NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[VSECOTSPE]

Updated Orion/SLS budget history with FY24 budget out today.  The bow wave keeps moving right.  In the FY23 budget, FY24 was supposed to be $3.6B.  In the FY24 budget, it is now $4.5B.  (Congress will probably hike that to $4.7B if prior appropriations are any guide.)  Over five years, FY23 thru FY27, there is $4.4B of cost growth going from the FY23 budget to the FY24 budget.

                                             Annual Orion/SLS/EGS Budget Requests ($B)

              FY17   FY18   FY19   FY20   FY21   FY22   FY23   FY24   FY25   FY26   FY27   FY28

FY19      3.9      3.9       3.7      3.8       3.8      3.7       3.8

FY20                 4.4       4.1      3.4       3.4      3.5       3.8      3.7

FY21                             4.1      4.6       4.0      4.0       4.1      3.8      3.6

FY22                                        4.5       4.5      4.5       4.4      4.2      3.9      3.9 

FY23                                                    4.5      4.5       4.7      3.6      3.1      2.8      2.4

FY24                                                               4.6       4.7      4.5      4.2      4.0      3.6      3.6   

Latest Growth                                                 0.1       0.0      0.9      1.1      1.2      1.2
(FY24 Minus FY23)

I would guess that the Artemis IV slip to 2028 is related to this, as well as the weird budget profile for Advanced Cislunar/Surface Capabilities.  More impacts will probably emerge as the budget gets reviewed.

[yg1968]

Revised Artemis timeline on page 7 of the FY24 NASA Budget summary presentation:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fiscal_year_2024_nasa_budget_summary.pdf

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1635328044046127106

[VSECOTSPE]

Almost 3 years between flights!
Further proof that Artemis is NOT a true exploration plan.

We’ll see what causes, if any, NASA points to for slipping Artemis IV to 2028 in today’s press briefing and future hearings.  But looking at the FY24 Orion/SLS budget, the bow wave moved right another year, so that would seem to be the cause.  If that keeps happening, either Artemis missions or new developments or both will keep getting pushed out into the future to feed Orion/SLS.

Missions and/or content will push out even further if House Republicans hold the FY24 budget flat or cut it.

The FY 2024 President’s Budget Request manifest supports an Artemis II mission in 2024, Artemis III mission in 2025, Artemis IV mission in 2028, and Artemis V mission in 2029 with subsequent flights on a yearly basis.

I’m being nitpicky about NASA’s budget justification, but the “Artemis V mission in 2029 with subsequent flights on a yearly basis” part is untrue.  The President’s FY24 Budget only goes out thru FY28.  Someone should have caught that.

[jadebenn]

Revised Artemis timeline on page 7 of the FY24 NASA Budget summary presentation:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fiscal_year_2024_nasa_budget_summary.pdf

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1635328044046127106

Hard to see Artemis 3 staying in 2025 considering the HLS slip.

https://twitter.com/lavie154/status/1633196965780652032

Silver lining: Might even out the cadence a bit.

[VSECOTSPE]

Hard to see Artemis 3 staying in 2025 considering the HLS slip.

That’s not an HLS slip.

Silver lining: Might even out the cadence a bit.

The real problem is repeated 2- and 3-year gaps between launches.  Even Gerst stated that the system needed to launch once annually to maintain workforce competence and flight safety.  STS managers used to say at least 3-5 launches annually for flight safety.  Being this far out of family doesn’t guarantee an accident but it needlessly increased the odds instead of going with higher cadence options.

[jadebenn]

That’s not an HLS slip.

How so? I don't see any way you can read that schedule considering we're already well into FY 2023.

[yg1968]

Revised Artemis timeline on page 7 of the FY24 NASA Budget summary presentation:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fiscal_year_2024_nasa_budget_summary.pdf

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1635328044046127106

Hard to see Artemis 3 staying in 2025 considering the HLS slip.

https://twitter.com/lavie154/status/1633196965780652032

Silver lining: Might even out the cadence a bit.

That doesn't show any slip. Per the NASA FY24 Budget, SpaceX has been meeting its HLS milestones on time.

[yg1968]

I’m being nitpicky about NASA’s budget justification, but the “Artemis V mission in 2029 with subsequent flights on a yearly basis” part is untrue.  The President’s FY24 Budget only goes out thru FY28.  Someone should have caught that.

It's not related to the budget, it's the projected cadence and it is true, see page 7:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fiscal_year_2024_nasa_budget_summary.pdf

Incidentally, if you compare it to last year's timeline, Artemis IV and later missions have all slipped by a year:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_summary.pdf

[jadebenn]

That doesn't show any slip. Per the NASA FY24 Budget, SpaceX has been meeting its HLS milestones on time.

The SpaceX schedule provided by the OIG certainly shows slip. If the budget request says otherwise, then I suppose it's a question of the SpaceX internal schedule vs. the enforceable NASA contract milestones. One is clearly behind from the version procured in 2020/2021, but the other may not be.

[yg1968]

That doesn't show any slip. Per the NASA FY24 Budget, SpaceX has been meeting its HLS milestones on time.

The SpaceX schedule provided by the OIG certainly shows slip. If the budget request says otherwise, then I suppose it's a question of the SpaceX internal schedule vs. the enforceable NASA contract milestones. One is clearly behind from the version procured in 2020/2021, but the other may not be.

The IG chart doesn't show a slip. FY2025 starts in October 2024. Even if you bump the schedule by a year, you get to October-December 2025 (FY26 Q1) for the launch of HLS Starship.

[VSECOTSPE]

It's not related to the budget, it's the projected cadence and it is true

It’s related to the budget because NASA’s FY 2024 Budget Justification says that the President’s FY 2024 Budget support Artemis V in 2029 and annual Artemis missions thereafter.  You quoted that statement directly from page DEXP-3.

But the statement is untrue.  The FY 2024 budget only goes out thru FY2028.  By definition, the FY 2024 budget does not support missions in 2029 or the cadence thereafter.  Those are decisions that will be made in future (FY25+) President’s Budget requests.

It’s one passage in a ginormous document, but NASA shouldn’t be making misleading claims like that in a budget justification to Congress.  (I know because I used to review these documents.)

The SpaceX schedule provided by the OIG certainly shows slip.

What SpaceX schedule provided by the NASA IG?

[yg1968]

What SpaceX schedule provided by the NASA IG?

The one that he provided in the the tweet above. Based on that tweet, the launch of the OFT-Starship is a year behind schedule. But at the time, the Artemis III launch was supposed to be in the first quarter of FY25 (i.e., October-December 2024). If you add a year to that, you get an Artemis III launch in the first quarter of FY26 (i.e., October-December 2025) which is when it is currently planned. In other words, OFT-Starship is still on time if it launches in Q2 FY23 (before March 31st of this year) given that Artemis III as a whole was delayed by a year.

[VSECOTSPE]

The one that he provided in the the tweet above. Based on that tweet, the launch of the OFT-Starship is a year behind schedule.

All I see is some Musk statement to Morgan Stanley about Starship, which is not HLS.  I’m unaware of any NASA IG testimony or report showing a SpaceX (or other) schedule that Lunar Starship has slipped.

May happen, but the IG will predict a slip in text, not chart a slip that’s already occurred.

[yg1968]

The one that he provided in the the tweet above. Based on that tweet, the launch of the OFT-Starship is a year behind schedule.

All I see is some Musk statement to Morgan Stanley about Starship, which is not HLS.  I’m unaware of any NASA IG testimony or report showing a SpaceX (or other) schedule that Lunar Starship has slipped.

May happen, but the IG will predict a slip in text, not chart a slip that’s already occurred.

The chart (attached) in the tweet shows the OFT-Starship launching in FY22 Q2, so we are currently a year behind compared to the milestones provided by NASA to the OIG.

The image comes from page 11 (or 17 of the PDF) of the following IG report:
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf

[whitelancer64]

According to the FY24 NASA Budget request, Artemis III is now December 2025 and Artemis IV is now September 2028 <snip>

Almost 3 years between flights!
Further proof that Artemis is NOT a true exploration plan.

I am not sure that it's proof of that. Artemis IV has a lot of new elements to it including the EUS and ML2. It seems likely that Artemis III will slip into 2026. As Eric Berger mentioned before, it might be better to let Artemis III slip into 2026 to avoid a 3 year gap.

I still think NASA needs an Artemis 3.5 mission in 2027. Order another ICPS, have Orion rendezvous with HLS at the PPE+HALO Gateway, do a lunar landing.

[yg1968]

According to the FY24 NASA Budget request, Artemis III is now December 2025 and Artemis IV is now September 2028 <snip>

Almost 3 years between flights!
Further proof that Artemis is NOT a true exploration plan.

I am not sure that it's proof of that. Artemis IV has a lot of new elements to it including the EUS and ML2. It seems likely that Artemis III will slip into 2026. As Eric Berger mentioned before, it might be better to let Artemis III slip into 2026 to avoid a 3 year gap.

I still think NASA needs an Artemis 3.5 mission in 2027. Order another ICPS, have Orion rendezvous with HLS at the PPE+HALO Gateway, do a lunar landing.

Although I would tend to agree with you on this, Eric Berger's June 2022 article seemed to imply that a III.5 mission didn't really improve things and I never really understood why that was.

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

[yg1968]

Almost 3 years between flights!
Further proof that Artemis is NOT a true exploration plan.

We’ll see what causes, if any, NASA points to for slipping Artemis IV to 2028 in today’s press briefing and future hearings.  But looking at the FY24 Orion/SLS budget, the bow wave moved right another year, so that would seem to be the cause.  If that keeps happening, either Artemis missions or new developments or both will keep getting pushed out into the future to feed Orion/SLS.

Missions and/or content will push out even further if House Republicans hold the FY24 budget flat or cut it.

At 58 minutes of the press conference, Bob Cabana explained it by saying that a lot has to come together for Artemis IV: EUS, ML2, Gateway and Gateway Logistics.

[VSECOTSPE]

At 58 minutes of the press conference, Bob Cabana explained it by saying that a lot has to come together for Artemis IV: EUS, ML2, Gateway and Gateway Logistics.

Ha... predicted that would happen back in November:

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.

See post #190:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57437.190

I’m certain the latest $4B+ in Orion/SLS cost growth also played a factor — you don’t usually have increases like that without pushing out schedule too — but the agency obviously won’t bring that up unless pressed.

[VSECOTSPE]

Artemis gap

The budget presentation included an updated schedule for the Artemis campaign of lunar exploration. That included a November 2024 date for Artemis 2, the first crewed Space Launch System/Orion mission, a date NASA officials gave in a March 7 briefing about the uncrewed Artemis 1 mission.

That schedule shows a December 2025 launch date for Artemis 3, which will include the first human lunar landing of Artemis using SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander and spacesuits being developed by Axiom Space. “We’re still pressing to make Artemis 3 in 2025 and proceed on from there,” Bob Cabana, NASA associate administrator, said at the briefing.

However, Artemis 4, previously projected for 2027, had slipped to September 2028 in the new manifest. That will also feature a lunar landing using Starship as well as use of the lunar Gateway. It will also be the first launch of the upgraded Block 1B version of SLS with additional payload capacity, which on that mission will be used to deliver the I-Hab habitation module to the Gateway.

NASA officials at the briefing did not discuss the Artemis 4 slip, but Cabana mentioned the complexity of the mission. “We’re doing our very best to keep it on schedule,” he said. “Yes, it slipped a little bit, but there’s a lot that has to come together for Artemis 4, between the enhanced upper stage, the Gateway, Gateway logistics, the second mobile launcher. All of that has to work.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to-spend-up-to-1-billion-on-space-station-deorbit-module/

[TheRadicalModerate]

Although I would tend to agree with you on this, Eric Berger's June 2022 article seemed to imply that a III.5 mission didn't really improve things and I never really understood why that was.

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

IIRC from (way) up-thread, the issue is that the ICPS line in Decatur is in the process of being dismantled as the Artemis III ICPS makes its way through final integration and testing.  All the tooling is being shipped to Michoud, but the line would have to be reconstructed at considerable expense.  For now, the tooling is just being mothballed.

Of course, SpaceX could decide on its own to do a crewed Option B LSS test in between Artemis III and IV, cobbled together out of an F9/D2 to do crew launch and EDL, an LSS to do LEO-NRHO-LEO, and the Option B LSS to do NRHO-LS-NRHO.  But I doubt Congress would let NASA fund the mission.  It's not a cheap mission, and would require the LSS to have active/passive docking.