Author Topic: NASA aims for quick start to 2024 Moon landing via newly named Artemis Program  (Read 44870 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 90
I embrace the name as a beautiful successor to Apollo based on the mythology of his lunar sister.  My hope is, somewhere down the line, they'll embrace more than just SLS and Orion into the program.  We should have done this years ago (and I know I'm not the first enthusiast to say so), but what might be the key difference is that only now have we finally a decent beginning to a commercial space industry that can bypass some of the political rigmarole.  Let's hope Artemis evolves into something as grand but even more long-lasting that Apollo.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1046
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1021
  • Likes Given: 2898
My hope is, somewhere down the line, they'll embrace more than just SLS and Orion into the program.
I believe that is currently the plan. They've already shunted the Gateway modules off SLS - current plan seems to be to use SLS + Orion as a crew ferry, and to use commercial heavy lifters like the FH to launch the Gateway modules into NRHO.

Online TrevorMonty

My hope is, somewhere down the line, they'll embrace more than just SLS and Orion into the program.
I believe that is currently the plan. They've already shunted the Gateway modules off SLS - current plan seems to be to use SLS + Orion as a crew ferry, and to use commercial heavy lifters like the FH to launch the Gateway modules into NRHO.
They could save some money by shelving EUS and just use block 1A for crew, leaving cargo to commercial LVs.

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • United States
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 1960
My hope is, somewhere down the line, they'll embrace more than just SLS and Orion into the program.
I believe that is currently the plan. They've already shunted the Gateway modules off SLS - current plan seems to be to use SLS + Orion as a crew ferry, and to use commercial heavy lifters like the FH to launch the Gateway modules into NRHO.
They could save some money by shelving EUS and just use block 1A for crew, leaving cargo to commercial LVs.

They already defunded EUS and put it on the back burner.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35720
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19867
  • Likes Given: 10362
My hope is, somewhere down the line, they'll embrace more than just SLS and Orion into the program.
I believe that is currently the plan. They've already shunted the Gateway modules off SLS - current plan seems to be to use SLS + Orion as a crew ferry, and to use commercial heavy lifters like the FH to launch the Gateway modules into NRHO.
They could save some money by shelving EUS and just use block 1A for crew, leaving cargo to commercial LVs.

They already defunded EUS and put it on the back burner.
Current budget request puts it back on.

But of course, EUS is not required for getting Orion to cislunar, just if you want to also co-launch the lander and gateway elements. There have been suggestions for using the EUS to refuel the lander or as part of the lander, so EUS isn’t completely useless, but technically could be done without if the lander is commercially launched.

But again, the current budget request needs EUS.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9988
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1036
  • Likes Given: 598
The artwork for the *Artemis* project seems more to be designed to capture the attention of the President, than to provide a coherent plan for a moon landing. The President is being played by experts.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline LaunchedIn68

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Deer Park, NY
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 341
The artwork for the *Artemis* project seems more to be designed to capture the attention of the President, than to provide a coherent plan for a moon landing. The President is being played by experts.

Either that or someone went back and watched 'Superman 2' from 1981?

"Artemis! Come in Robbie? Boris? Come in!", etc."


« Last Edit: 05/15/2019 04:30 pm by LaunchedIn68 »
"I want to build a spaceship, go to the moon, salvage all the junk that's up there, bring it back, sell it." - Harry Broderick

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4529
  • Likes Given: 13486
Another great article Thomas, thank you! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2307
  • Likes Given: 29
Quote
A new amendment to the White House’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget request increases NASA’s federal budget by $1.6 Billion.

Adjusted for inflation, the amended budget request is only about $700 million more than the budget for 2019. It is something like a 3% increase.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9988
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1036
  • Likes Given: 598
The artwork for the *Artemis* project seems more to be designed to capture the attention of the President, than to provide a coherent plan for a moon landing. The President is being played by experts.

Either that or someone went back and watched 'Superman 2' from 1981?

I like how the pic shows the *actual* curvature of the Moon.  Anybody care to do a BOTE of the diameter of that soundstage?  And how big it would appear from Earth?
« Last Edit: 05/16/2019 12:44 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2307
  • Likes Given: 29
I embrace the name as a beautiful successor to Apollo based on the mythology of his lunar sister.  My hope is, somewhere down the line, they'll embrace more than just SLS and Orion into the program. 

You gotta be kidding! According to the mythology, Apollo tricks Artemis into killing Orion! lol...

The mythology is too true. The only way the Artemis mission will succeed by 2024 is if Orion is killed.

Artemis killing Orion was a mistake:

Quote
In the second story, Artemis and Orion were inseparable lovers. However, because Artemis was the goddess of the hunt, moon, and chastity; her twin brother Apollo sought to protect Artemis from losing her innocence and despised their union. In order to keep her chaste, Apollo devised a plan to do away with Orion once and for all. The opportunity arose when Orion went for a swim in a vastly large lake, and only the faint shape of his head was visible from the shore. Apollo and Artemis were standing along the lake, and Apollo took the opportunity to challenge Artemis’ skills as an archer. Apollo told Artemis that she was not a talented enough huntress to hit targets of great distances and claimed that she could not even hit the object in the lake. Greek Gods are known for their stubbornness and Artemis was no exception. Annoyed by her brother’s remarks, Artemis shot the Orion square in the head, immediately killing him. Apollo successfully tricked her into murdering her lover and once Artemis discovered what she had done she wallowed in despair. In her pain she appealed to Zeus to immortalize Orion in the stars so she could be with him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(mythology)

Edit/Lar: Please don't remove so much of a quote that it changes the meaning. Edited the quote back in. (the original misquote appears gone)
« Last Edit: 05/21/2019 01:22 am by Lar »

Offline Warren Platts

Thanks for making my point for me. Even if Artemis mission kills Orion capsule, she is still likely to wallow in despair and be unable to do anything else.

There is only one way to do this, and that is revive Alan Stern's Golden Spike concept. The company is still on life support. I don't think they have a payroll or an office or are doing anything, but it is still a legal entity.

And get it out of NASA's hands. Allow them to "focus on Mars" and their little "Gateway". When I was in the Navy, in boot camp they told us: If you can lead, lead. If you can't lead, then follow. If you can't lead or follow, then get the bleep out of the way." NASA needs to get the bleep out of the way.

Give it to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS). They understand lunar geology a lot better than does the NASA Exploration Directorate. At the last space mining conference I was at, the NASA guy nominally in charge of lunar ISRU said we didn't need to do ground penetrating radar missions because LRO had a 13-cm radar. That is how clueless they are.

So give it to USGS. Mandate that they must contract out all spacecraft services. They can use NASA astronauts, but they must fully transfer to USGS, and draw USGS paychecks so that NASA has  zero say in how they are deployed.

If the administration says they are willing to spend $1.3 billion per year on this mission, that is actually about right. IIRC, Stern was saying that the upfront cost for a first Golden Spike-style mission was like $7 billion. Thus $1.3B x 5 years = $6.5 billion, so it's in the right ballpark.

Downside is polar landings are ruled out with this architecture. It is bare bones Apollo 11-style capability. Still that allows a lot of exploration of near side locations. It is too soon to build a permanent station first anyway. We need to do prospecting first, and Golden Spike-style missions are great sample return missions. Maybe with some creative refueling polar landings could be achieved.

Is it flags 'n' footprints? Not if you keep going. If you keep going, you will have a continual presence, if not a continuous presence, on the Moon. Capability can continually be improved, and anyways, there is nothing wrong with a permanent research station at low-latitude Nearside locations. Let China have the poles. We want the  Maria.

Image of some very interesting locations that would be well-served by a Golden Spike mission.

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4529
  • Likes Given: 13486
Thanks for making my point for me. Even if Artemis mission kills Orion capsule, she is still likely to wallow in despair and be unable to do anything else.

There is only one way to do this, and that is revive Alan Stern's Golden Spike concept. The company is still on life support. I don't think they have a payroll or an office or are doing anything, but it is still a legal entity.

And get it out of NASA's hands. Allow them to "focus on Mars" and their little "Gateway". When I was in the Navy, in boot camp they told us: If you can lead, lead. If you can't lead, then follow. If you can't lead or follow, then get the bleep out of the way." NASA needs to get the bleep out of the way.

Give it to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS). They understand lunar geology a lot better than does the NASA Exploration Directorate. At the last space mining conference I was at, the NASA guy nominally in charge of lunar ISRU said we didn't need to do ground penetrating radar missions because LRO had a 13-cm radar. That is how clueless they are.

So give it to USGS. Mandate that they must contract out all spacecraft services. They can use NASA astronauts, but they must fully transfer to USGS, and draw USGS paychecks so that NASA has  zero say in how they are deployed.

If the administration says they are willing to spend $1.3 billion per year on this mission, that is actually about right. IIRC, Stern was saying that the upfront cost for a first Golden Spike-style mission was like $7 billion. Thus $1.3B x 5 years = $6.5 billion, so it's in the right ballpark.

Downside is polar landings are ruled out with this architecture. It is bare bones Apollo 11-style capability. Still that allows a lot of exploration of near side locations. It is too soon to build a permanent station first anyway. We need to do prospecting first, and Golden Spike-style missions are great sample return missions. Maybe with some creative refueling polar landings could be achieved.

Is it flags 'n' footprints? Not if you keep going. If you keep going, you will have a continual presence, if not a continuous presence, on the Moon. Capability can continually be improved, and anyways, there is nothing wrong with a permanent research station at low-latitude Nearside locations. Let China have the poles. We want the  Maria.

Image of some very interesting locations that would be well-served by a Golden Spike mission.


I've been saying Golden Spike since the proposed 2024 landing announcement, nice to have some company Warren! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5818
  • Liked: 8338
  • Likes Given: 793
Some interesting rant from Homer Hickam (who is on the Space Council Users Advisory Group) with regard to what comes after 2024 landing: http://disq.us/p/21vw0zr

Quote
One of the most frustrating things about being a member of the advisory group helping the Vice President and NASA are the uncomprehending expressions on the faces of many folks now planning Artemis when I keep pushing for a definition of what follows. I say it's a Lunar Research Center similar to the South Pole Station but so far I can't get this said out loud or anything, really. To a great extent, I think it's because the Vice President is essentially forcing NASA to go back to the moon where it clearly did not want to go, preferring to carve endless loops around Earth or somewhere in microgravity with its astronauts and accomplishing nebulous science over and over (but better this time like yet another protein crystal growth experiment, uh huh) and setting sail for Mars on some undefined date aboard some undefined spacecraft and living in some undefined Martian habitats for some undefined reason but is fun to wave arms about and pretend. I'm trying to get them to focus on the actual, real, and quite difficult task the VP has given them. It's hard to break old habits, especially when the old ones were easy and the new ones looking to be very, very hard.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2459
  • Liked: 594
  • Likes Given: 60
Some interesting rant from Homer Hickam (who is on the Space Council Users Advisory Group) with regard to what comes after 2024 landing: http://disq.us/p/21vw0zr

Quote
One of the most frustrating things about being a member of the advisory group helping the Vice President and NASA are the uncomprehending expressions on the faces of many folks now planning Artemis when I keep pushing for a definition of what follows. I say it's a Lunar Research Center similar to the South Pole Station but so far I can't get this said out loud or anything, really. To a great extent, I think it's because the Vice President is essentially forcing NASA to go back to the moon where it clearly did not want to go, preferring to carve endless loops around Earth or somewhere in microgravity with its astronauts and accomplishing nebulous science over and over (but better this time like yet another protein crystal growth experiment, uh huh) and setting sail for Mars on some undefined date aboard some undefined spacecraft and living in some undefined Martian habitats for some undefined reason but is fun to wave arms about and pretend. I'm trying to get them to focus on the actual, real, and quite difficult task the VP has given them. It's hard to break old habits, especially when the old ones were easy and the new ones looking to be very, very hard.

With the exception of the CNSA rover there hasn't been a robotic lunar landing mission in more than 40 years, while countless missions went to places far more difficult to get to. From a science point of view the Moon just doesn't seem to be very interesting.

Besides, I cannot take the guy seriously, read his follow-up post.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27561
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 51307
  • Likes Given: 21791
Quote
NASA’s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost
Still missing? The total cost. And that's probably by design.

by Eric Berger - May 20, 2019 2:53pm BST

In the nearly two months since Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return to the Moon by 2024, space agency engineers have been working to put together a plan that leverages existing technology, large projects nearing completion, and commercial rockets to bring this about.

Last week, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a Moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost/

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1293
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1622
  • Likes Given: 1068
Quote
NASA’s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost
Still missing? The total cost. And that's probably by design.

by Eric Berger - May 20, 2019 2:53pm BST

In the nearly two months since Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return to the Moon by 2024, space agency engineers have been working to put together a plan that leverages existing technology, large projects nearing completion, and commercial rockets to bring this about.

Last week, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a Moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost/

That's probably some outdated draft. E.g. the second lunar lander for Artemis 3 - announced three days ago by Bridenstine - is missing, including three commercial launches.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2019 03:22 pm by PM3 »
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 541

There is only one way to do this, and that is

There is seldom "one way to do this". Thinking an idea has merit (a vast amount of venture capitalists have not), is one thing. There are many ways to do this. Golden Spike isn't going to happen in 5 years. The mandate is 2024.





With the exception of the CNSA rover there hasn't been a robotic lunar landing mission in more than 40 years, while countless missions went to places far more difficult to get to. From a science point of view the Moon just doesn't seem to be very interesting.

Besides, I cannot take the guy seriously, read his follow-up post.


You can't take Homer Hickam seriously? Can I take you not taking Homer Hickam seriously, seriously?



"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 1922
  • Likes Given: 934
Quote
NASA’s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost/

Attaching a higher res version of that schedule pic.

Note that the 37 launches number includes 10 CLPS launches which should be already funded under Planetary Science, plus another launch for a big rover in 2023.

26 Launches for the HSF side of things.  18 Commercial, 8 SLS.

SLS 1B by 2024, but looking at payloads it looks like they could get away with just having Block 1 until they're ready to drop the lunar base module in 2028.

Edit: Does anyone see an unmanned test of the lander, transfer, or ascent system in this schedule?
« Last Edit: 05/21/2019 01:47 am by theinternetftw »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1