NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[VSECOTSPE]

There is no evidence here that VP Pence wanted to cancel SLS.

No, I think yg1968’s quote upthread makes clear that Pence was willing, at least rhetorically, to use commercial rockets in place of SLS if needed to maintain/improve the schedule for human lunar return.

I suppose Pence could have been thinking that SLS would be maintained as a jobs program even if it never launched for the lunar program (or at all) while commercial launchers took up all the slack.  Or that SLS could somehow become a commercial launcher while maintaining/accelerating the lunar schedule.  But those seem far-fetched.

I see in your quotes that Pence also talked about maintaining SLS.  But I think that just implies that Pence or whoever wrote the remarks hadn’t fully thought through the implications of using commercial launchers in the lunar program.  Or that they had, and it was always an empty threat from the get-go just to try to get SLS to move faster.

This is why wrote upthread that we don’t really know, and I doubt Pence & Co did either.  It wouldn't be the first time a politician spoke out of both sides of their mouth, and you couldn’t tell whether they were doing it on purpose or out of ignorance.

And we saw how much Pence's support for temporary use of commercial launch vehicles was worth when he left Bridenstine to twist in the wind as Shelby publicly humiliated him in a Senate hearing.

It wasn’t public, but I agree that Pence left Bridenstine twisting in the wind with Shelby.  Pence’s willingness to maintain/improve the human lunar return schedule stopped short of doing battle with one of the top four appropriators in Congress.

This is why I’ve written elsewhere that the game will fundamentally change when Shelby is retired.  When and whether anyone cares enough to play another round and push thru to fix Artemis is TBD, but the game will have changed when/if they do.

[su27k]

Will point out that the Artemis IV mission included a crew landing in the background display.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1586025536119197696

The chart includes a lunar landing on Artemis 4; NASA previously projected that mission to be Gateway-only. NASA’s Mark Kirasich said after the panel they are now planning to use that for SpaceX’s HLS Option B Starship lander mission.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1586126683471593474

Following up on @Jeff_Foust's intriguing tweet this morning from #VonBraun2022, I asked NASA if plans have indeed changed for Artemis IV and now include a landing.
They have!
Here's the full reply:

[yg1968]

This is why I’ve written elsewhere that the game will fundamentally change when Shelby is retired.  When and whether anyone cares enough to play another round and push thru to fix Artemis is TBD, but the game will have changed when/if they do.

When both Shelby and Nelson retire, I would say. The discussion about VP Pence reinforces the point that I have made in the past that the best way to fix SLS's cadence problem without creating a workforce/political issue is probably to have a commercial HLV option complement SLS as VP Pence had suggested in 2019. From a political point of view, this is the more realistic approach.

It doesn't get said a lot but one of the advantages of not having a commercial crew to cislunar space program is that it allows companies like SpaceX to build a crewed version of Starship without having to worry about NASA's requirements such as the need for a launch abort system.

Incidentally, NASA's requirements for aborts for non-ISS missions starts on page 45 of this document (the requirements are less stringent than for ISS, so it might be possible for Starship to meet them):
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PR_8705_002C_/N_PR_8705_002C_.pdf

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1586126683471593474

Following up on @Jeff_Foust's intriguing tweet this morning from #VonBraun2022, I asked NASA if plans have indeed changed for Artemis IV and now include a landing.
They have!
Here's the full reply:

Artemis IV will now land on the Moon! Fantastic news!

[DanClemmensen]

Will point out that the Artemis IV mission included a crew landing in the background display.

The chart includes a lunar landing on Artemis 4; NASA previously projected that mission to be Gateway-only. NASA’s Mark Kirasich said after the panel they are now planning to use that for SpaceX’s HLS Option B Starship lander mission.

Following up on @Jeff_Foust's intriguing tweet this morning from #VonBraun2022, I asked NASA if plans have indeed changed for Artemis IV and now include a landing.
They have!
Here's the full reply:
     [Notionally added a landing to Artemis IV...]

Well, it's a start. Now if they can just notionally remove the I-HAB and the requirement to use a Block 1B, it might fly in this decade.

[yg1968]

The 2022 Artemis/Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review should be completed at the latest in January (perhaps in December).

See the attached slide and below:

In other words - this concept won't be informed by the Appendix P proposals?

Melroy mentioned that the Architecture Concept Review will be updated on a yearly basis in order to inform each year's NASA Budget request.

ASAP is happy about the annual review of the Artemis architecture.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1585697963157880849

[yg1968]

NASA Releases Report on Policy Matters in Upcoming Moon Missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/otps/NASA_Releases_Report_on_Policy_Matters_in_Upcoming_Moon_Missions

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1585698925402591237

[yg1968]

One interesting note from the #VonBraun2022 panel on nuclear propulsion: NASA, whose NTP/NEP studies have focused on Mars missions, is starting to look more at cislunar applications, something DOD is already doing through DARPA’s DRACO project.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1586006822036463617

[yg1968]

Parsons: Mobile Launcher 2 is the critical path for the Artemis 4 launch; looking at what we can do to add shifts and accelerate work on it. #VonBraun2022

Northrop Grumman’s Doug Hurley says the solid rocket boosters should be good for “several” more launch periods before they would want to examine the motors (which were stacked last year.) #VonBraun2022

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1585710821753004032

[DanClemmensen]

Parsons: Mobile Launcher 2 is the critical path for the Artemis 4 launch; looking at what we can do to add shifts and accelerate work on it. #VonBraun2022

Northrop Grumman’s Doug Hurley says the solid rocket boosters should be good for “several” more launch periods before they would want to examine the motors (which were stacked last year.) #VonBraun2022

The quoted stack date, "last year", is disingenuous. The stack timer started on January 7 2021, which is more than 21 months ago. What would be involved in "examining" the motors?

[yg1968]

Parsons: Mobile Launcher 2 is the critical path for the Artemis 4 launch; looking at what we can do to add shifts and accelerate work on it. #VonBraun2022

Northrop Grumman’s Doug Hurley says the solid rocket boosters should be good for “several” more launch periods before they would want to examine the motors (which were stacked last year.) #VonBraun2022

The quoted stack date, "last year", is disingenuous. The stack timer started on January 7 2021, which is more than 21 months ago. What would be involved in "examining" the motors?

The parenthesis is from Jeff Foust and by last year, he means 2021.

[clongton]

NASA Releases Report on Policy Matters in Upcoming Moon Missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/otps/NASA_Releases_Report_on_Policy_Matters_in_Upcoming_Moon_Missions

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1585698925402591237

In a big way!?!?
Dozens of missions???
At 1 every 18+ months (SLS flight rate), my high school-age grandkids will be grandparents themselves by then.

NASA's PR department really is a master at piling up the bull excrement lol.

[DistantTemple]

NASA Releases Report on Policy Matters in Upcoming Moon Missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/otps/NASA_Releases_Report_on_Policy_Matters_in_Upcoming_Moon_Missions

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1585698925402591237

In a big way!?!?
Dozens of missions???
At 1 every 18+ months (SLS flight rate), my high school-age grandkids will be grandparents themselves by then.

NASA's PR department really is a master at piling up the bull excrement lol.

I agree.... good spin... however not excrement:
That is not just main Artemis missions, or HSF missions, it includes CLPS etc, and anything going to the moon. It literally says "humanity", not NASA, "commercial missions", and "international missions". So that includes China. NASA is not in any way claiming responsibility.

[DanClemmensen]

Parsons: Mobile Launcher 2 is the critical path for the Artemis 4 launch; looking at what we can do to add shifts and accelerate work on it. #VonBraun2022

Northrop Grumman’s Doug Hurley says the solid rocket boosters should be good for “several” more launch periods before they would want to examine the motors (which were stacked last year.) #VonBraun2022

The quoted stack date, "last year", is disingenuous. The stack timer started on January 7 2021, which is more than 21 months ago. What would be involved in "examining" the motors?

The parenthesis is from Jeff Foust and by last year, he means 2021.

The word "disingenuous" generally means "true, but deliberately used in a way that is intended to deceive." That's what I meant. I don't really care who used it that way.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The real question is how many is "several" more LPs: 3, 4, 6... I can see 3 with 4 as a possibility but after February the justifications will be rather fascinating read. NOTE here is that with the January LP the stack duration will be just barely over 2 years. With the possibility of the extension lasting till completion of stacking date + 2 years (2 Mar 2021 +2 years = 2 Mar 2023). So a likely 4 LPs including this next upcoming LP in Nov.

[yg1968]

NASA Releases Report on Policy Matters in Upcoming Moon Missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/otps/NASA_Releases_Report_on_Policy_Matters_in_Upcoming_Moon_Missions

https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1585698925402591237

In a big way!?!?
Dozens of missions???
At 1 every 18+ months (SLS flight rate), my high school-age grandkids will be grandparents themselves by then.

NASA's PR department really is a master at piling up the bull excrement lol.

Although it could have been clearer, they meant crewed and uncrewed lunar missions since international and industry obviously do not have crewed missions. It's clearer in the press release and the report.

[yg1968]

This presentation by Mark Kirasich was posted a couple of months ago:

[yg1968]

At 25 minutes, Kirasich said that the LTV can travel about 10 km (spacewalks are a maximum of 10 km).

The pressurized rover will drag the LTV to give them a larger range. LTV should be around 2026 (Artemis V).

NASA is talking to JAXA about the pressurized rover. The surface habitat is something that will be developed here. (I think that those plans are currently being changed as Jim Free was talking about campers types of habitat). The surface habitat and the pressurized rover should be delivered to the Moon in 2030 or 2031 and will allow 4 astronauts to go to the lunar surface for missions up to 30 days.

[yg1968]

This presentation by Mark Kirasich was posted a couple of months ago:

youtu.be/fqTr2Ow8mQo

Nobody picked up on this at the time but Kirasich at 24 minutes of the video had said back in July that Artemis IV was a surface mission. What may have confused people is that his slide for Artemis IV didn't have a lander but verbally he said that 2 astronauts would go to the surface of the Moon after the co-manifested payload is delivered.

[yg1968]

This presentation by Mark Kirasich was posted a couple of months ago:

youtu.be/fqTr2Ow8mQo

At 5 minutes of the video, Kirasich said that NASA would establish an annual lunar cadence between Artemis III and IV and Artemis IV and V.

At 16 minutes, he said that Artemis II would be 2 years after Artemis I.