NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[Lar]

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.

[speedevil]

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)

[HeartofGold2030]

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,

[jadebenn]

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?

[Coastal Ron]

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 section. That's also the section for talking about politicians.

[Lar]

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 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.

[JohnFornaro]

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.

[jadebenn]

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

[envy887]

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...

[su27k]

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.

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?

[jadebenn]

Do we know what date we're getting the responses back from the RFI? It's going to be very interesting reading.

[Lar]

I'm sure those examples were entirely hypothetical...

Absolutely.   

[speedevil]

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.

[dglow]

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.

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?

[hektor]

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.

[jadebenn]

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.

[A_M_Swallow]

{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.

[Proponent]

{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.

[JohnFornaro]

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.]

[DistantTemple]

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.)