NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[AnalogMan]

I can't find an actual GDSS spec.  I'm assuming that it's a superset of IDSS, and has the ability to accommodate an IDSS implementation.  It would obviously be missing all the fancy fluid transfer capabilities.  But my guess is that SpaceX has different plans for how fluids get transferred to an LSS.

It doesn't appear to be public yet.  I assume they plan on releasing it as part of the www.internationaldeepspacestandards.com (like is done for the www.internationaldockingstandard.com).  That one, Rev F, shows all the locations for the umbilicals and fluids for GDSS, but what isn't shown are details about the umblicals (which are different).  So, as far as I'm aware, IDSS and GDSS systems can make a pressure seal, but not transfer power and data.  I was under the impression that the GDSS fluid transfer specification was most critical to re-fueling the PPE?

I assume that GDSS does not support cryogenic transfers?

If only the Dragon XL needs to implement GDSS fluid transfer, I imagine the wiring modifications are pretty easy.  (BTW, why do you think they changed the power and data interfaces?  That kinda seems like somebody wasn't thinking ahead about the fluids if they had to relocate electrical connectors to make it work.  Surely this must have come up while hashing out IDSS.)

The IDSS reserves areas for fluid and other connections, as seen on page 56 of the PDF, page 3-43 of the document.

https://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSS_IDD_Revision_F.pdf

I found a draft version of a Gateway Docking System Specification (DSG-SPEC-MECH-017) dated June 30, 2019.

Many of the figures in the document are marked "Figure Requires Update" so they may have important details missing related to DGSS fluid transfers.

Section 3.4.2 covers Fluid Transfer Connectors starting on document page 37.  There are four fluid umbilical connectors for: coolant, xenon and hydrazine, with one type of connector for coolant and another for propellants.  Location of four "APAS Fluid Connectors" is shown in Figure 3.4-1 (Umbilical Connector Keep-Out Zones) on document page 18.

Document is attached - hope this may be of some help.

[VSECOTSPE]

It's not flag and footprints since the objective is to permanently return to the Moon.

The program did not match that aspiration before the budget release.   And it has moved farther away from that aspiration post-budget release.

Given the budgets constraints, the missions at first are only for a few days but the days spent on the Moon will increase.

Before the Artemis IV slip, the 30-day habitat was out in 2032 on Artemis IX.  Logically, it would now be in 2033.  But we don’t know, because the program schedule in the budget request doesn’t even go out to 2032 anymore, forget 2033.

The part of the budget request that would fund that surface habitat is 15% lower than it was two years ago.

If your definition of permanent return is longer and longer surface stays, then the program schedule and budget are headed in the wrong direction.

The main difference with Apollo is that there shouldn't be an end to Artemis. That is a big difference.

Should is not the same as will.  Like the IG testified... not sustainable.

[VSECOTSPE]

A trio of veteran space policy experts cautioned today that although President Biden’s request for a 7 percent increase for NASA in FY2024 is good news, in reality it merely keeps pace with inflation...

Dreier called it a “workhorse” budget “that really doesn’t change very much” from FY2023 because of the impact of inflation. He argued that budget requests reflect an administration’s priorities and this one illustrates NASA is not a “broad priority” of the Biden-Harris Administration...

He’s “excited to see $8 billion for Artemis,” NASA’s effort to return astronauts to the Moon, about the same amount of money as the request for science programs, but “there are so many things in the pipeline … it’s a relatively brittle budget” if anything goes awry...

What all that means is that none of the top eight people who decide on NASA’s appropriations has a NASA center in their state or district, which could make a difference in what is certain to be a stressful budget year.

On top of that, the staff is changing... Toal Eisen noted that none of the staffers who wrote the reports for NASA’s appropriations last year are doing that now.

With House Republicans demanding dramatic spending cuts, committee and subcommittee members who have less of a vested interest in NASA than in the past, and new staff, NASA has its work cut out to get that 7 percent increase.

Though it may well be it would only keep pace with inflation and thus represents a flat budget, as Toal Eisen stressed, “no appropriator ever says that, they see it as a 7 percent increase.”

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/space-policy-experts-caution-nasa-increase-merely-keeps-pace-with-inflation/

[woods170]

A trio of veteran space policy experts cautioned today that although President Biden’s request for a 7 percent increase for NASA in FY2024 is good news, in reality it merely keeps pace with inflation...

Dreier called it a “workhorse” budget “that really doesn’t change very much” from FY2023 because of the impact of inflation. He argued that budget requests reflect an administration’s priorities and this one illustrates NASA is not a “broad priority” of the Biden-Harris Administration...

He’s “excited to see $8 billion for Artemis,” NASA’s effort to return astronauts to the Moon, about the same amount of money as the request for science programs, but “there are so many things in the pipeline … it’s a relatively brittle budget” if anything goes awry...

What all that means is that none of the top eight people who decide on NASA’s appropriations has a NASA center in their state or district, which could make a difference in what is certain to be a stressful budget year.

On top of that, the staff is changing... Toal Eisen noted that none of the staffers who wrote the reports for NASA’s appropriations last year are doing that now.

With House Republicans demanding dramatic spending cuts, committee and subcommittee members who have less of a vested interest in NASA than in the past, and new staff, NASA has its work cut out to get that 7 percent increase.

Though it may well be it would only keep pace with inflation and thus represents a flat budget, as Toal Eisen stressed, “no appropriator ever says that, they see it as a 7 percent increase.”

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/space-policy-experts-caution-nasa-increase-merely-keeps-pace-with-inflation/

I see you are on top of things, as usual. The one quote from that SpacePolicyOnline article that stood out for me was this:

He (Casey Dreier from the The Planetary Society) is “excited to see $8 billion for Artemis,” NASA’s effort to return astronauts to the Moon, about the same amount of money as the request for science programs, but “there are so many things in the pipeline … it’s a relatively brittle budget” if anything goes awry.

Particularly the bolded part. It shows that others are also well aware of "the bow wave" of ever-increasing out-year budget predictions.

Someday, not too long from now, that will be going wrong in a big way IMO.

As signalled in the article, the so-called 7 percent increase is actually nothing but inflation correction. The budget is in essence flat, which means that for lack of a "funding bulge" things keep being moved to the right, as evidenced by the latest Artemis schedule update. Sometime before 2027 this entire charade will be facing reality, the hard way.


And of further note (and also mentioned in the article): the many changes in appropriations committees over recent months. NASA might just not even get that 7 percent increase. If House Republicans are going to have their way, NASA will be looking at a decreasing budget. And that will put a whole lot of stress on not just the Planetary Sciences budget (VERITAS anyone?....)

[yg1968]

It's not flag and footprints since the objective is to permanently return to the Moon.

The program did not match that aspiration before the budget release.   And it has moved farther away from that aspiration post-budget release.

Given the budgets constraints, the missions at first are only for a few days but the days spent on the Moon will increase.

Before the Artemis IV slip, the 30-day habitat was out in 2032 on Artemis IX.  Logically, it would now be in 2033.  But we don’t know, because the program schedule in the budget request doesn’t even go out to 2032 anymore, forget 2033.

The part of the budget request that would fund that surface habitat is 15% lower than it was two years ago.

If your definition of permanent return is longer and longer surface stays, then the program schedule and budget are headed in the wrong direction.

The main difference with Apollo is that there shouldn't be an end to Artemis. That is a big difference.

Should is not the same as will.  Like the IG testified... not sustainable.

A few comments related to your post. Bear in mind that the surface habitat on Artemis IX was for the foundation surface habitat. NASA is expected to change that plan to smaller mobile habitats in the architecture that will be released on April 18th at the Space Symposium. That should save some money. However, if there is a budget freeze, I agree that elements that are not essential [edit: for landing on the Moon] such as the surface habitats might get delayed. In terms of the funding for habitats, it seems that some of it is now part of the Mars development campaign and I am not sure why.  We already know that the longest expected stay on the lunar surface is 30 days and that is budget driven.

Appendix P might also be affected by a budget freeze. I am guessing that Option B wouldn't. One option might be to give the same amount of money for Appendix P as for Options A & B.

What the IG meant by not sustainable is that $4B per mission for SLS and Orion is too expensive. But NASA agreed with that conclusion and has been taking steps to reduce the per mission cost. It is not entirely clear how successful NASA has been so far on that front. The IG is currently looking at Artemis IV and later missions, so we should get an update on that in the next few months.

[yg1968]

And of further note (and also mentioned in the article): the many changes in appropriations committees over recent months. NASA might just not even get that 7 percent increase. If House Republicans are going to have their way, NASA will be looking at a decreasing budget. And that will put a whole lot of stress on not just the Planetary Sciences budget (VERITAS anyone?....)

There is a distinction to be made between Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate. The freeze to FY22 levels isn't favored by many Republicans in the Senate. The most likely scenario is a freeze to FY23 levels because that is what you would get with a CR.

[clongton]

<snip> I agree that elements that are not essential such as the surface habitats <snip>

NASA's stated goal, stated and repeated multiple times, is to go back to the moon, "this time to stay". If the "this time to stay" statement is actually true, and not some feel-good aspiration, I would argue that surface habitats ARE essential. One simply cannot look at individual pieces of the budetary process in a bubble and draw conclusions wrt the overall effort. That's no different than looking at the world thru rose colored glasses and declaring that all is coming up roses.

[yg1968]

<snip> I agree that elements that are not essential such as the surface habitats <snip>

NASA's stated goal, stated and repeated multiple times, is to go back to the moon, "this time to stay". If the "this time to stay" statement is actually true, and not some feel-good aspiration, I would argue that surface habitats ARE essential. One simply cannot look at individual pieces of the budgetary process in a bubble and draw conclusions wrt the overall effort. That's no different than looking at the world thru rose colored glasses and declaring that all is coming up roses.

I should have been clearer, I meant that they are not essential in the short term (at least not for landing on the Moon) but I agree that habitats are essential in the longer term.

[DanClemmensen]

<snip> I agree that elements that are not essential such as the surface habitats <snip>

NASA's stated goal, stated and repeated multiple times, is to go back to the moon, "this time to stay". If the "this time to stay" statement is actually true, and not some feel-good aspiration, I would argue that surface habitats ARE essential. One simply cannot look at individual pieces of the budgetary process in a bubble and draw conclusions wrt the overall effort. That's no different than looking at the world thru rose colored glasses and declaring that all is coming up roses.

What's the difference between "habitat" and an Opton B Starship HLS that is landed and left in place on the moon?

I should have been clearer, I meant that they are not essential in the short term (at least not for landing on the Moon) but I agree that habitats are essential in the longer term.

[yg1968]

<snip> I agree that elements that are not essential such as the surface habitats <snip>

NASA's stated goal, stated and repeated multiple times, is to go back to the moon, "this time to stay". If the "this time to stay" statement is actually true, and not some feel-good aspiration, I would argue that surface habitats ARE essential. One simply cannot look at individual pieces of the budgetary process in a bubble and draw conclusions wrt the overall effort. That's no different than looking at the world thru rose colored glasses and declaring that all is coming up roses.

I should have been clearer, I meant that they are not essential in the short term (at least not for landing on the Moon) but I agree that habitats are essential in the longer term.

What's the difference between "habitat" and an Opton B Starship HLS that is landed and left in place on the moon?

Because of the lighting on the South pole, NASA wants a mobile habitat which would obviously exclude Starship-HLS.

[DanClemmensen]

<snip> I agree that elements that are not essential such as the surface habitats <snip>

NASA's stated goal, stated and repeated multiple times, is to go back to the moon, "this time to stay". If the "this time to stay" statement is actually true, and not some feel-good aspiration, I would argue that surface habitats ARE essential. One simply cannot look at individual pieces of the budgetary process in a bubble and draw conclusions wrt the overall effort. That's no different than looking at the world thru rose colored glasses and declaring that all is coming up roses.

I should have been clearer, I meant that they are not essential in the short term (at least not for landing on the Moon) but I agree that habitats are essential in the longer term.

What's the difference between "habitat" and an Opton B Starship HLS that is landed and left in place on the moon?

Because of the lighting on the South pole, NASA wants a mobile habitat, Starship-HLS obviously isn't mobile.

Sorry, I did not translate to NASAspeak. In the real world the word "habitat" implies a fixed location and a "mobile habitat" is a bus or an RV. SO I will rephrase: what is the difference between a fixed-location habitat and an Opton B Starship HLS that is landed and left in place on the moon?
... like the "foundation surface habitat" mentioned here:
     https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-outlines-lunar-surface-sustainability-concept

[Athelstane]

So 2 guys on the surface for 5 days once every 2 years is an exploration plan?

Flags and footprints.

You get what you are willing to pay for.  Artemis could easily become a true exploration plan if it's given the resources.

Artemis is getting $8B+ a year.  The program doesn’t need more resources.  It needs to spend what it’s getting more wisely and on actual exploration.

It's not flag and footprints since the objective is to permanently return to the Moon. Given the budgets constraints, the missions at first are only for a few days but the days spent on the Moon will increase. Each mission is progressively more difficult. The main difference with Apollo is that there shouldn't be an end to Artemis. That is a big difference.

Apollo accomplished exactly what it was supposed to (such a feat for a peacetime federal program!). It had vehicles for missions up to number 20 because they were not sure how many it would take to reach Kennedy's objective: Which was only to land a man on the Moon, and return him safely to the Earth, before the decade was out (and, unspoken but just as true, before the Soviets). There was never any political will to do more: to think otherwise is to misconceive Apollo as something other than it was intended to be.

The fact that NASA managed to pack some real science in the final missions before the money ran out redounds to their credit. But that was on bonus time. I am afraid they were lucky to get as many as they did.

And bear this in mind, too: Had NASA somehow gotten the political backing (and money) to keep sending astronauts to the Moon, we would have lost a crew. And it almost certainly would have been sooner rather than later. It is hard to think the program could have survived that. To paraphrase Susan Borman, no one could have looked up at the Moon any longer without thinking of those dead astronauts.

[yg1968]

<snip> I agree that elements that are not essential such as the surface habitats <snip>

NASA's stated goal, stated and repeated multiple times, is to go back to the moon, "this time to stay". If the "this time to stay" statement is actually true, and not some feel-good aspiration, I would argue that surface habitats ARE essential. One simply cannot look at individual pieces of the budgetary process in a bubble and draw conclusions wrt the overall effort. That's no different than looking at the world thru rose colored glasses and declaring that all is coming up roses.

I should have been clearer, I meant that they are not essential in the short term (at least not for landing on the Moon) but I agree that habitats are essential in the longer term.

What's the difference between "habitat" and an Opton B Starship HLS that is landed and left in place on the moon?

Because of the lighting on the South pole, NASA wants a mobile habitat, Starship-HLS obviously isn't mobile.

Sorry, I did not translate to NASAspeak. In the real world the word "habitat" implies a fixed location and a "mobile habitat" is a bus or an RV. SO I will rephrase: what is the difference between a fixed-location habitat and an Opton B Starship HLS that is landed and left in place on the moon?
... like the "foundation surface habitat" mentioned here:
     https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-outlines-lunar-surface-sustainability-concept

The foundation surface habitat was supposed to be a habitat that sits on top of HDL (i.e., HLS-cargo), so SpaceX could have offered Starship-HLS as a habitat but they would have had to win that solicitation.

However, I think that that the foundation surface habitat will be replaced by mobile habitats. That is what I gathered from Jim Free's comments at the Artemis I pre-launch conference last August. See this post for more on this: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55813.msg2400771#msg2400771

We should find out in April if that is still the plan.

[yg1968]

So 2 guys on the surface for 5 days once every 2 years is an exploration plan?

Flags and footprints.

You get what you are willing to pay for.  Artemis could easily become a true exploration plan if it's given the resources.

Artemis is getting $8B+ a year.  The program doesn’t need more resources.  It needs to spend what it’s getting more wisely and on actual exploration.

It's not flag and footprints since the objective is to permanently return to the Moon. Given the budgets constraints, the missions at first are only for a few days but the days spent on the Moon will increase. Each mission is progressively more difficult. The main difference with Apollo is that there shouldn't be an end to Artemis. That is a big difference.

Apollo accomplished exactly what it was supposed to (such a feat for a peacetime federal program!). It had vehicles for missions up to number 20 because they were not sure how many it would take to reach Kennedy's objective: Which was only to land a man on the Moon, and return him safely to the Earth, before the decade was out (and, unspoken but just as true, before the Soviets). There was never any political will to do more: to think otherwise is to misconceive Apollo as something other than it was intended to be.

The fact that NASA managed to pack some real science in the final missions before the money ran out redounds to their credit. But that was on bonus time. I am afraid they were lucky to get as many as they did.

And bear this in mind, too: Had NASA somehow gotten the political backing (and money) to keep sending astronauts to the Moon, we would have lost a crew. And it almost certainly would have been sooner rather than later. It is hard to think the program could have survived that. To paraphrase Susan Borman, no one could have looked up at the Moon any longer without thinking of those dead astronauts.

Just to be clear, I agree with you and nothing that I said contradicts this. I was talking about Artemis being a permanent return to the Moon, not Apollo.

[Athelstane]

So 2 guys on the surface for 5 days once every 2 years is an exploration plan?

Flags and footprints.

You get what you are willing to pay for.  Artemis could easily become a true exploration plan if it's given the resources.

Artemis is getting $8B+ a year.  The program doesn’t need more resources.  It needs to spend what it’s getting more wisely and on actual exploration.

It's not flag and footprints since the objective is to permanently return to the Moon. Given the budgets constraints, the missions at first are only for a few days but the days spent on the Moon will increase. Each mission is progressively more difficult. The main difference with Apollo is that there shouldn't be an end to Artemis. That is a big difference.

Apollo accomplished exactly what it was supposed to (such a feat for a peacetime federal program!). It had vehicles for missions up to number 20 because they were not sure how many it would take to reach Kennedy's objective: Which was only to land a man on the Moon, and return him safely to the Earth, before the decade was out (and, unspoken but just as true, before the Soviets). There was never any political will to do more: to think otherwise is to misconceive Apollo as something other than it was intended to be.

The fact that NASA managed to pack some real science in the final missions before the money ran out redounds to their credit. But that was on bonus time. I am afraid they were lucky to get as many as they did.

And bear this in mind, too: Had NASA somehow gotten the political backing (and money) to keep sending astronauts to the Moon, we would have lost a crew. And it almost certainly would have been sooner rather than later. It is hard to think the program could have survived that. To paraphrase Susan Borman, no one could have looked up at the Moon any longer without thinking of those dead astronauts.

Just to be clear, I agree with you and nothing that I said contradicts this. I was talking about Artemis being a permanent return to the Moon, not Apollo.

Sorry, you seemed to be implying that there should not have been an end to Apollo. That was what I was responding to.

All that said, I will reiterate that I cannot help but share VSECOTSPE's sense that right now, Artemis looks increasingly as unsustainable as Apollo was.

[yg1968]

So 2 guys on the surface for 5 days once every 2 years is an exploration plan?

Flags and footprints.

You get what you are willing to pay for.  Artemis could easily become a true exploration plan if it's given the resources.

Artemis is getting $8B+ a year.  The program doesn’t need more resources.  It needs to spend what it’s getting more wisely and on actual exploration.

It's not flag and footprints since the objective is to permanently return to the Moon. Given the budgets constraints, the missions at first are only for a few days but the days spent on the Moon will increase. Each mission is progressively more difficult. The main difference with Apollo is that there shouldn't be an end to Artemis. That is a big difference.

Apollo accomplished exactly what it was supposed to (such a feat for a peacetime federal program!). It had vehicles for missions up to number 20 because they were not sure how many it would take to reach Kennedy's objective: Which was only to land a man on the Moon, and return him safely to the Earth, before the decade was out (and, unspoken but just as true, before the Soviets). There was never any political will to do more: to think otherwise is to misconceive Apollo as something other than it was intended to be.

The fact that NASA managed to pack some real science in the final missions before the money ran out redounds to their credit. But that was on bonus time. I am afraid they were lucky to get as many as they did.

And bear this in mind, too: Had NASA somehow gotten the political backing (and money) to keep sending astronauts to the Moon, we would have lost a crew. And it almost certainly would have been sooner rather than later. It is hard to think the program could have survived that. To paraphrase Susan Borman, no one could have looked up at the Moon any longer without thinking of those dead astronauts.

Just to be clear, I agree with you and nothing that I said contradicts this. I was talking about Artemis being a permanent return to the Moon, not Apollo.

Sorry, you seemed to be implying that there should not have been an end to Apollo. That was what I was responding to.

All that said, I will reiterate that I cannot help but share VSECOTSPE's sense that right now, Artemis looks increasingly as unsustainable as Apollo was.

The future of Artemis after Artemis XIV or XV is a bit sketchy. At that point, it seems that SLS and Orion would be used for Mars exploration. Cabana and Free mentioned that they could see NASA having a program similar to the Commercial Lunar Destinations for the lunar surface. I am hoping that this is what will happen.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2366075#msg2366075

[clongton]

At that point, it seems that SLS and Orion would be used for Mars exploration.

It seems to me that the best way to make sure that "NASA" doesn't get to Mars is to continue to press SLS/Orion as the transportation system from and back to earth's surface. It is simply far to expensive and unsustainable. NASA will need to contract a completely different ride.

[punder]

The future of Artemis after Artemis XIV or XV is a bit sketchy. At that point, it seems that SLS and Orion would be used for Mars exploration. Cabana and Free mentioned that they could see NASA having a program similar to the Commercial Lunar Destinations for the lunar surface. I am hoping that this is what will happen.

Are you thinking there will be a hab module for the trip to Mars and back? Because I’m wondering how the astronauts will react to the prospect of spending two ~6-month stints in an Orion. And where all that extra life support is going to come from. (Maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.)

[yg1968]

The future of Artemis after Artemis XIV or XV is a bit sketchy. At that point, it seems that SLS and Orion would be used for Mars exploration. Cabana and Free mentioned that they could see NASA having a program similar to the Commercial Lunar Destinations for the lunar surface. I am hoping that this is what will happen.

Are you thinking there will be a hab module for the trip to Mars and back? Because I’m wondering how the astronauts will react to the prospect of spending two ~6-month stints in an Orion. And where all that extra life support is going to come from. (Maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.)

They wouldn't bring Orion to Mars. I just meant that Orion and SLS wouldn't be used for the Moon because NASA would focus its attention on Mars and probably purchase services for lunar surface exploration as it will do for LEO (as part of the CLD program).

[yg1968]

At that point, it seems that SLS and Orion would be used for Mars exploration.

It seems to me that the best way to make sure that "NASA" doesn't get to Mars is to continue to press SLS/Orion as the transportation system from and back to earth's surface. It is simply far to expensive and unsustainable. NASA will need to contract a completely different ride.

I don't disagree but the lack of cadence of SLS and Orion would be less of a problem for Mars given the 2 year window. Apparently, the Architecture that will be released in April will be updated for Mars.