NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 2

[speedevil]

Well since it will be the first woman on the moon, the problem is not only making just a  spacesuit... but making a spacesuit that that can fit a woman.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-all-female-spacewalk-for-want-of-a-medium-sized-spacesuit

That was not related to her gender.
Just her size.

[ncb1397]

New logo for Artemis

[HeartofGold2030]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

[speedevil]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

I have only read at the moment Attachment A1.
I cannot find any language that would preclude a bid from SS.
SS docks at LOPG - after a retanking in LEO, and then one in HEO, for a total of perhaps nine launches, lands on the moon, and then returns to gateway. And then 'disposes' of itself back to earth.

2024 seems an achievable timeline.

[lonestriker]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

I have only read at the moment Attachment A1.
I cannot find any language that would preclude a bid from SS.
SS docks at LOPG - after a retanking in LEO, and then one in HEO, for a total of perhaps nine launches, lands on the moon, and then returns to gateway. And then 'disposes' of itself back to earth.

2024 seems an achievable timeline.

Of the many reasons why Elon has had the pedal-to-the-metal and accelerating SS development, Artemis is one of its biggest targets.  If SpaceX shows significant progress between now and the time the RFP submissions are evaluated, there's no way for NASA to pretend that SLS, Orion, and LOP-G/Gateway are the "only" way, or even "a" way, to return to the moon.

Either NASA awards SpaceX a good chunk of the work and gets to claim some credit (and save a little face.)  Or they bury their heads in the sand and when 2024 comes around their astronauts will be stuck on earth still, while SS may be orbiting around the moon with a bunch of civilians.  I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Artemis will produce any results by 2024; certainly not with their current plan for SLS and Orion, let alone all the new contracts and development that has to start from scratch after award.

[Endeavour_01]

Even as someone who has not been a fan of Lori Garver I am surprised at the level of her anti-HSF beliefs. One of NASA's jobs should be to monitor climate but as TrevorMonty pointed out the way for NASA to contribute more than just analysis is to promote expansion into space and extraction of resources.

Ultimately the article is just the same tired anti-HSF argument we've heard over and over again. I am so glad she is not NASA admin right now.

The fact that Bridenstine cannot show a spacesuit for use on the moon is enough evidence for me to say the whole HSF program should be cancelled.  There are no materials I know of that will be flexible/seal correctly at the extreme cold temperatures at the permanently shadowed craters on the moon.

So you really expect NASA to have a lunar space suit ready to go when the actual political go ahead to land on the moon happened 4 months ago? Heck, until the end of the previous admin landing on the moon was verboten.

I have no idea if what you are saying about current sealants is true but I am reminded of a 1930s NYT article that confidently proclaimed that no human would ever fly to the moon.

[A_M_Swallow]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

For a non military lunar lander project does the contractor really need 2 people with Top Secret security clearance?
(Ref: Appendix H Attachment G 4.11) They must be worried about a terrorist attack or something.

[FinalFrontier]

New OP-Ed on the Artemis program by none other than Lori Garver:

Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.

Suffice to say, she's not a fan. Though she goes a lot farther in opposing it than I expected. Not like this kind of argument is anything new, though.

And here I really thought for years she was pro space exploration.
This argument is bunk and should not be taken seriously. You are not going to reverse the effect of climate change. If you stopped all emissions ALL emissions right now the effects would not stop for 500 years. The only solution to that problem you can hope for is reducing the population on the planet the only reasonable way to do that is by moving people OFF planet to other planets.

Anithumanists always argue against exploration or scientific progress but it's funny to see the places they pop up in.

As far as Artemis is concerned it's doomed by SLS. Until nasa switches launch procurement to commercial none of this is going to work well if at all.

[randomly]

The only solution to that problem you can hope for is reducing the population on the planet the only reasonable way to do that is by moving people OFF planet to other planets.

What argument is bunk?

[HeartofGold2030]

Can we discuss more about crewed lunar landers and less about Lori Garver’s recent bout of insanity?

[su27k]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

I have only read at the moment Attachment A1.
I cannot find any language that would preclude a bid from SS.
SS docks at LOPG - after a retanking in LEO, and then one in HEO, for a total of perhaps nine launches, lands on the moon, and then returns to gateway. And then 'disposes' of itself back to earth.

2024 seems an achievable timeline.

Attachment_F_-_HLS_Requirements_-_2019-07-18_Rev1.zip, HLS-Gateway Interface Requirements - Draft BAA 2019-07-08.xlsx:

HLS-Gateway-0011
Provide Gateway-HLS (Integrated) Attitude Control
The HLS shall not exceed 45mT (TBR), while docked at the Gateway.   
While docked, the Gateway will provide integrated, mated stack attitude control. Assumes no HLS control required for mated operations. This control mass can be re-evaluated as more details are available for mass of the specific provider's design as well as the performance of the Gateway's power and propulsion element.

This is going to be a problem for SS.

[speedevil]

The HLS shall not exceed 45mT (TBR), while docked at the Gateway.   
While docked, the Gateway will provide integrated, mated stack attitude control. Assumes no HLS control required for mated operations. This control mass can be re-evaluated as more details are available for mass of the specific provider's design as well as the performance of the Gateway's power and propulsion element.

This is going to be a problem for SS.

Indeed, if no flexibility in negotiation (as SS probably can fully take over attitude control for the periods it is docked)

Taking the extreme approach, it seems permitted to have stuff hang out near the gateway. A 'starkicker' based SS-moon-lander with no heatshield and much else left off may be able to hit 45 tons in docked state, if it is paired with a more capable SS/tanker nearby.

Unless it is precluded by the contract language to have the propellanting done with astronauts onboard.

This would also be useful for supporting lunar surface operations by a fully SpaceX stack, as the  lander in LLO would be an excellent tanker removing the need to take the TEI propellant through 2*1700m/s.

Whatever the result, it is nice to see a much less prescriptive contract.

[Endeavour_01]

Attachment_F_-_HLS_Requirements_-_2019-07-18_Rev1.zip, HLS-Gateway Interface Requirements - Draft BAA 2019-07-08.xlsx:

From that same section:

Interface Requirement: HLS-Gateway-0005

Interface Function: Receive Power

The HLS shall have the capability to exchange power via the Gateway interface.

While docked, the HLS (Ascent element specifically) can receive power from the Gateway. Power flows through the power connectors of the docking mechanism. The programs are studying the function for HLS to transfer power to Gateway.

There has been discussion about what role the Gateway would play in terms of providing power and attitude control to the lander. This seems to indicate that the plan is for Gateway to provide both, which reduces lunar lander complexity. NASA doesn't seem married to the idea though as the 45 mt limit is to be reviewed.

I think that is the right way forward. This gives an idea of what is the max size the Gateway could handle on its own but leaves open the door to Starship.

[Endeavour_01]

More tidbits from Attachment F HLS Requirements - Appendix H Draft BAA - 2019-07-17 Rev1 (attached below)

-The HLS shall be capable of operating on the lunar surface for a minimum of 6.5 earth days. The DAC2 ConOps nominal mission is a 6.5 day surface mission for a 2-crew complement.

-The initial HLS shall be capable of operating in continuous daylight conditions on the lunar surface. The initial mission will be designed to avoid lunar night, eclipse and occultation, such that the HLS will not need to survive periods of darkness on the surface.

-In the sustained architecture, the HLS will be required to survive periods of lunar night (TBD), periods of eclipse (TBD) and periods of occultation (TBD).

-The HLS shall be capable of conducting an automated uncrewed sortie to the lunar surface.

-The HLS shall provide automated rendezvous, proximity operations, docking and undocking with the Gateway.

-HLS shall be evolvable to reusable elements with at least 5 (TBR) designed mission uses over a 10 (TBR) year period.  The period between reuse may be up to 3 years (TBR). Sustainability is a NASA objective. The HLS reusable elements are expected to support multiple missions.  Reusability is not required for the initial mission, however the crew module should be reusable in the sustained architecture. The ratio of uses assumes at least 1 HLS mission every 2 years. Five uses provides enough duration to continue missions while the next-generation reusable elements undergo DDT&E.  Due to cadence of crew missions, the uncrewed period may be up to 3 years.

[Endeavour_01]

Eric Berger reports that NASA has awarded the mini-hab contract to NGIS. It will be a modified Cygnus vehicle.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251?p=v

[TrevorMonty]

NGIS have been selected to provide habitat  module ie enhanced Cygnus with extra docking ports and life support

Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) tweeted at 2:37 AM on Wed, Jul 24, 2019:
NASA is continuing to move forward as quickly as it can in regard to a Moon 2024 landing. The agency decided to end the competition for a small hab module and award it to @northropgrumman for a modified Cygnus vehicle. 

Doc: https://t.co/u5IpPES9lV
(https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251?s=03)

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251?s=09

Here are three main reasons for choosing NGIS. 

Existing Production Capability
NGIS is the only NextSTEP-2 contractor uniquely able to complete design, development and
production of the MHM within the time necessary to launch in late 2023 and get the module
on station in lunar orbit early 2024 using existing launch vehicles. NGIS has an existing,
active pressurized module manufacturing capability via their ongoing Cygnus module
construction subcontractor that has provided experience and lessons learned from
development of 13 Cygnus vehicles to date, refining management and technical interactions
and interchanges. This existing contractual relationship and its associated production
pedigree are critical to timely development progress and problem resolution, which are
substantive mitigations to schedule risk. This production relationship is unique to NGIS
among the NextSTEP-2 vendors, and can be highly leveraged to achieve successful DDT&E
and timely delivery of the MHM.


Critical Subsystem Maturity
The Cygnus module design can be adapted to provide the structural basis for the MHM. In
addition to the existing fundamental design, during the NextSTEP-2 activities NGIS and its
contractor for spaceflight module construction have been designing modifications for
inclusion of radial docking ports which would enable multiple visiting vehicles to attach to
the MHM simultaneously, thus enabling the lunar landing architecture to be implemented
initially with the MHM serving as the sole transfer node for the 2024 mission.
The Gateway module will also have to reject heat generated by its own powered systems.
Given that body mounted radiators are already in development specifically for the Cygnus
module, the development of the critical thermal control subsystem is substantially advanced.
Design modifications to enable BMRs to cover more surface area of an extended Cygnus
structure are readily viable and provide flexibility in the implementation of the Gateway
power and avionics architectures and also reduces schedule risk. These advanced docking
port and thermal development activities further position NGIS as the only NextSTEP-2
contractor with the capability to produce an integrated module to meet the December 2023
launch schedule.

 Existing LV Fairing Accommodation
In order to meet the 2024 deadline, NASA must use existing commercial launch vehicles to
transport a MHM to lunar orbit for integration into Gateway in time to support the Vice
President’s mandate. Through the existing manufacturing capability previously described,
NGIS has tooling and manufacturability for production of a module with a diameter that can
be uniquely accommodated by existing Commercial Launch Vehicle fairings, while still
supporting radial docking or externally-mounted hardware. While other common module
diameter sizes could potentially be fabricated with already built tooling, those larger
diameters would not accommodate radial docking ports as required.

Additionally, the smaller diameter of the NGIS module enables other externally mounted
capabilities, including batteries, communication antennae, and payloads to be incorporated
upon launch and available for the initial mission. These capabilities uniquely establish a
minimum risk development posture for supplying the initial docking and habitable transfer
capability necessary to support lunar operations in 2024.
Lastly, a new full and open competition would cause an additional delay of 12-18 months or
more in fulfilling the agency’s requirements.

[Lar]

This is NOT a space policy thread.

It's also not
- a place to debate SLS vs SpaceX yet again
- a place for counterfactual fantasies
- a place for people to be snarky after they were warned not to be
- a place for general politics

Locked.

Third try: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.new

Bring your A game. If that thread devolves, I'm going to lobby that we're done with this topic outside space policy.

[gongora]

Trimmed this thread.