Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 939051 times)

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2800 on: 06/20/2022 04:09 pm »
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.
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.
Competition is fine, but your formulation presumes a specific mission architecture, and that may not be the best architecture. You presume that the mission should be divided into Earth-to-LO and LO-to-surface. But this division may not be optimal. Any division (earth-to-X, X-to-Lunar surface) has this problem if NASA picks X in advance. 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. Presumably, SpaceX would bid an HLS-type Starship going from LEO to the Lunar surface and back with lots of refuelling. It's not clear what competitors would bid.

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2801 on: 06/20/2022 04:23 pm »
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.

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.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Liked: 4665
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2802 on: 06/20/2022 05:04 pm »
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.

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2803 on: 06/20/2022 05:43 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/

I like the idea of getting another ICPS stage. It seems like the prudent thing to do, considering the likely ML2 delays.

Quote from: Eric Berger
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.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2022 06:22 pm by yg1968 »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2804 on: 06/20/2022 06:09 pm »
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.

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.
Agreed. My problem is the need to get crew from Earth to orbit in the relatively near term, which I think means using Crew Dragon/F9 or Starliner/Atlas V, and in the mid-term, which seems to already be oriented toward LEO to support commercial destinations. I would hate for the lunar missions to have to wait for new crew-qualified launch and EDL system. However a bidder that wants to use a higher orbit would be free to find a way to get the crew up there either by crew-qualifying a new spacecraft for Earth-to-EO, or by crew-qualifying an LEO-to-EO craft.

If I understand it correctly, The existing Artemis III HLS plan will refuel at a depot in a relatively high EO, not LEO. A mission that requires HLS to pick up crew in LEO will be a big operational change. It may require a depot in a lunar orbit in addition to one in LEO or some other horrible combination that uses a great many tanker flights. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2805 on: 06/20/2022 06:24 pm »
If I understand it correctly, The existing Artemis III HLS plan will refuel at a depot in a relatively high EO, not LEO.

Says who? As far as I know that is still unclear.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2806 on: 06/20/2022 08:44 pm »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/

It seems that the baseline in Eric Berger's article is essentially the same as the one from page 7 of the NASA FY23 Budget except that the lunar surface habitat has been pushed from Artemis VIII to Artemis IX:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf
« Last Edit: 06/20/2022 08:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2807 on: 06/20/2022 11:08 pm »
I like the idea of getting another ICPS stage. It seems like the prudent thing to do, considering the likely ML2 delays.

It would also have the potential benefit of making Artemis IV a lunar landing rather than just a Gateway assembly trip.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline volker2020

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Frankfurt, Germany
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 832
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2808 on: 06/21/2022 10:02 am »
According to this report:
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-012.pdf

the mobile launcher 2, required for Artemis IV will see delays up to 2027.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2809 on: 06/21/2022 02:54 pm »
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.

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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2810 on: 06/21/2022 03:32 pm »

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.
So repurpose the Gateway hardware as the core of a new LEO destination. The PPE in particular is probably very useful for reboost and desat. My problem with Gateway is that tends to lock the lunar mission architecture to a transfer in NRHO. Worrying about "political advantage" distorts the mission architecture, just as zipcode engineering does.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2811 on: 06/21/2022 06:46 pm »
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 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.

Online Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 786
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1291
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2812 on: 06/21/2022 07:09 pm »
Update news conference:


Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2813 on: 06/21/2022 08:50 pm »
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 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?
When will SLS be regular? We have guesses with 1.5-2 year breaks inbetween. They estimate an entire DECADE before that happens (which of course means it'll slip). So 20 years of dev to launch it 4-5 times? Orion launched in 2017, and STILL isn't complete yet either? Like whut? Yet these programs have EXTRA money thrown at them each year, more than requested. Kinda tells you something, and its not that Artimis is important.

After Artimis 3, the plan is totally notional. No one knows what we can do because we don't even have the rocket specs yet. Why not? Its been well over a decade. There is an answer here that is 2 parts:
1. gross miss-management by NASA - reasons for this might also be political. If they had their ducks in a row, the contracts wouldn't be total money pits.
2. Boeing/Lockheed milking congress for all they can with no intention of finishing.

Artimis is pretty and sounds great, but if you look at actual funding, ALL the $$ is super back loaded.  Space suits? Pay when we need them (future). Second HLS contract - As congress finds money.... Lunar rover? Theres only pennies so far spent on that. Long lasting hardware? Only on white boards.
Thats because congress isn't actually that excited to pay for all of it beyond SLS/Orion. Artimis can't happen as its proposed, because there is no way congress will give all that money as needed for the moon stuff on that sort of schedule.

Which all points to one thing - whatever you call the mission - asteroid redirect or artimis, its just a reason to use the hardware. Not the purpose itself.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2022 08:54 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2814 on: 06/21/2022 10:54 pm »
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 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?

From what I recall, the Obama and Trump Administration didn't really want EUS or ML2, they didn't ask for any funding for it. However, Congress kept adding funding for it. This difference of opinion may have contributed to some of the delay. 

Offline Borgias

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • France
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2815 on: 06/22/2022 12:36 am »
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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2816 on: 06/22/2022 12:52 am »
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.
SpaceX is a commercial, for-profit company. They will go to the Moon if someone pays them. Otherwise not. Elon wants to go to Mars, and he does control money. But he does not particularly want to go to the Moon.

If the US congress were to say (via NASA) "we will pay you $4.1 Billion dollars to go to the Moon" SpaceX would probably say "Sure! how about mid 2024?"

Offline Redclaws

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 750
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1047
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2817 on: 06/22/2022 01:04 am »
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?

I don’t think this agrees with what’s in the recent report, does it?  I believe it primarily pointed at contractor performance?

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2818 on: 06/22/2022 01:51 pm »
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?

I don’t think this agrees with what’s in the recent report, does it?  I believe it primarily pointed at contractor performance?

The most recent MECO podcast had an interview with Eric Berger. They mention this exact fact.
https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/220

Also contractor performance is hilariously political. Good ratings means the companies get paid more. These contracts are stipulated by congress and NASA has no real say in them. You don't think there is political pressure to always reward the companies with good reviews for bonus payments?
« Last Edit: 06/22/2022 01:52 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0