NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[Zed_Noir]

NASA's new race to put a woman on the moon

Pretty hilarious statement when you think about it. Who are they racing against?  There are no other nations in this "race". The only other real player in this so-called "race" is SpaceX.

Why is it hilarious?  SpaceX is a partner of NASA, not an adversary. 

That's exactly the point. They are "racing" their own partner (because there is no one else to race)? LOL. Think about it.

After thinking about it.

Presuming the folks from Hawthorne actually build a few Moonships of some sort and the Starship is operational. They will happily provide cislunar logistic service and maybe a few surface Moonsuits for a fee. Even if NASA unwisely didn't selected the HLS Moonship.

There is a very tiny chance of someone else entering the race to the Moon. How to put it. Change the sales slogan a bit to "Fly Emirates to the Moon". 

[sdsds]

[...] astronauts doing EVAs from Orion, without an explicit airlock. [...]

Yes, Orion still has (or will have) the capability to do EVAs by depressurizing the cabin and opening the hatch, similar to how Apollo did them.

That's the method planned for the initial EVAs needed to outfit the initial Gateway modules prior to the arrival of the airlock module.

Thanks for that confirmation. I'm curious though: with the initial Gateway consisting of PPE and HALO modules integrated on the ground, what need is there to conduct EVAs to outfit them? Is there a description of these tasks anywhere?
 

all of the lunar landers [...] should, in theory, be just as capable as Orion of supporting EVAs at Gateway.

Excellent observation! Moreover it seems like the ascent element of the National Team program's lander would be "easy" to convert into an airlock. It might be fun to back-calculate what kind of launcher would be required to put it on a trajectory where its own propulsion could be used to complete a rendezvous with the gateway....

[primer_black]

Excellent observation! Moreover it seems like the ascent element of the National Team program's lander would be "easy" to convert into an airlock. It might be fun to back-calculate what kind of launcher would be required to put it on a trajectory where its own propulsion could be used to complete a rendezvous with the gateway....

This isn't new work, each of the National Team elements (AE included) are designed to make their own way to NRHO for aggregation after launch on a standard commercial launcher.

While NASA has eliminated crew transfer from Orion to HLS landers via the Gateway for initial 2024 demonstration missions (taking PPE/HALO off the HLS demo critical path), this has always been a core capability requested for all HLS bids.

HLS vehicle travel direct to Gateway, both from Earth and the Lunar surface, is key to the various NASA and provider 'sustainability' plans for the next phase of Artemis.

[sdsds]

This isn't new work, each of the National Team elements (AE included) are designed to make their own way to NRHO for aggregation after launch on a standard commercial launcher.

That does make it seem promising. The major difference is that an "on-station airlock only" version of the ascent element could arrive with its propellant tanks nearly empty, having presumably used the propellant as propulsion for the transit and rendezvous. It seems likely the thrust level lunar ascent requires differs from that needed for these in-space maneuvers, and thus possibly the (rather expensive) ascent engine could be omitted.

Eliminating the main engine and arriving with much less propellant on board: maybe it needs markedly less launcher performance as well. Atlas V with no solids, perhaps?

EDIT to add: Atlas V 401 delivers 3710kg to -10 km^s/sec^2. Here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50892.0
GWH estimated the dry mass and payload of the ascent vehicle at 2250 and 3400 kg, repsectively.

[gemmy0I]

Thanks for that confirmation. I'm curious though: with the initial Gateway consisting of PPE and HALO modules integrated on the ground, what need is there to conduct EVAs to outfit them? Is there a description of these tasks anywhere?

Hmm, true. I think the information I remember reading about needing EVAs to outfit the initial modules predates the decision to launch PPE and HALO as an integrated unit.

Beyond the initial "minimal" Gateway, I believe several of the expansion modules (IHAB, ESPRIT, etc.) are due to arrive before any notional airlock, so they would potentially need EVAs for outfitting (as might the airlock itself). I guess it depends on how pre-integrated they want to make things. The IDSS docking interface is flexible enough that, in principle, they should be able to run most if not all of the necessary attachments through that, eliminating the need for outfitting EVAs.

all of the lunar landers [...] should, in theory, be just as capable as Orion of supporting EVAs at Gateway.

Excellent observation! Moreover it seems like the ascent element of the National Team program's lander would be "easy" to convert into an airlock. It might be fun to back-calculate what kind of launcher would be required to put it on a trajectory where its own propulsion could be used to complete a rendezvous with the gateway....

Weird idea time...I wonder how hard it would be to make the propulsion section detachable so as to expose a second docking port on the "bottom" of the cabin? That would turn it into a Pirs/Poisk-style docking compartment which can be used as an airlock but also provides an extra docking port (i.e., doesn't "use up" a docking port on net on whatever parent module it's connected to). As with Pirs/Poisk it would ideally be used for docking uncrewed logistics vehicles so as to avoid blocking access to a crew vehicle during an EVA - but that wouldn't be a big deal as there's likely to be one of those on station whenever there's a crew on board.

[lrk]

[...] astronauts doing EVAs from Orion, without an explicit airlock. [...]

Yes, Orion still has (or will have) the capability to do EVAs by depressurizing the cabin and opening the hatch, similar to how Apollo did them.

That's the method planned for the initial EVAs needed to outfit the initial Gateway modules prior to the arrival of the airlock module.

Thanks for that confirmation. I'm curious though: with the initial Gateway consisting of PPE and HALO modules integrated on the ground, what need is there to conduct EVAs to outfit them? Is there a description of these tasks anywhere?
 

all of the lunar landers [...] should, in theory, be just as capable as Orion of supporting EVAs at Gateway.

Excellent observation! Moreover it seems like the ascent element of the National Team program's lander would be "easy" to convert into an airlock. It might be fun to back-calculate what kind of launcher would be required to put it on a trajectory where its own propulsion could be used to complete a rendezvous with the gateway....

Or just leave the accent element from the first landing mission at the Gateway permanently...

[sdsds]

Or just leave the accent element from the first landing mission at the Gateway permanently...

Ah yes, of course. In addition to preparing and launching a full ascent element, versus a much reduced version, this just requires:
- the launch of a descent element
- the launch of a transfer element
- the on-orbit assembly of all three
- the launch of astros using Orion
- the successful surface mission

Once those have been accomplished there's nearly zero extra work in retaining the ascent element as an airlock. Does the National Team plan call for a new ascent element (and thus nearly full propellant tanks) for each surface mission? The old ones just pile up as airlocks and such?

[Amos]

The old ones just pile up as airlocks and such?

Yo dawg we heard you like airlocks so we put an airlock on your airlock so you can cycle an airlock after you cycle an airlock

[lrk]

Does the National Team plan call for a new ascent element (and thus nearly full propellant tanks) for each surface mission? The old ones just pile up as airlocks and such?

My understanding is that they plan to eventually refuel the ascent elements at the gateway and reuse them in the longer-term "sustainment" phase, but the initial mission won't be configured for reuse. 

[yg1968]

NASA, Johns Hopkins APL Continue Partnership on Lunar Tech Maturation Strategy:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/NASA_Johns_Hopkins_APL_Continue_Partnership_on_Lunar_Tech_Maturation_Strategy

https://twitter.com/lunarsoil/status/1370473943006638087

[yg1968]

Internal radiation payload approved for the Gateway:
https://blogs.esa.int/exploration/internal-radiation-payload-approved-for-the-gateway/

[sdsds]

Internal radiation payload approved for the Gateway:
https://blogs.esa.int/exploration/internal-radiation-payload-approved-for-the-gateway/

Thanks for sharing this. The blog post says: "The [Internal Dosimeter Array] will be located inside the NASA-commissioned Habitation and Logistics Outpost or HALO module of the Gateway [and] radiation measurements will be cross-referenced with those taken by the European Radiation Sensors Array, or ERSA, that will be mounted on the [Power and Propulsion Element]."

Clearly ERSA needs to be integrated on the ground before launch. The blog post doesn't clearly state whether that will be done for IDA as well?

[yg1968]

NASA Announces Lunar Delivery Challenge Winners:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-lunar-delivery-challenge-winners

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1372261479764930570

[yg1968]

Podcast on the problem of Moon dust (starts at 15m40s of the podcast):

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/futureproof-with-jonathan-mccrea/the-trouble-with-moon-dust

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/1373261586975051778

[yg1968]

See also this tweet:

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/1373501598870147072

[JEF_300]

So my understanding is that the successful Green Run means we can expect Artemis-1 to launch early in 2022. What does that mean for Artemis-2? Will they be able to also fit that into 2022?

[Zed_Noir]

So my understanding is that the successful Green Run means we can expect Artemis-1 to launch early in 2022. What does that mean for Artemis-2? Will they be able to also fit that into 2022?

Think a 2022 Artemis-2 launch is not likely. Unless you think that the various parts of the Artemis program will not have hiccups from now to late 2022.

[Eric Hedman]

So my understanding is that the successful Green Run means we can expect Artemis-1 to launch early in 2022. What does that mean for Artemis-2? Will they be able to also fit that into 2022?

There is no way of knowing what kind of problems will or won't emerge before Artemis-2.  It could surprise us and be mostly problem free going forward.  I wouldn't hold my breath and count on it.  It always comes down to you don't know what you don't know.

[clongton]

So my understanding is that the successful Green Run means we can expect Artemis-1 to launch early in 2022. What does that mean for Artemis-2? Will they be able to also fit that into 2022?

Highly doubtful. Congress has not appropriated enough funding to allow for more than 1 SLS to be built per year.

[Khadgars]

So my understanding is that the successful Green Run means we can expect Artemis-1 to launch early in 2022. What does that mean for Artemis-2? Will they be able to also fit that into 2022?

Highly doubtful. Congress has not appropriated enough funding to allow for more than 1 SLS to be built per year.

The build contracts for Artemis 2 are already in the books (CS-2 is nearing completion, boosters are already in-house, CM & CSM nearing completion, ICPS already ordered).  I don't see where funding is an issue here for Artemis 2.

CS-2 is currently scheduled to be delivered to KSC in June of next year, 6 months of integration is probably too tight for a launch end of 2022 (we'll have to see how Artemis 1 goes) but I don't see funding being the issue here.