NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[woods170]

One thing the latest NASA schedule is showing is that they have a "TBD HLS" starting in 2027, and then every year after that through 2031. The 2027 date, for anything other than the SpaceX Starship HLS, is pure fantasy. Won't happen.
Why? Just look at the most recent history of NASA's crewed vehicle programs. 10+ years for Commercial Crew to start service (longer for Boeing), and 20+ years for a NASA design.
And we are barely just 5 years out from a 2027 operational mission for a design that has no contract?

You might be right, but potential Appendix P bidders are already doing work. Including hardware tests.

Provide proof please. Because proposal teams don't normally do development. So I think your "potentially" qualifier should be edited to "no"... 

No he is right, Blue is still working on its lander through Appendix N. Appendix N is the proof.

SpaceX received a $2.9B contract for the Starship HLS, and Blue Origin got a $25.6M contract to develop lander design concepts. Do you see the difference?

Blue got a billion dollar under the base period contract. I wouldn't be surprised if Blue is continuing to self fund some of its lander as well. Blue Origin was already working on Blue Moon before it won a HLS contract. 

Emphasis mine.

No, they didn't. Under the base contract the National Team (of which Blue was just one of four participating companies) got $579M. That is 40% short of a billion dollars. And not all of that money went to Blue. Significant portions went to the other team members Draper, LockMart and Northrop Grumman. All in all the amount of money Blue has gotten so far, to develop a HLS lander, is not large enough to get them beyond the proposal/advanced mockup stage. Exactly like CoastalRon has been pointing out repeatedly.

[yg1968]

One thing the latest NASA schedule is showing is that they have a "TBD HLS" starting in 2027, and then every year after that through 2031. The 2027 date, for anything other than the SpaceX Starship HLS, is pure fantasy. Won't happen.
Why? Just look at the most recent history of NASA's crewed vehicle programs. 10+ years for Commercial Crew to start service (longer for Boeing), and 20+ years for a NASA design.
And we are barely just 5 years out from a 2027 operational mission for a design that has no contract?

You might be right, but potential Appendix P bidders are already doing work. Including hardware tests.

Provide proof please. Because proposal teams don't normally do development. So I think your "potentially" qualifier should be edited to "no"... 

No he is right, Blue is still working on its lander through Appendix N. Appendix N is the proof.

SpaceX received a $2.9B contract for the Starship HLS, and Blue Origin got a $25.6M contract to develop lander design concepts. Do you see the difference?

Blue got a billion dollar under the base period contract. I wouldn't be surprised if Blue is continuing to self fund some of its lander as well. Blue Origin was already working on Blue Moon before it won a HLS contract. 

Emphasis mine.

No, they didn't. Under the base contract the National Team (of which Blue was just one of four participating companies) got $579M. That is 40% short of a billion dollars. And not all of that money went to Blue. Significant portions went to the other team members Draper, LockMart and Northrop Grumman. All in all the amount of money Blue has gotten so far, to develop a HLS lander, is not large enough to get them beyond the proposal/advanced mockup stage. Exactly like CoastalRon has been pointing out repeatedly.

Yes, you are right. I should have verified that, I was going from memory. The total for the base period for all companies was about $1B and the Blue/National Team got $579M of that. Although, it seems that Blue/National Team ended up getting $479M for some reason.

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0020_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/nasa-selects-hls-lunar-lander-teams-blue-origin-spacex-dynetics.html

[woods170]

Yes, you are right. I should have verified that, I was going from memory. The total for the base period for all companies was about $1B and the Blue/National Team got $579M of that. Although, it seems that Blue/National Team ended up getting $479M for some reason.

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0020_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/nasa-selects-hls-lunar-lander-teams-blue-origin-spacex-dynetics.html

National Team got less than they had a contract for, because they didn't complete all milestones.

[yg1968]

If Blue wants to stand a chance for Appendix P, they IMO will have to slash the total price tag of their proposal to around $6B or less, and offer to finance half of that amount themselves.

Yes, I agree. I think that NASA might have a budget to pay about $4B for the Appendix P lander after taking into account any investment by the Appendix P provider. I hope that Blue offers a good proposal but if they offer the same proposal as the last time, I don't think that they will win.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

During the past 2 or 3 years BO has been doing some R&D work on a new HydroLOX engine of about the same thrust of an RL-10. But so far that work has yet to get to any significant testing of any of the major engine components. It is this engine concept under development that BO based their Blue Moon.

Perhaps they should go for a bigger fully reusable lander that uses a BE-3U. A vacuum adapted version of the existing BE-3 hydroLOX engine. By using 3 of them in a structure and tanks that surround a core that has the lander hardware and cargo or Crew space could be designed such that for Cargo the center is left on the surface and the propulsion ring returns to orbit. For the crew instance where the crew center has significantly less mass so that the propulsion ring can lift the center back to orbit. Some significant pieces related to this type of design would be that for cargo a new center core is shipped out to Lunar orbit where a refueled propulsion ring then reconnects to this core for the delivery to the surface. For crew the crew core is docked to the Gateway then the propulsion ring detaches and goes to refuel. It then returns and reattaches (specialized dock) to the crew core for the next trip down and back. It enables BO to use it's NG LV to launch the cores and the likely 3 pieces for the ring. All the pieces are assembled in LEO then initially refueled such that it having sufficient DV to reach Lunar orbit from LEO by itself. But would need a refueling in Lunar orbit. A Note here is that either cryo refueling in orbit is shown as a reliable and safe operation by 2030 or it is going to be a bleak going for multiple providers. Other features would be the cargo and crew access to surface is from the bottom of the crew core in the center with a short drop. Can be setup so that the engines are all placed high up and around the peripheral of the propulsion ring. Removing many issues about regolith damage. The capabilities would be about 1/3 to 1/2 that of Starship cargo or crew. A true competitor for both government work and a commercial competitor to SpaceX/Starship for eventual tourist and corporate customers. It also sets them up as a path to use ISRU hydroLOX produced prop on surface to drop trip back and forth from surface tremendously. Making in the long run SpaceX hard put to keep up with BO transport prices.

Unfortunately BO may not be sufficiently willing to invest in their possible place in the future.

[Coastal Ron]

potential Appendix P bidders are already doing work. Including hardware tests.

Provide proof please. Because proposal teams don't normally do development. So I think your "potentially" qualifier should be edited to "no"...

Everyone but SpaceX is still working on concepts, not real hardware.

Example:
The Dynetics team did a test fire of their methalox main engine for Alpaca last Friday.

They've previously done combustion-chamber hot-test firing, but I believe this was the first all-up engine test.

They've also built full-scale versions of their tanks and associated plumbing to demo the prop cryo xfer necessary for their design. Built and tested power systems, did dust-mitigation experiments, built their version of the IDSS... Work for which they've been paid milestone funding by NASA. As well as redesigning the lander to be fully reusable (eliminating the drop-tanks, as well as solving their mass issue) and addressed other issues raised by NASA.

I like Dynetics, and have a tenuous connection to them way in the past. And I like their design. But you're still not understanding the scale of work here.

Go back in time to the Commercial Crew program, and when CCDev1 was awarded in late 2010, in December of 2010 SpaceX flew their first Dragon Cargo vehicle. So SpaceX had a complete DDT&E team already in place for their spacecraft division, and they had people in house with the experience of building operational spacecraft. SpaceX won a CCDev2 contract in April of 2011, and it still took them 9 years to get to their first crewed test flight for Dragon Crew. Boeing, which is a much larger company, is 12+ years in so far.

So while building tanks and breadboarding systems is nice work, it pales in comparison to what is needed to get a fully operational lunar lander done within the next 10 years. We have recent history to guide us on this. Facts, not hand waving.

Unless you're stating, publicly, that these SpaceX competitors can do significantly better than what SpaceX did, despite not having a team already in place to build human-rated spacecraft like SpaceX did (Dragon Cargo was human-rated BTW).

[TheRadicalModerate]

All of the Appendix P bidders' jobs becomes significantly easier if their vehicles can count on copious amounts of methalox in NRHO.  And if you make the assumption that nobody's going anywhere until Option A succeeds, they should all be able to count on Starship to be able to deliver that prop, or at least be confident enough to bet their program.

Yes, they'll all need to have a contingency plan to deliver that prop if Starship were to suddenly implode, and that contingency plan would likely be so expensive that they wouldn't hit breakeven if the contingency actually occurred.

But this is a much, much lower risk than the contingency that the whole Artemis program implodes under SLS and Orion costs before about Artemis VI, which is the absolute earliest that any of the bidders could expect to get paid for their demonstration mission.  Under the circumstances, being able to get sloppy with mass margins and forgo exotic tech is likely to be the biggest risk reduction that they could possibly imagine.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Go back in time to the Commercial Crew program, and when CCDev1 was awarded in late 2010, in December of 2010 SpaceX flew their first Dragon Cargo vehicle. So SpaceX had a complete DDT&E team already in place for their spacecraft division, and they had people in house with the experience of building operational spacecraft. SpaceX won a CCDev2 contract in April of 2011, and it still took them 9 years to get to their first crewed test flight for Dragon Crew. Boeing, which is a much larger company, is 12+ years in so far.
<snip>

The chronic under funding by the Congress during the early period of the commercial crew program delay the first crewed test flight by a few years IMO.

[yg1968]

<snip>
Go back in time to the Commercial Crew program, and when CCDev1 was awarded in late 2010, in December of 2010 SpaceX flew their first Dragon Cargo vehicle. So SpaceX had a complete DDT&E team already in place for their spacecraft division, and they had people in house with the experience of building operational spacecraft. SpaceX won a CCDev2 contract in April of 2011, and it still took them 9 years to get to their first crewed test flight for Dragon Crew. Boeing, which is a much larger company, is 12+ years in so far.
<snip>

The chronic under funding by the Congress during the early period of the commercial crew program delay the first crewed test flight by a few years IMO.

One of the mistakes of commercial crew was to split development into 4 rounds, there is no doubt that it slowed down things. It was split into 4 rounds because of the lack of funding. So both these things are related.

[Proponent]

In terms of looking at alternatives, looking at early commercial Artemis missions with Orion would likely have meant the death of SLS and Shelby knew that which is why he reacted so strongly.

Likely true but irrelevant to the question of whether Pence had any inclination to take Shelby on over SLS.

Bridenstine wasn't publicly humiliated by Shelby. The discussion between Shelby and Bridenstine was likely private and the only reason that we heard about it is because Eric Berger mentioned it.

I am referring to the of the Senate Appropriations Committee on 1 May 2019, where Bridenstine recanted in front of Shelby.  It's hard not to be reminded of Galileo's recantation in front of the Inquisition.

In any event, you are twisting things, Berger says that Bridenstine wasn't fired because he had VP Pence's support.

Yes, Berger tells us that Pence wanted Bridenstine kept on, but that does not mean that Pence joined forces with Bridenstine in attacking SLS.  Since Berger dropped his attack on SLS, which was merely tangential in the first place, there is, again, no evidence that Pence was willing to stand up to Shelby on SLS.

[VSECOTSPE]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1587075677756526598

The current Artemis planning manifest, now updated to include a lunar landing on Artemis 4.

Artemis IV won’t happen on the schedule and in the way now laid out.

Too many schedule threats:

— Artemis III NET 2026

— ML-2 completion

— EUS completion

— iHab completion

— Sustainable lander completion

Too many operational firsts/threats:

— EUS first launch

— Gateway first assembly

— Sustainable lander first operations

In a sane program architecture, you don’t pile risk on top of risk on top of risk in the same mission — you distribute risks over more missions.  But with the extremely low mission rate imposed by Orion/SLS, the program does not have a sane architecture and is forced to choose between program schedule growth and mission risk growth.  For now, the program is choosing the latter.  (Another option would be to take content out of the program to match its mission rate.)

For now, this gives the appearance that the program is holding together, but Artemis IV won’t hold.  Either not all these new developments will be ready together on time and some will have to be launched later.  Or if these developments are coming together on time, someone will restore sanity regarding how much risk this single mission is being expected to undertake.  (Or an operational problem with one mission element will cascade to the others.)

The Artemis III schedule will probably bounce out to the right by a couple or few years first and make all this moot.  But even in the unlikely event Artemis III holds, it’s hard to see Artemis IV holding.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1587075677756526598

The current Artemis planning manifest, now updated to include a lunar landing on Artemis 4.

Artemis IV won’t happen on the schedule and in the way now laid out.

Too many schedule threats:

[...]

— iHab completion

— Sustainable lander completion

Too many operational firsts/threats: [...]

— Gateway first assembly

I suspect that Artemis IV will still launch even if iHab isn't ready. Same thing for PPE and HALO. Lander might be different since a Gateway only mission is a waste of a mission in my opinion.

[clongton]

In terms of looking at alternatives, looking at early commercial Artemis missions with Orion would likely have meant the death of SLS and Shelby knew that which is why he reacted so strongly.

Likely true but irrelevant to the question of whether Pence had any inclination to take Shelby on over SLS.

Bridenstine wasn't publicly humiliated by Shelby. The discussion between Shelby and Bridenstine was likely private and the only reason that we heard about it is because Eric Berger mentioned it.

I am referring to the of the Senate Appropriations Committee on 1 May 2019, where Bridenstine recanted in front of Shelby.  It's hard not to be reminded of Galileo's recantation in front of the Inquisition.

In any event, you are twisting things, Berger says that Bridenstine wasn't fired because he had VP Pence's support.

Yes, Berger tells us that Pence wanted Bridenstine kept on, but that does not mean that Pence joined forces with Bridenstine in attacking SLS.  Since Berger dropped his attack on SLS, which was merely tangential in the first place, there is, again, no evidence that Pence was willing to stand up to Shelby on SLS.

If you pay close attention, Shelby pretty much told Bridenstine what to talk about (the things we discussed in our previous [private] meeting), and then to be sure, he reiterated what those talking points were to be that were discussed at that meeting. Que a contrite and abandoned Administrator dutifully obeying his congressional master. Sad, very sad. I remember this man from days now long gone. I didn't like him then and he's done nothing since to moderate that opinion.

Having unapologetically expressed my feelings, he was a good senator for Alabama - too good. He brought home the bacon to Alabama but at the expense of good judgement, common sense and what was actually good for the nation as a whole. Goodbye Senator Shelby. I wish you well in your retirement.

[OTV Booster]

During the past 2 or 3 years BO has been doing some R&D work on a new HydroLOX engine of about the same thrust of an RL-10. But so far that work has yet to get to any significant testing of any of the major engine components. It is this engine concept under development that BO based their Blue Moon.

Perhaps they should go for a bigger fully reusable lander that uses a BE-3U. A vacuum adapted version of the existing BE-3 hydroLOX engine. By using 3 of them in a structure and tanks that surround a core that has the lander hardware and cargo or Crew space could be designed such that for Cargo the center is left on the surface and the propulsion ring returns to orbit. For the crew instance where the crew center has significantly less mass so that the propulsion ring can lift the center back to orbit. Some significant pieces related to this type of design would be that for cargo a new center core is shipped out to Lunar orbit where a refueled propulsion ring then reconnects to this core for the delivery to the surface. For crew the crew core is docked to the Gateway then the propulsion ring detaches and goes to refuel. It then returns and reattaches (specialized dock) to the crew core for the next trip down and back. It enables BO to use it's NG LV to launch the cores and the likely 3 pieces for the ring. All the pieces are assembled in LEO then initially refueled such that it having sufficient DV to reach Lunar orbit from LEO by itself. But would need a refueling in Lunar orbit. A Note here is that either cryo refueling in orbit is shown as a reliable and safe operation by 2030 or it is going to be a bleak going for multiple providers. Other features would be the cargo and crew access to surface is from the bottom of the crew core in the center with a short drop. Can be setup so that the engines are all placed high up and around the peripheral of the propulsion ring. Removing many issues about regolith damage. The capabilities would be about 1/3 to 1/2 that of Starship cargo or crew. A true competitor for both government work and a commercial competitor to SpaceX/Starship for eventual tourist and corporate customers. It also sets them up as a path to use ISRU hydroLOX produced prop on surface to drop trip back and forth from surface tremendously. Making in the long run SpaceX hard put to keep up with BO transport prices.

Unfortunately BO may not be sufficiently willing to invest in their possible place in the future.

By the time BO has this up and running everybody else will be using worm holes.

[TheRadicalModerate]

For now, this gives the appearance that the program is holding together, but Artemis IV won’t hold.  Either not all these new developments will be ready together on time and some will have to be launched later.  Or if these developments are coming together on time, someone will restore sanity regarding how much risk this single mission is being expected to undertake.  (Or an operational problem with one mission element will cascade to the others.)

The Artemis III schedule will probably bounce out to the right by a couple or few years first and make all this moot.  But even in the unlikely event Artemis III holds, it’s hard to see Artemis IV holding.

NASA seems to be behaving as if the "cadence" schedule with Artemis III.5 hadn't leaked.  This seems to be a vastly simpler way of solving the problems you've laid out:  just do a lander mission with an additional Block 1, demonstrate that Option B can dock with HALO and do a mission to the sustainable specs, and let EUS, ML-2, and I-Hab stew in their own juices for however long that takes.

As an extra bonus, maybe NASA could have a quiet word with Boeing and Bechtel that nobody's even going to consider finalizing the EPOC contract until EUS has been demonstrated.  And maybe the I-Hab people ought to be thinking more seriously about a CLV.

[yg1968]

For now, this gives the appearance that the program is holding together, but Artemis IV won’t hold.  Either not all these new developments will be ready together on time and some will have to be launched later.  Or if these developments are coming together on time, someone will restore sanity regarding how much risk this single mission is being expected to undertake.  (Or an operational problem with one mission element will cascade to the others.)

The Artemis III schedule will probably bounce out to the right by a couple or few years first and make all this moot.  But even in the unlikely event Artemis III holds, it’s hard to see Artemis IV holding.

NASA seems to be behaving as if the "cadence" schedule with Artemis III.5 hadn't leaked.  This seems to be a vastly simpler way of solving the problems you've laid out:  just do a lander mission with an additional Block 1, demonstrate that Option B can dock with HALO and do a mission to the sustainable specs, and let EUS, ML-2, and I-Hab stew in their own juices for however long that takes.

As an extra bonus, maybe NASA could have a quiet word with Boeing and Bechtel that nobody's even going to consider finalizing the EPOC contract until EUS has been demonstrated.  And maybe the I-Hab people ought to be thinking more seriously about a CLV.

The only thing is that the extra iCPS for the Artemis III.5 mission seems to makes things worse in terms of cadence; NASA would go from one fiscal year without having a mission (FY26) to two fiscal years without missions (FY28 and FY30). I don't understand why that is but that is what the Baseline and Cadence schedules show.

Perhaps NASA thinks that the baseline schedule isn't realistic and that the real comparison should be between the Cadence and Content schedules but the Cadence schedule isn't much better than the Content schedule (i.e., Artemis would still have two fiscal years without missions in either case).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/

[TheRadicalModerate]

NASA seems to be behaving as if the "cadence" schedule with Artemis III.5 hadn't leaked.  This seems to be a vastly simpler way of solving the problems you've laid out:  just do a lander mission with an additional Block 1, demonstrate that Option B can dock with HALO and do a mission to the sustainable specs, and let EUS, ML-2, and I-Hab stew in their own juices for however long that takes.

As an extra bonus, maybe NASA could have a quiet word with Boeing and Bechtel that nobody's even going to consider finalizing the EPOC contract until EUS has been demonstrated.  And maybe the I-Hab people ought to be thinking more seriously about a CLV.

The only thing is that the extra iCPS for the Artemis III.5 mission seems to makes things worse in terms of cadence; NASA would go from one fiscal year without having a mission (FY26) to two fiscal years without missions (FY28 and FY30). I don't understand why that is but that is what the Baseline and Cadence schedules show.

Perhaps NASA thinks that the baseline schedule isn't realistic and that the real comparison should be between the Cadence and Content schedules but the Cadence schedule isn't much better than the Content schedule (i.e., Artemis would still have two fiscal years without missions in either case).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/

I do wonder how big a deal manufacturing one more DCSS-5/ICPS might be, given that Delta-IV is end-of-life.

Beyond that, the best reason I can think of for why "cadence" might have a bigger gap between III.5 and IV is that NASA thinks that the EUS and ML-2 schedules are still mostly in fantasyland, and "cadence" is a euphemism for "prepare to be even more disappointed than usual."

I hate to say it, but I'm kinda rooting for Block 1B to be an unmitigated schedule disaster.  The more it slips, the less likely NASA is to pull the pin on EPOC, and the more likely they (and Congress) will be to entertain an LEO-staged LSS as a viable solution.  No doubt a big slip on Block 1B makes the whole Artemis program look bad, and possibly even courts its outright cancellation.  But I think things have to get worse before they can get better.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA seems to be behaving as if the "cadence" schedule with Artemis III.5 hadn't leaked.  This seems to be a vastly simpler way of solving the problems you've laid out:  just do a lander mission with an additional Block 1, demonstrate that Option B can dock with HALO and do a mission to the sustainable specs, and let EUS, ML-2, and I-Hab stew in their own juices for however long that takes.

As an extra bonus, maybe NASA could have a quiet word with Boeing and Bechtel that nobody's even going to consider finalizing the EPOC contract until EUS has been demonstrated.  And maybe the I-Hab people ought to be thinking more seriously about a CLV.

The only thing is that the extra iCPS for the Artemis III.5 mission seems to makes things worse in terms of cadence; NASA would go from one fiscal year without having a mission (FY26) to two fiscal years without missions (FY28 and FY30). I don't understand why that is but that is what the Baseline and Cadence schedules show.

Perhaps NASA thinks that the baseline schedule isn't realistic and that the real comparison should be between the Cadence and Content schedules but the Cadence schedule isn't much better than the Content schedule (i.e., Artemis would still have two fiscal years without missions in either case).

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/

I do wonder how big a deal manufacturing one more DCSS-5/ICPS might be, given that Delta-IV is end-of-life.

Beyond that, the best reason I can think of for why "cadence" might have a bigger gap between III.5 and IV is that NASA thinks that the EUS and ML-2 schedules are still mostly in fantasyland, and "cadence" is a euphemism for "prepare to be even more disappointed than usual."

I hate to say it, but I'm kinda rooting for Block 1B to be an unmitigated schedule disaster.  The more it slips, the less likely NASA is to pull the pin on EPOC, and the more likely they (and Congress) will be to entertain an LEO-staged LSS as a viable solution.  No doubt a big slip on Block 1B makes the whole Artemis program look bad, and possibly even courts its outright cancellation.  But I think things have to get worse before they can get better.

I fear that the only thing that would move congress is the realization that the competition would then be between Jarad Isaacman and the Chinese. I really hope Artemis I succeeds and NASA can somehow accomplish Artemis III before 2026.

[lrk]

I do wonder how big a deal manufacturing one more DCSS-5/ICPS might be, given that Delta-IV is end-of-life.

IIRC, the DCSS tooling was transferred from ULA's Decatur facility to MAF to support that scenario.  Probably would still be more expensive to re-start production in a new location. 

[DanClemmensen]

I do wonder how big a deal manufacturing one more DCSS-5/ICPS might be, given that Delta-IV is end-of-life.

IIRC, the DCSS tooling was transferred from ULA's Decatur facility to MAF to support that scenario.  Probably would still be more expensive to re-start production in a new location.

Do you have a guess as to when NASA would need to commit to it in order to get in in time for Artemis III.5?  It sounds like it's already too late. There are two remaining Delts IC Heavies, and presumably there is a DCSS-5 (basically an ICPS) for each of them. Could NASA somehow cajole NROL into giving up a Delta IV (and using a Falcon Heavy)?