Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 03:30 pmMy personal favorite: scrap SLS, Orion, and Gateway, and restructure Artemis around the LEO-to-lunar surface HLS. Initially, use Crew Dragon or Starliner for crew-to-LEO until a crew-qualified EDL-capable Starship is available.This needs to be competitively selected and there should be a couple performers for the Earth to lunar orbit and the lander segments. But I don’t fundamentally disagree with this approach.
My personal favorite: scrap SLS, Orion, and Gateway, and restructure Artemis around the LEO-to-lunar surface HLS. Initially, use Crew Dragon or Starliner for crew-to-LEO until a crew-qualified EDL-capable Starship is available.
I picked LEO because Earth-to-LEO already exists and has competitive suppliers, so go ahead and compete LEO-to-lunar surface and let each bidder choose the architecture for that segment, including any subdivisions.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/
There are huge gaps between missions. To close one three-year gap, NASA is considering the creation of an "Artemis III.5" mission that would require the agency to procure a fourth interim upper stage and delay development of other key programs.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 04:09 pmI picked LEO because Earth-to-LEO already exists and has competitive suppliers, so go ahead and compete LEO-to-lunar surface and let each bidder choose the architecture for that segment, including any subdivisions.Good point. I agree. I might not specify LEO and just use “Earth orbit” in case someone wants to propose an EOR architecture in a higher Earth orbit.It’s not a huge swinger, but I’ve always favored EOR. But this allows pretty much any combination of rendezvous, transit stage, and lander (or combined transit stage/lander) to compete. Good.If Gateway stuck around, might have to scar the requirements to also include that destination: Earth orbit to lunar surface and Earth orbit to Gateway.
If I understand it correctly, The existing Artemis III HLS plan will refuel at a depot in a relatively high EO, not LEO.
I like the idea of getting another ICPS stage. It seems like the prudent thing to do, considering the likely ML2 delays.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/20/2022 03:30 pmMy personal favorite: scrap SLS, Orion, and Gateway, and restructure Artemis around the LEO-to-lunar surface HLS. Initially, use Crew Dragon or Starliner for crew-to-LEO until a crew-qualified EDL-capable Starship is available.A possible interim step (and perhaps more politically palatable) would be to push back Block IB and Gateway elements that need SLS/Orion as much as possible. Setup a minimal Gateway and keep flying Block I. We now know that NASA could procure at least one more ICPS. If they could get three say that takes care of missions through Artemis VI. The benefit of the Gateway is primarily political. It serves as a "we can't abandon the hardware we just launched" argument to keep the program funded. That can be accomplished with a minimalist Gateway.I have no doubt SpaceX has at least considered your approach and from what I understand they want to utilize LSS for commercial landings too. NASA has already contracted flights with Crew Dragon under CCP and will do so with LSS for Artemis. What could then happen is NASA contracts further Artemis landings using that all-commercial architecture and presents it to Congress as a fait accomplli.
There is a bigger political advantage to gateway. Its an international thing with many other countries - which makes it much harder to cancel. People underestimate how big this is. Also a note about the ars technica article. While all the facts in it are true, it should be pointed out that Berger hates the gateway and the article was written very much against it. While we all want people on the moon, the gateway does stuff too which shouldn't be ignored.The bigger problem here isn't gateway, its that SLS/Orion are simply jobs programs in search of missions. Artimis is a mess because it was cooked up to give a reason to use SLS/Orion.
The bigger problem here isn't gateway, its that SLS/Orion are simply jobs programs in search of missions. Artimis is a mess because it was cooked up to give a reason to use SLS/Orion.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 06/21/2022 02:54 pmThe bigger problem here isn't gateway, its that SLS/Orion are simply jobs programs in search of missions. Artimis is a mess because it was cooked up to give a reason to use SLS/Orion.The SLS was made for BLEO exploration (including the Moon and/or Mars) and Artemis was a program made to return to the Moon. The Asteroid Redirect Mission was made for a reason to use SLS/Orion but the Moon is actually the end goal, so it is not an excuse to use Orion and SLS.
Quote from: yg1968 on 06/21/2022 06:46 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 06/21/2022 02:54 pmThe bigger problem here isn't gateway, its that SLS/Orion are simply jobs programs in search of missions. Artimis is a mess because it was cooked up to give a reason to use SLS/Orion.The SLS was made for BLEO exploration (including the Moon and/or Mars) and Artemis was a program made to return to the Moon. The Asteroid Redirect Mission was made for a reason to use SLS/Orion but the Moon is actually the end goal, so it is not an excuse to use Orion and SLS.The second mobile launcher is a mess because NASA cannot give them the specs for SLS 1B. They can't do so because they don't KNOW what the specs are yet. Boeing has only had what, 15 years of SLS so far and still doesn't have that all worked out yet?
IMHO, Artemis will move away from SLS/Orion when SpaceX will have more non-nasa than nasa trips to or around the moon.So for now, they are focused on the next step which is orbit. But when LSS will become mature, they should find a long time partner with an offer that cannot be refused. ESA or JAXA could probably be convinced if the prize is the moon despite their preference for bartering with nasa.
The second mobile launcher is a mess because NASA cannot give them the specs for SLS 1B. They can't do so because they don't KNOW what the specs are yet. Boeing has only had what, 15 years of SLS so far and still doesn't have that all worked out yet?
Quote from: deadman1204 on 06/21/2022 02:54 pmThe second mobile launcher is a mess because NASA cannot give them the specs for SLS 1B. They can't do so because they don't KNOW what the specs are yet. Boeing has only had what, 15 years of SLS so far and still doesn't have that all worked out yet?I don’t think this agrees with what’s in the recent report, does it? I believe it primarily pointed at contractor performance?