expensive launching them.

Of course, launching both with an SLS is incredible more expensive in comparison with commercial launches.

Zero chances...
Title: Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
Post by: GWH on 05/06/2020 06:43 pm
Artemis 2 to Gateway?

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1258098769398202368

If true, good to make it a more meaningful and substantial mission, but one that will be more challenging to get everything lined up on schedule.