Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4  (Read 41374 times)

Offline Warren Platts

Can anyone please explain to me why there are 13 potential landing sites for Artemis 3 in the South Polar region, but zero potential landing sites in the North Polar region?

Warren, hello! I think they had to choose a NRHO for Gateway that was associated with one or the other of the poles, and they chose South. Of course the other North Polar NRHO orbit exists as well, and it would require huge amounts of propulsion to switch Gateway from one to the other.

Are you sure? When they explain the advantages of NRHO, they say that both poles are accessible.

NRHO: I had to look that one up! ;D But if it's a matter of orbital mechanics, that still begs the question as to why we should prefer crewed landing sites in the South Pole region versus the North Pole..

IIRC, the orbital surveys revealed more potential water ice in the south than in the north. That’s why the south is a priority.

That's the thing. I have yet to see a paper that actually says that. The late Paul Spudis seemed to favor the North Polar region because the ice-indicating radar signatures were more pronounced in the northern region.

Cf. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgre.20156

Quote
we estimate that the north polar area alone would contain about 6 × 108 m3 of ice. We do not know the physical characteristics of this ice—solid, dense ice, or “fairy castle”—snow-like ice would have similar radar properties. In possible support of the latter, the low radar albedo and lower than typical CPR values for nonanomalous terrain near the polar craters are 0.2–0.3, somewhat lower than normal for the nonpolar highlands terrain of the Moon and are suggesting the presence of a low density, “fluffy” surface. Such properties are consistent with the target properties inferred for the LCROSS impact crater [Schultz et al., 2010]. If the deposits have the density of normal ice, they would have a total mass of about 600 million metric tons.*

*Note that the 600 million metric tonnes, that has practically become an internet meme is constantly repeated at conferences is the result of a spreadsheet error -- the volume formula was screwed up. Thus the correct value for the estimate, given their data is more like 6 billion tonnes iirc. Thus I hope someone didn't do an estimate for the South Polar region & then compare that to the 600 million tonnes estimate & conclude there was more ice in the South Polar region. That's what worries me..
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #241 on: 11/16/2022 01:49 pm »
Folks should also pay attention when greybeards and other independent reviewers are able to see this magnitude of delay coming years in advance and the program or agency does not (at least publicly).  It doesn’t mean the greybeards and independent experts have extrasensory powers or are always exactly right.  But it usually means that the program/agency leadership/culture is not being honest with itself, which is its own recipe for disaster.  Back in 2014, I was able to predict a 2021-2022 launch date for what became Artemis I:

Quote
That’s one year of schedule slippage for every two years that the project has existed. If the SLS schedule continues to slip at this rate over the next four years, the date of the first SLS launch will slip from 2018 to 2020. And then from 2018 to 2020, SLS will slip one more year or so before finally launching for the first time somewhere in the 2021-2022 timeframe.

At the time, the program schedule had SLS launching in 2018.  I was right to within a year while the program was off by four.  Berger’s source was able to predict 2023 back in 2017.  At the time, the program schedule had it launching in 2019.  Berger’s source was right to within a year, while the program was off by three.  That kind of self-delusional and/or uncaring program management is what gets programs in trouble.

The last Ars article on the launch included some of the milestones leading to today and one that stunned me was that the first test fire of an old shuttle engine happened in 2016. That's the original planned launch date and they hadn't even tested the already existing and built engines yet! That's something that does not depend on anything else in the program and could have been done in the first year. That one really drove home the questionable/delusional management decisions.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Online deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
  • USA
  • Liked: 1044
  • Likes Given: 1524
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #242 on: 11/16/2022 02:33 pm »
Can anyone please explain to me why there are 13 potential landing sites for Artemis 3 in the South Polar region, but zero potential landing sites in the North Polar region?

Warren, hello! I think they had to choose a NRHO for Gateway that was associated with one or the other of the poles, and they chose South. Of course the other North Polar NRHO orbit exists as well, and it would require huge amounts of propulsion to switch Gateway from one to the other.

Are you sure? When they explain the advantages of NRHO, they say that both poles are accessible.

NRHO: I had to look that one up! ;D But if it's a matter of orbital mechanics, that still begs the question as to why we should prefer crewed landing sites in the South Pole region versus the North Pole..

IIRC, the orbital surveys revealed more potential water ice in the south than in the north. That’s why the south is a priority.

That's the thing. I have yet to see a paper that actually says that. The late Paul Spudis seemed to favor the North Polar region because the ice-indicating radar signatures were more pronounced in the northern region.

Cf. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgre.20156

Quote
we estimate that the north polar area alone would contain about 6 × 108 m3 of ice. We do not know the physical characteristics of this ice—solid, dense ice, or “fairy castle”—snow-like ice would have similar radar properties. In possible support of the latter, the low radar albedo and lower than typical CPR values for nonanomalous terrain near the polar craters are 0.2–0.3, somewhat lower than normal for the nonpolar highlands terrain of the Moon and are suggesting the presence of a low density, “fluffy” surface. Such properties are consistent with the target properties inferred for the LCROSS impact crater [Schultz et al., 2010]. If the deposits have the density of normal ice, they would have a total mass of about 600 million metric tons.*

*Note that the 600 million metric tonnes, that has practically become an internet meme is constantly repeated at conferences is the result of a spreadsheet error -- the volume formula was screwed up. Thus the correct value for the estimate, given their data is more like 6 billion tonnes iirc. Thus I hope someone didn't do an estimate for the South Polar region & then compare that to the 600 million tonnes estimate & conclude there was more ice in the South Polar region. That's what worries me..
The vast majority of lunar scientists view the south pole as the better place to send people for science reasons. If you haven't seen "good enough reasons" for why that over the north, you probably are not looking very hard (or have a vested interest in the north pole).

Offline Warren Platts

The vast majority of lunar scientists view the south pole as the better place to send people for science reasons. If you haven't seen "good enough reasons" for why that over the north, you probably are not looking very hard (or have a vested interest in the north pole).

{citation needed} Who is this "vast majority"? And please define "lunar scientist" because rocket scientists are not lunar scientists. And what are the science reasons? If the main goal is to mine water ice (and if that's not the goal, then we shouldn't be going there), then the main consideration should be ease of access, not overall quantity. The South Pole region is certainly much more rugged than the North Polar region.

As for "good enough reasons" this is what nasa.gov has to say on the subject:

Quote
The South Pole is also a good target for a future human landing because robotically, it’s the most thoroughly investigated region on the Moon.

The elliptical, polar orbit of NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is closest to the Moon during its pass over the South Pole region. Through its thousands of orbits in the last decade, LRO has collected the most precise information about the South Pole region than any other, offering scientists precise details about its topography, temperature and locations of likely frozen water.

“We’ve mapped every square meter, even areas of permanent shadow,” said Noah Petro, an LRO project scientist based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

That's not a straight answer. It still begs the question as to why the South Polar region should be preferred over the North. If the answer is so obvious, then surely some regular poster on this forum should know the answer.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Online whitelancer64


The last Ars article on the launch included some of the milestones leading to today and one that stunned me was that the first test fire of an old shuttle engine happened in 2016. That's the original planned launch date and they hadn't even tested the already existing and built engines yet! That's something that does not depend on anything else in the program and could have been done in the first year. That one really drove home the questionable/delusional management decisions.

March 2016 was the first Flight engine test fire. There were a series of development test fires prior to that, which started in January 2015

e.g.,

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/13/nasa-kicks-off-sls-engine-testing-in-mississippi/

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/longest-sls-engine-test-yet-heats-up-summer-sky/

https://www.americaspace.com/2015/08/28/seventh-rs-25-test-fire-of-2015-closes-out-first-sls-main-engine-test-series/
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2610
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1505
  • Likes Given: 5536
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #245 on: 11/16/2022 03:37 pm »
Folks should also pay attention when greybeards and other independent reviewers are able to see this magnitude of delay coming years in advance and the program or agency does not (at least publicly).  It doesn’t mean the greybeards and independent experts have extrasensory powers or are always exactly right.  But it usually means that the program/agency leadership/culture is not being honest with itself, which is its own recipe for disaster.  Back in 2014, I was able to predict a 2021-2022 launch date for what became Artemis I:

Quote
That’s one year of schedule slippage for every two years that the project has existed. If the SLS schedule continues to slip at this rate over the next four years, the date of the first SLS launch will slip from 2018 to 2020. And then from 2018 to 2020, SLS will slip one more year or so before finally launching for the first time somewhere in the 2021-2022 timeframe.

At the time, the program schedule had SLS launching in 2018.  I was right to within a year while the program was off by four.  Berger’s source was able to predict 2023 back in 2017.  At the time, the program schedule had it launching in 2019.  Berger’s source was right to within a year, while the program was off by three.  That kind of self-delusional and/or uncaring program management is what gets programs in trouble.

The last Ars article on the launch included some of the milestones leading to today and one that stunned me was that the first test fire of an old shuttle engine happened in 2016. That's the original planned launch date and they hadn't even tested the already existing and built engines yet! That's something that does not depend on anything else in the program and could have been done in the first year. That one really drove home the questionable/delusional management decisions.
Bold emphasis mine
That's not true, you must know the exact parameters the new SLS CoreStage will impart upon the propellants in order to know what engine testing must be done. the SLS "start box" is different than the STS start box.
The very first RS25 test for SLS occured Jan 9, 2015. There was plenty of engine related work being done previous to that date.  The actual testing of the 16 ADAPTATION engines followed. And now we are deep into the new RESTART engine development effort.  Also let's not forget the all new Honeywell engine controllers that the 16 ADAPTATION RS25s all received. 
I don't think it's delusional to wait and know exactly what the testing is for, before you actually start the testing.
Paul

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15685
  • Liked: 5979
  • Likes Given: 2637
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #246 on: 11/18/2022 05:02 pm »
Quote from: Mark Kirasich
After 39 years, today is my final work day at NASA. What a journey - Shuttle, ISS, Orion and Artemis, capped with the Artemis I launch.

I am honored to have been a part of the NASA team and I look forward with pride to future Artemis missions returning people to the Moon.

https://twitter.com/MarkKirasich/status/1593664994259836928

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15685
  • Liked: 5979
  • Likes Given: 2637
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #247 on: 11/23/2022 02:25 pm »
At the ESA Council at Ministerial level, funding was provided for Moonlight (lunar telecommunication and navigation services) and EL3 (a cargo lander for the Moon):

Quote from: ESA
The next destination is the Moon and the major new element approved is Europe’s large logistic lander, Argonaut, which will be capable of routinely dispatching science payloads and cargo to the Moon throughout the 2030s. Ministers also agreed to start work on the next batch of European Service Modules. These elements reinforce Europe’s essential role in the Artemis programme, including the flights of three ESA astronauts to the lunar Gateway, and support Moon surface exploration, heralding the possibility for an ESA astronaut to set foot on the lunar surface. ESA will continue to work on building its elements of the Gateway, and to support the development of international lunar services with the Lunar Pathfinder satellite. [...]

Other funded plans include ESA’s Moonlight programme to encourage private European space companies to offer a lunar telecommunication and navigation service by putting a constellation of satellites around the Moon, and a new programme called civil security from space, which comprises a space-based rapid and resilient response for real-time crisis management to serve European citizens.

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Ministers_back_ESA_s_bold_ambitions_for_space_with_record_17_rise

https://twitter.com/esa/status/1595435571375120389
« Last Edit: 11/23/2022 02:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6927
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 3562
  • Likes Given: 2854
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #248 on: 11/24/2022 10:34 am »
Inside Mission Control with Artemis-1 Flight Director Rick LaBrode

Tony De La Rosa

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11402
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15264
  • Likes Given: 9496
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #249 on: 11/24/2022 10:37 am »
At the ESA Council at Ministerial level, funding was provided for Moonlight (lunar telecommunication and navigation services) and EL3 (a cargo lander for the Moon):

Quote from: ESA
The next destination is the Moon and the major new element approved is Europe’s large logistic lander, Argonaut, which will be capable of routinely dispatching science payloads and cargo to the Moon throughout the 2030s. Ministers also agreed to start work on the next batch of European Service Modules. These elements reinforce Europe’s essential role in the Artemis programme, including the flights of three ESA astronauts to the lunar Gateway, and support Moon surface exploration, heralding the possibility for an ESA astronaut to set foot on the lunar surface. ESA will continue to work on building its elements of the Gateway, and to support the development of international lunar services with the Lunar Pathfinder satellite. [...]

Other funded plans include ESA’s Moonlight programme to encourage private European space companies to offer a lunar telecommunication and navigation service by putting a constellation of satellites around the Moon, and a new programme called civil security from space, which comprises a space-based rapid and resilient response for real-time crisis management to serve European citizens.

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Ministers_back_ESA_s_bold_ambitions_for_space_with_record_17_rise

No offense, but neither Moonlight, nor EL3 are part of the Artemis program. So, this news flash from ESA really does not belong in this thread, given that Artemis is the subject of this thread.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2022 10:37 am by woods170 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15685
  • Liked: 5979
  • Likes Given: 2637
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #250 on: 11/24/2022 02:58 pm »
At the ESA Council at Ministerial level, funding was provided for Moonlight (lunar telecommunication and navigation services) and EL3 (a cargo lander for the Moon):

Quote from: ESA
The next destination is the Moon and the major new element approved is Europe’s large logistic lander, Argonaut, which will be capable of routinely dispatching science payloads and cargo to the Moon throughout the 2030s. Ministers also agreed to start work on the next batch of European Service Modules. These elements reinforce Europe’s essential role in the Artemis programme, including the flights of three ESA astronauts to the lunar Gateway, and support Moon surface exploration, heralding the possibility for an ESA astronaut to set foot on the lunar surface. ESA will continue to work on building its elements of the Gateway, and to support the development of international lunar services with the Lunar Pathfinder satellite. [...]

Other funded plans include ESA’s Moonlight programme to encourage private European space companies to offer a lunar telecommunication and navigation service by putting a constellation of satellites around the Moon, and a new programme called civil security from space, which comprises a space-based rapid and resilient response for real-time crisis management to serve European citizens.

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Ministers_back_ESA_s_bold_ambitions_for_space_with_record_17_rise

No offense, but neither Moonlight, nor EL3 are part of the Artemis program. So, this news flash from ESA really does not belong in this thread, given that Artemis is the subject of this thread.

It's not off topic. The EL3 and Moonlight lunar services will be offered as ESA contributions as part of the Artemis lunar surface agreements (which are related to the Artemis Accords); they are therefore directly related to Artemis. The ESA Director General, Josef Aschbacher confirmed this in a tweet earlier this year (see the links below).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2362472#msg2362472

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50941.msg2362792#msg2362792
« Last Edit: 11/24/2022 09:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11402
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15264
  • Likes Given: 9496
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #251 on: 11/25/2022 10:14 am »
At the ESA Council at Ministerial level, funding was provided for Moonlight (lunar telecommunication and navigation services) and EL3 (a cargo lander for the Moon):

Quote from: ESA
The next destination is the Moon and the major new element approved is Europe’s large logistic lander, Argonaut, which will be capable of routinely dispatching science payloads and cargo to the Moon throughout the 2030s. Ministers also agreed to start work on the next batch of European Service Modules. These elements reinforce Europe’s essential role in the Artemis programme, including the flights of three ESA astronauts to the lunar Gateway, and support Moon surface exploration, heralding the possibility for an ESA astronaut to set foot on the lunar surface. ESA will continue to work on building its elements of the Gateway, and to support the development of international lunar services with the Lunar Pathfinder satellite. [...]

Other funded plans include ESA’s Moonlight programme to encourage private European space companies to offer a lunar telecommunication and navigation service by putting a constellation of satellites around the Moon, and a new programme called civil security from space, which comprises a space-based rapid and resilient response for real-time crisis management to serve European citizens.

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Ministers_back_ESA_s_bold_ambitions_for_space_with_record_17_rise

No offense, but neither Moonlight, nor EL3 are part of the Artemis program. So, this news flash from ESA really does not belong in this thread, given that Artemis is the subject of this thread.

It's not off topic. The EL3 and Moonlight lunar services will be offered as ESA contributions as part of the Artemis lunar surface agreements (which are related to the Artemis Accords); they are therefore directly related to Artemis. The ESA Director General, Josef Aschbacher confirmed this in a tweet earlier this year (see the links below).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2362472#msg2362472

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50941.msg2362792#msg2362792


Will be offered. But has not happened yet. Also: NASA has not accepted those offers either. As such, at this moment, there is only the intention that these projects might some day become part of Artemis.

But they are not right now. And as such they don't belong here IMO. Should be in the European Spaceflight section.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15685
  • Liked: 5979
  • Likes Given: 2637
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #252 on: 11/25/2022 12:32 pm »
I still disagree. I expect that the services from these programs will be accepted as contributions sooner rather than later. I think that what was delaying their acceptance as ESA contributions was the need to get their approval at the ESA Council at Ministerial level. Aschbacher wouldn't talk about these being part of the Artemis lunar surface agreements, if these contributions weren't on the table. In his tweet, he hinted that there may be other contributions.

For JAXA, their contribution is expected to be a pressurized rover.

It's not clear what Canada's contribution will be. They are contributing a lunar rover through the CLPS program but that won't give them an astronaut on the Moon. It seems that Canada is exploring different ideas for their contribution:

https://spaceq.ca/the-canadian-space-agency-provides-1-75m-for-7-moon-infrastructure-ideas/
« Last Edit: 11/25/2022 01:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11661
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6306
  • Likes Given: 3080
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #253 on: 11/26/2022 02:31 am »
Congratulations to NASA on the achievment of Orion entering Distant Rectilinear Orbit (DRO), but lest we forget from whence we came:
Most Apollo missions were launched, went thru cis-lunar space, entered low lunar orbit, landed on the lunar surface, executed the surface mission, returned to lunar orbit and then returned to earth. The astronauts were onboard the recovery carriers, mission completed, in the 10 days it took Orion to just enter lunar orbit. Just saying.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2022 02:44 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 746
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #254 on: 11/26/2022 05:53 am »
Congratulations to NASA on the achievment of Orion entering lunar orbit, but lest we forget from whence we came:
Most Apollo missions were launched, went thru cis-lunar space, entered lunar orbit, landed on the lunar surface, executed the surface mission, returned to lunar orbit and then returned to earth. The astronauts were onboard the recovery carriers, mission completed, in the 10 days it took Orion to just enter lunar orbit. Just saying.

Sure Artemis missions aren't gonna be as fast as the Apollo missions but that hardly diminishes the accomplishment.

It is also important to note that no Apollo missions carried four astronauts beyond LEO, no Apollo missions spent a week or more on the lunar surface, no Apollo missions had livestream camera views of the spacecraft available on demand, no Apollo missions landed outside the equatorial region, and finally no Apollo missions were seen by anyone alive today younger than their 50s.

Just saying.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, SS/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 hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1170
  • Liked: 718
  • Likes Given: 869
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #255 on: 11/26/2022 06:19 am »
Congratulations to NASA on the achievment of Orion entering lunar orbit, but lest we forget from whence we came:
Most Apollo missions were launched, went thru cis-lunar space, entered lunar orbit, landed on the lunar surface, executed the surface mission, returned to lunar orbit and then returned to earth. The astronauts were onboard the recovery carriers, mission completed, in the 10 days it took Orion to just enter lunar orbit. Just saying.

Sure Artemis missions aren't gonna be as fast as the Apollo missions but that hardly diminishes the accomplishment.

It is also important to note that no Apollo missions carried four astronauts beyond LEO,


Artemis has not done that yet either.

And spending billions of dollars and tens of years to achieve 33% increase in crew capacity is not a very big improvement, especially when it means that the same launch vehicle cannot carry the lander anymore.

Quote
no Apollo missions spent a week or more on the lunar surface

Artemis has not done that yet either.

And how long time is any single-launch Artemis mission going to stay on moon surface?

Quote
, no Apollo missions had livestream camera views of the spacecraft available on demand,

... because ICT technology was not as developed >50 years ago. Now the extra cost and effort due to that is very cheap and easy, and not because of anything what NASA has done.

Quote
no Apollo missions landed outside the equatorial region,

Who cares where the craft lands when it comes back?


Quote
and finally no Apollo missions were seen by anyone alive today younger than their 50s.

Just saying.

No manned Artemis flights have been seen yet by anyone alive, regardless of age.


Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
  • Liked: 1006
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #256 on: 11/26/2022 08:27 am »
Talking of the Ministerial, what is decided regarding financing of ESM-7 to 9 ? This should be through ISS bartering so what about subscription of the ISS budget line?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11661
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 6306
  • Likes Given: 3080
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #257 on: 11/26/2022 02:36 pm »
Congratulations to NASA on the achievment of Orion entering Distant Rectilinear Orbit (DRO), but lest we forget from whence we came:
Most Apollo missions were launched, went thru cis-lunar space, entered low lunar orbit, landed on the lunar surface, executed the surface mission, returned to lunar orbit and then returned to earth. The astronauts were onboard the recovery carriers, mission completed, in the 10 days it took Orion to just enter lunar orbit. Just saying.

Sure Artemis missions aren't gonna be as fast as the Apollo missions but that hardly diminishes the accomplishment.

I'm not. Just keeping it in the proper context.

Quote
It is also important to note that no Apollo missions carried four astronauts beyond LEO

Correct. Instead it carried 3 astronauts *AND* a 2-stage lander capable of supporting 2 astronauts on the lunar surface for several days, *AND* a rover that let those astronauts drive around on the lunar surface far beyond the landing site, *AND* it put all that directly into low lunar orbit, something which the SLS is not now, nor will ever be capable of doing. And lest we forget, Artemis doesn't plan to put any more crew on the surface at a time than Apollo did, 2 astronauts per mission. And Apollo put 12 astronauts on the surface in a total of 6 missions over 42 months, averaging a new mission every 7 months (not counting a 7th mission, Apollo 13), but at 12 to 18 months between Artemis missions it'll take Artemis 6 to 9 years to accomplish the same thing. There are some here who doubt that SLS will be around long enough to do that.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2022 02:54 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2827
  • California
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 851
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #258 on: 11/26/2022 03:14 pm »
And lest we forget, Artemis doesn't plan to put any more crew on the surface at a time than Apollo did, 2 astronauts per mission.
The later HLSs (Option B and Appendix P) are supposed to be able to support Four astronauts  for month-long missions, I think. It's not clear how that is supposed to work. I guess an Oron with four crew will go to Gateway and all four crew will transfer to HLS, leaving Orion (and Gateway) untenanted?

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 746
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #259 on: 11/26/2022 03:47 pm »
Artemis has not done that yet either.

Sure but clongton talked about crewed Apollo missions in his post, not just uncrewed flight tests. If we are just talking about uncrewed test flights then Orion has surpassed Apollo by having an uncrewed test flight to lunar orbit.

I think it is fair when talking about crewed Apollo flights to compare them to the planned crewed Artemis flights.

Quote
And spending billions of dollars and tens of years to achieve 33% increase in crew capacity is not a very big improvement, especially when it means that the same launch vehicle cannot carry the lander anymore.

The Artemis program is not going to repeat Apollo. That is a good thing. Sure Orion can't enter LLO and SLS doesn’t also launch the lander. Not having a single launch architecture though allows for more capable lunar landers launched on commercial vehicles.

And also I have to point out that no one else has gone to the moon with a crew capable spacecraft in 50 years. It isn't a cakewalk. I agree there are a lot of political and bureaucratic issues that have caused the longer timeframe in this case. That said, what we are getting is a more sustainable program that can be the seed for commercial missions that will firmly establish a position in cis-lunar space.

Quote
And how long time is any single-launch Artemis mission going to stay on moon surface?

Your comment presupposes that a single launch architecture is superior. Given that the plan is to land a vehicle the size of Starship (and all the possible cargo a moonship that large can carry) that argument does not hold water.

Quote
... because ICT technology was not as developed >50 years ago. Now the extra cost and effort due to that is very cheap and easy, and not because of anything what NASA has done.

Again clongton was being snarky about Orion's capabilities in comparison with Apollo. I pointed out an area where it is clearly superior.

Quote
Who cares where the craft lands when it comes back?

I was referring to landing at the south pole of the moon and having the ability to reach many other lunar locals.

Quote
No manned Artemis flights have been seen yet by anyone alive, regardless of age.

Sure but that is coming and no one of an age younger than 50 has even seen an uncrewed human rated vehicle fly around the moon.

If your reaction to Artemis I is to be upset that it doesn't perfectly match the architecture you prefer or that it costs too much in your view that is your prerogative.

I and many others on the other hand are full of wonder that a human capable craft is flying around the moon RIGHT NOW. If you can't feel wonder at that thought then I'm sorry.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2022 03:48 pm by Endeavour_01 »
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, SS/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.

Tags:
 

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