Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 752801 times)

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • Liked: 1555
  • Likes Given: 532
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2820 on: 06/22/2022 08:44 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.
The original NASA party line on EUS, when it was first announced as the upper stage for Block 1B, was that the crew access arm would have an adjustable incline, and as long as EUS holds to a maximum length of 60 feet, ML1 would work for both SLS variants.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/nasa-confirms-eus-sls-block-ib-design-em-2-flight/

I guess I would file that under "telling Congress what they want to hear." Then whoops, turns out we need to heavily modify ML1 to work with Block IB, unless we got funding for a second ML, of course.

Offline Redclaws

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Liked: 813
  • Likes Given: 946
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2821 on: 06/22/2022 08:49 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 donít think this agrees with whatís 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?

*bad* contractor performance is specifically what was highlighted in the recent report.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31249
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 55662
  • Likes Given: 25146
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2822 on: 06/23/2022 05:28 pm »
https://twitter.com/jimfree/status/1540023601503535105

Quote
Join us tomorrow, June 24 for an #Artemis I update. We've identified next steps from our wet dress rehearsal data, including @NASAGroundSys bringing @NASA_SLS & @NASA_Orion back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to prepare for a targeted late August launch. go.nasa.gov/3Ownb1w

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31249
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 55662
  • Likes Given: 25146
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2823 on: 06/24/2022 03:02 pm »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15707
  • Liked: 5998
  • Likes Given: 2643
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2824 on: 06/26/2022 01:18 pm »
The Capstone Launch Will Kick Off NASAís Artemis Moon Program:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-capstone-launch-will-kick-off-nasas-artemis-moon-program/

Online kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1680
  • Likes Given: 1178
NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2825 on: 06/26/2022 05:25 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/
« Last Edit: 06/26/2022 05:27 pm by kevinof »

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 541
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2826 on: 06/26/2022 05:41 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/

I knew who had to have authored it before I opened the link.

So this is just Mark Whittington saying this, not THE HILL as such. It will have no policy impact: Whittington is seen as almost a gadfly; Gateway has too much political backing behind it now, and it is primarily a political project, after all.

And in truth, killing Gateway wouldn't really do much to improve Artemis's bleak fiscal state. SLS and Orion is where most of the money is going.

Online kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1680
  • Likes Given: 1178
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2827 on: 06/26/2022 06:55 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/

I knew who had to have authored it before I opened the link.

So this is just Mark Whittington saying this, not THE HILL as such. It will have no policy impact: Whittington is seen as almost a gadfly; Gateway has too much political backing behind it now, and it is primarily a political project, after all.

And in truth, killing Gateway wouldn't really do much to improve Artemis's bleak fiscal state. SLS and Orion is where most of the money is going.
Agreed. Nothing is going to change - the plan is the plan and they will charge (slowly) ahead with it no matter what the alternatives.


Offline SpeakertoAnimals

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Oregon
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2828 on: 06/26/2022 07:45 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/

I knew who had to have authored it before I opened the link.

So this is just Mark Whittington saying this, not THE HILL as such. It will have no policy impact: Whittington is seen as almost a gadfly; Gateway has too much political backing behind it now, and it is primarily a political project, after all.

And in truth, killing Gateway wouldn't really do much to improve Artemis's bleak fiscal state. SLS and Orion is where most of the money is going.
Agreed. Nothing is going to change - the plan is the plan and they will charge (slowly) ahead with it no matter what the alternatives.
Is anyone else picturing the snail on the tortoise's back yelling "Charge!".

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4825
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 2559
  • Likes Given: 3259
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2829 on: 06/27/2022 03:01 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/

I knew who had to have authored it before I opened the link.

So this is just Mark Whittington saying this, not THE HILL as such. It will have no policy impact: Whittington is seen as almost a gadfly; Gateway has too much political backing behind it now, and it is primarily a political project, after all.

And in truth, killing Gateway wouldn't really do much to improve Artemis's bleak fiscal state. SLS and Orion is where most of the money is going.
Agreed. Nothing is going to change - the plan is the plan and they will charge (slowly) ahead with it no matter what the alternatives.
Is anyone else picturing the snail on the tortoise's back yelling "Charge!".

The multi billion dollar snail that is SLS, yes, I can see it.

I've always thought Gateway was an excuse for SLS to have a destination without having to develop a lander.  NASA needs to prioritize getting to the lunar surface as soon as they safely can.

Gateway seems to add steps and complication to each flight, I wouldn't miss it for a minute.
Superheavy + Starship the final push to launch commit!

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5173
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4743
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2830 on: 06/27/2022 03:20 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/

I knew who had to have authored it before I opened the link.

So this is just Mark Whittington saying this, not THE HILL as such. It will have no policy impact: Whittington is seen as almost a gadfly; Gateway has too much political backing behind it now, and it is primarily a political project, after all.

And in truth, killing Gateway wouldn't really do much to improve Artemis's bleak fiscal state. SLS and Orion is where most of the money is going.
Agreed. Nothing is going to change - the plan is the plan and they will charge (slowly) ahead with it no matter what the alternatives.
Is anyone else picturing the snail on the tortoise's back yelling "Charge!".

The multi billion dollar snail that is SLS, yes, I can see it.

I've always thought Gateway was an excuse for SLS to have a destination without having to develop a lander.  NASA needs to prioritize getting to the lunar surface as soon as they safely can.

Gateway seems to add steps and complication to each flight, I wouldn't miss it for a minute.
Orion needs Gateway to extend its on orbit time while awaiting the surface crew return to enable longer >month long surface stays.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
  • California
  • Liked: 2249
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2831 on: 06/27/2022 03:34 pm »

Orion needs Gateway to extend its on orbit time while awaiting the surface crew return to enable longer >month long surface stays.
That would be Artemis V at the earliest, which is NET 2027. I really hope we have something better than Orion by then. If not, then use a second "sustainable" Starship HLS to babysit Orion while the first one does the landing. This might require a requirements change to add the requirement to sustain Orion, or maybe not. The crew could move in to this "gateway HLS" and put Orion into quiescent mode. Alternatively, for the Starship HLS Artemis V mission, just take the whole crew to the surface and leave Orion in NRHO in quiescent mode.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1321
  • Likes Given: 1146
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2832 on: 06/27/2022 03:51 pm »

Orion needs Gateway to extend its on orbit time while awaiting the surface crew return to enable longer >month long surface stays.
That would be Artemis V at the earliest, which is NET 2027. I really hope we have something better than Orion by then. If not, then use a second "sustainable" Starship HLS to babysit Orion while the first one does the landing. This might require a requirements change to add the requirement to sustain Orion, or maybe not. The crew could move in to this "gateway HLS" and put Orion into quiescent mode. Alternatively, for the Starship HLS Artemis V mission, just take the whole crew to the surface and leave Orion in NRHO in quiescent mode.
An expendable Cygnus with dual docking ports with additional propellant tankage could fulfilled the Orion taxi stand role at much less complexity and cost. The HLS lander can be use as a space tug to deploy the Cygnus taxi stand to NRHO.

Offline yoram

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2833 on: 06/27/2022 04:01 pm »
The Hill suggesting we scrap gateway and either go direct the moon or replace gateway with Starship. IE: Starship is bigger and will have most of the parts for a gateway anyway.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3537105-its-time-for-nasa-to-cancel-the-lunar-gateway/

I knew who had to have authored it before I opened the link.

So this is just Mark Whittington saying this, not THE HILL as such. It will have no policy impact: Whittington is seen as almost a gadfly; Gateway has too much political backing behind it now, and it is primarily a political project, after all.

And in truth, killing Gateway wouldn't really do much to improve Artemis's bleak fiscal state. SLS and Orion is where most of the money is going.
Agreed. Nothing is going to change - the plan is the plan and they will charge (slowly) ahead with it no matter what the alternatives.
Is anyone else picturing the snail on the tortoise's back yelling "Charge!".

The multi billion dollar snail that is SLS, yes, I can see it.

I've always thought Gateway was an excuse for SLS to have a destination without having to develop a lander.  NASA needs to prioritize getting to the lunar surface as soon as they safely can.

Gateway seems to add steps and complication to each flight, I wouldn't miss it for a minute.

I thought the idea behind Gateway was that it is a stepping stone to a Mars ship. NASA always said that they would eventually like to do that. You extend the life time of the Moon orbit version and strap some better propulsion to it, and you could have at least something that could in theory go to Mars. Of course there are all kinds of open issues, as in how to land, how to supply it with enough fuel, how to aero brake at the destination etc. But the basic "step by step development" idea seems reasonable.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
  • California
  • Liked: 2249
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2834 on: 06/27/2022 04:11 pm »

Orion needs Gateway to extend its on orbit time while awaiting the surface crew return to enable longer >month long surface stays.
That would be Artemis V at the earliest, which is NET 2027. I really hope we have something better than Orion by then. If not, then use a second "sustainable" Starship HLS to babysit Orion while the first one does the landing. This might require a requirements change to add the requirement to sustain Orion, or maybe not. The crew could move in to this "gateway HLS" and put Orion into quiescent mode. Alternatively, for the Starship HLS Artemis V mission, just take the whole crew to the surface and leave Orion in NRHO in quiescent mode.
An expendable Cygnus with dual docking ports with additional propellant tankage could fulfilled the Orion taxi stand role at much less complexity and cost. The HLS lander can be use as a space tug to deploy the Cygnus taxi stand to NRHO.
NASA has already contracted with SpaceX for  "Gateway logistics services" to be provided by the Dragon XL spacecraft, launched by FH. It's probably contractually and technically easier to modify the GLS contract than it would be to contract for a Cygnus-based system. Use of HLS as a tug puts you back in the problem of getting  the fuel to the HLS.

If you want a space tug, use the Gateway PPE. that's what it was originally designed for.

Offline StormtrooperJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2835 on: 06/27/2022 04:15 pm »
The real reason behind gateway has little to due with spaceflight and everything to do with politics. Gateway allows Artemis to get internation buy-in and maintain political support. For that reason gateway is ironically probably the most important part of Artemis despite being not very useful programatically. Gateway may very well be the reason that the Artemis program has not met the fate of it's canceled predecessors. There is a recent episode of the podcast MECO thar covered this in depth(I believe episode 217)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2836 on: 06/27/2022 04:26 pm »

Orion needs Gateway to extend its on orbit time while awaiting the surface crew return to enable longer >month long surface stays.
That would be Artemis V at the earliest, which is NET 2027. I really hope we have something better than Orion by then. If not, then use a second "sustainable" Starship HLS to babysit Orion while the first one does the landing. This might require a requirements change to add the requirement to sustain Orion, or maybe not. The crew could move in to this "gateway HLS" and put Orion into quiescent mode. Alternatively, for the Starship HLS Artemis V mission, just take the whole crew to the surface and leave Orion in NRHO in quiescent mode.
An expendable Cygnus with dual docking ports with additional propellant tankage could fulfilled the Orion taxi stand role at much less complexity and cost. The HLS lander can be use as a space tug to deploy the Cygnus taxi stand to NRHO.
NASA has already contracted with SpaceX for  "Gateway logistics services" to be provided by the Dragon XL spacecraft, launched by FH. It's probably contractually and technically easier to modify the GLS contract than it would be to contract for a Cygnus-based system. Use of HLS as a tug puts you back in the problem of getting  the fuel to the HLS.

If you want a space tug, use the Gateway PPE. that's what it was originally designed for.
Any crew OTV needs chemical engines to enable 3day  trip between LEO and lunar orbit. Gateway PPE uses solar powered hall thrusters.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2022 01:17 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7930
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9242
  • Likes Given: 11009
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2837 on: 06/27/2022 04:41 pm »
The real reason behind gateway has little to due with spaceflight and everything to do with politics. Gateway allows Artemis to get internation buy-in and maintain political support. For that reason gateway is ironically probably the most important part of Artemis despite being not very useful programatically. Gateway may very well be the reason that the Artemis program has not met the fate of it's canceled predecessors. There is a recent episode of the podcast MECO thar covered this in depth(I believe episode 217)

A space station in lunar orbit is useful if it is a transit point, or planned to be a transit point once enough traffic builds up. But we know that NASA is hobbled by the SLS launch rate of no-more-than once per year, so the most the Gateway can be is more of a parking lot or staging point - which can be useful when your launch rates are pathetically low, but not mandatory.

I've never really bought into the idea of needing a space station in lunar orbit for "science", since the ISS can do the vast majority of that in LEO for far less money. And my opinion is that there is ZERO science to be done in lunar orbit that would be needed for going to Mars, so Gateway does not help us get to Mars.

So yeah, Gateway is more of a political commitment than a needed piece of hardware...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
  • California
  • Liked: 2249
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2838 on: 06/27/2022 04:45 pm »

Orion needs Gateway to extend its on orbit time while awaiting the surface crew return to enable longer >month long surface stays.
That would be Artemis V at the earliest, which is NET 2027. I really hope we have something better than Orion by then. If not, then use a second "sustainable" Starship HLS to babysit Orion while the first one does the landing. This might require a requirements change to add the requirement to sustain Orion, or maybe not. The crew could move in to this "gateway HLS" and put Orion into quiescent mode. Alternatively, for the Starship HLS Artemis V mission, just take the whole crew to the surface and leave Orion in NRHO in quiescent mode.
An expendable Cygnus with dual docking ports with additional propellant tankage could fulfilled the Orion taxi stand role at much less complexity and cost. The HLS lander can be use as a space tug to deploy the Cygnus taxi stand to NRHO.
NASA has already contracted with SpaceX for  "Gateway logistics services" to be provided by the Dragon XL spacecraft, launched by FH. It's probably contractually and technically easier to modify the GLS contract than it would be to contract for a Cygnus-based system. Use of HLS as a tug puts you back in the problem of getting  the fuel to the HLS.

If you want a space tug, use the Gateway PPE. that's what it was originally designed for.
Any crew OTV needs chemical engines to enable 3day  trip between LEO and lunar orbit. Gateway PPE uses solar powered hall thrusters.

But the suggestion was for moving the uncrewed Cygnus to make it available as a "taxi stand", in the context of replacing the Gateway with a different method of sustaining Orion in NRHO for missions of > 30 days. I do not know why Zed_Noir thinks any sort of "space tug" is useful, but Orion would still be the crew transfer ship.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • USA
  • Liked: 1066
  • Likes Given: 1545
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #2839 on: 06/27/2022 05:58 pm »
The real reason behind gateway has little to due with spaceflight and everything to do with politics. Gateway allows Artemis to get internation buy-in and maintain political support. For that reason gateway is ironically probably the most important part of Artemis despite being not very useful programatically. Gateway may very well be the reason that the Artemis program has not met the fate of it's canceled predecessors. There is a recent episode of the podcast MECO thar covered this in depth(I believe episode 217)

A space station in lunar orbit is useful if it is a transit point, or planned to be a transit point once enough traffic builds up. But we know that NASA is hobbled by the SLS launch rate of no-more-than once per year, so the most the Gateway can be is more of a parking lot or staging point - which can be useful when your launch rates are pathetically low, but not mandatory.

I've never really bought into the idea of needing a space station in lunar orbit for "science", since the ISS can do the vast majority of that in LEO for far less money. And my opinion is that there is ZERO science to be done in lunar orbit that would be needed for going to Mars, so Gateway does not help us get to Mars.

So yeah, Gateway is more of a political commitment than a needed piece of hardware...
Gateway can do ALOT of science. Not only is it in deep space and away from earth influence, it orbits the moon. So all those instruments the ISS has to study earth? We can do alot of that for the moon too.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0