NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[Coastal Ron]

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.

The SLS can barely get the Orion to the Moon, and then there is the whole "$1B per person" cost issue that would make it unaffordable for going to Mars even if someone wanted to use it.

AND, let us remember that the SLS and Orion are not yet fully operational - not yet certified for humans. I mention that because NASA is 100% reliant on the SpaceX Starship for getting humans to the surface of the Moon and back to lunar orbit, and obviously once the Starship is operational enough for doing that, then it will be a better choice for NASA to use for going to Mars.

In a world with no alternatives, sure, you could cobble together a REALLY expensive Mars program using the SLS+Orion. But luckily there are LOTS of alternatives, and for many years now SpaceX has already been building the vehicle that NASA would use to get to Mars. The SLS+Orion ends with the Artemis Moon missions.

[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.

The SLS can barely get the Orion to the Moon, and then there is the whole "$1B per person" cost issue that would make it unaffordable for going to Mars even if someone wanted to use it.

AND, let us remember that the SLS and Orion are not yet fully operational - not yet certified for humans. I mention that because NASA is 100% reliant on the SpaceX Starship for getting humans to the surface of the Moon and back to lunar orbit, and obviously once the Starship is operational enough for doing that, then it will be a better choice for NASA to use for going to Mars.

In a world with no alternatives, sure, you could cobble together a REALLY expensive Mars program using the SLS+Orion. But luckily there are LOTS of alternatives, and for many years now SpaceX has already been building the vehicle that NASA would use to get to Mars. The SLS+Orion ends with the Artemis Moon missions.

You could have a combination of SLS/Orion for crew transportation from Earth to cislunar space and Starship from cislunar space to Mars. That may actually be the most realistic option that involves SLS and Orion since I don't think that NASA could afford sending astronauts all the way to Mars unless Starship works out.

However, I agree with you that cancelling SLS and Orion after Artemis XIV or XV would make sense and is likely the most realistic timing for it. I know that many people on the forum including you would prefer a much early time than that to cancel SLS and Orion but, from a political point of view, I just don't see it happening.

[Athelstane]

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.

The SLS can barely get the Orion to the Moon, and then there is the whole "$1B per person" cost issue that would make it unaffordable for going to Mars even if someone wanted to use it.

AND, let us remember that the SLS and Orion are not yet fully operational - not yet certified for humans. I mention that because NASA is 100% reliant on the SpaceX Starship for getting humans to the surface of the Moon and back to lunar orbit, and obviously once the Starship is operational enough for doing that, then it will be a better choice for NASA to use for going to Mars.

In a world with no alternatives, sure, you could cobble together a REALLY expensive Mars program using the SLS+Orion. But luckily there are LOTS of alternatives, and for many years now SpaceX has already been building the vehicle that NASA would use to get to Mars. The SLS+Orion ends with the Artemis Moon missions.

You could have a combination of SLS/Orion for crew transportation from Earth to cislunar space and Starship from cislunar space to Mars. That may actually be the most realistic option that involves SLS and Orion since I don't think that NASA could afford sending astronauts all the way to Mars unless Starship works out.

Why bother taking the astronauts all the way out to cislunar space for the transfer? Why can't it be done in Earth orbit?

More to the point, if you *do* have the transfer in Earth orbit, you can bring more people to Mars, because even if you still are not in a position to human-rate Starship for launch and EDL, you would have the capabilities offered by commercial crew vehicles available. Launch, say, three such vehicles in rapid succession up to dock with your Mars Starship (that is a capability that will exist by the end of this year!), and now you can bring 12 people to the Martian surface.

Of course, at this point, we are left wondering why you need Orion at all. 

[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.

The SLS can barely get the Orion to the Moon, and then there is the whole "$1B per person" cost issue that would make it unaffordable for going to Mars even if someone wanted to use it.

AND, let us remember that the SLS and Orion are not yet fully operational - not yet certified for humans. I mention that because NASA is 100% reliant on the SpaceX Starship for getting humans to the surface of the Moon and back to lunar orbit, and obviously once the Starship is operational enough for doing that, then it will be a better choice for NASA to use for going to Mars.

In a world with no alternatives, sure, you could cobble together a REALLY expensive Mars program using the SLS+Orion. But luckily there are LOTS of alternatives, and for many years now SpaceX has already been building the vehicle that NASA would use to get to Mars. The SLS+Orion ends with the Artemis Moon missions.

You could have a combination of SLS/Orion for crew transportation from Earth to cislunar space and Starship from cislunar space to Mars. That may actually be the most realistic option that involves SLS and Orion since I don't think that NASA could afford sending astronauts all the way to Mars unless Starship works out.

Why bother taking the astronauts all the way out to cislunar space for the transfer? Why can't it be done in Earth orbit?

More to the point, if you *do* have the transfer in Earth orbit, you can bring more people to Mars, because even if you still are not in a position to human-rate Starship for launch and EDL, you would have the capabilities offered by commercial crew vehicles available. Launch, say, three such vehicles in rapid succession up to dock with your Mars Starship (that is a capability that will exist by the end of this year!), and now you can bring 12 people to the Martian surface.

Of course, at this point, we are left wondering why you need Orion at all.

Presumably, you would use SLS and Orion to get to Gateway before leaving for Mars but you are right that Earth orbit would make more sense. But the reason for using SLS and Orion are political, so it isn't dictated by logic.

[TheRadicalModerate]

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.

Sure you don't want to remove the 'X' from the front of those Roman numerals?

I understand the temptation to treat the out-year plans as if they were serious.  But... they're not.  They're no more serious than the Mars design reference missions.  They're busy-work while we wait to see if Starship is going to work.  Then there are two outcomes:

1) Starship "works".  Minimum functionality is 100t to orbit, reusable SuperHeavy, refueling, and LSS crewed landing/ascent.  If that's the case, then all architectural planning beyond stuff that doesn't have hardware actively in the pipeline becomes invalid.

2) Starship doesn't work.  In that case, Artemis III slides to the right by 3-5 years, which probably means that it gets cancelled.  And even if it doesn't, all architectural planning--even for stuff with hardware in the pipeline--becomes invalid.

Same outcome for the planning either way.  One of these outcomes is substantially better than the other, though.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Presumably, you would use SLS and Orion to get to Gateway before leaving for Mars but you are right that Earth orbit would make more sense. But the reason for using SLS and Orion are political, so it isn't dictated by logic.

I'm having an orbital mechanics problem with this.  Using a Gateway in NRHO or another other cislunar orbit might make sense if you have a pure-SEP system for getting to Mars orbit but, otherwise, why would you tack on an extra 475m/s of delta-v to get into an orbit that would allow you to use a small amount of chemical prop and a large Oberth effect at perigee to get you all the way to a Mars transfer orbit?

I thought all the Mars DRMs had been rolled over to hybrid chemical/SEP architectures already, and everybody more-of-less agreed that SEP could reduce trip time only if something else had already reached C3>0.  Am I mistaken?

[Kiwi53]

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.

At the current expected mission rate, Artemis XIV or XV would be in the late 2030s or more likely 2040s.
Unless SpaceX fails completely, by that time they will be in their fifth or sixth synod of Mars exploration and settlement. IMO the chances in that circumstance of $4B/shot, 4-person 30-day Moon missions being politically supportable are zero.

[Coastal Ron]

More to the point, if you *do* have the transfer in Earth orbit, you can bring more people to Mars, because even if you still are not in a position to human-rate Starship for launch and EDL, you would have the capabilities offered by commercial crew vehicles available. Launch, say, three such vehicles in rapid succession up to dock with your Mars Starship (that is a capability that will exist by the end of this year!), and now you can bring 12 people to the Martian surface.

Of course, at this point, we are left wondering why you need Orion at all.

Presumably, you would use SLS and Orion to get to Gateway before leaving for Mars but you are right that Earth orbit would make more sense. But the reason for using SLS and Orion are political, so it isn't dictated by logic.

As Athelstane touched on, using Orion limits you to four people per launch and the combination of the SLS+EUR+Orion is likely to cost ~$6B, so that is ~$1.5B PER PERSON just to get to the Gateway. Yet four people is not enough for a robust Mars mission, so you are looking at spending $12B or more just to get people in place for one Mars mission - and that isn't counting the Mars specific transportation system or the propellant.

There is no possible way for the SLS+Orion to A) support a robust mission to Mars, or B) be affordable for even a single mission to Mars.

The SpaceX Starship was built to 100% support Mars missions in the least costly way, and if allowed I would venture that NASA personnel would prefer using a Starship over the SLS+Orion.

[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.

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.

That still leaves the loose end that SLS needs to fly "at least once per year" to maintain personnel proficiency. If I recall correctly, a longer cadence than 12 months between launches is likely to be detrimental to any program that depends on SLS.

[Coastal Ron]

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.

That still leaves the loose end that SLS needs to fly "at least once per year" to maintain personnel proficiency. If I recall correctly, a longer cadence than 12 months between launches is likely to be detrimental to any program that depends on SLS.

Right. Cryogenic propellants for Mars transports either need to be stockpiled in a propellant depot, or a quick cadence of tanker flights need to launch in a short period to fill up the Mars transports. The SLS was NOT built for this type of work, but the Starship was - and the Starship will have proven its ability to transport propellant for the HLS lander on Artemis, so the SLS would never be considered for this work.

That leaves just moving Mars mission personnel to space, but the Orion can only hold four people at a time, and won't be certified for staying in space for 2 or more years to await the returning Mars personnel.

Walking thru the requirements for even the least robust Mars mission shows that the SLS+Orion would be the worst choice. For the price of one launch of the SLS+Orion you could build a space-only transport that could take crew from Commercial Crew providers and move them to whatever orbits the Mars transports will leave from. And you need such space-only transportation in the future anyways, so why be limited by the Orion? 

No, the SLS+Orion are certainly not required for returning to the Moon, and they barely have enough relevant capabilities to support the Artemis program. Using them for Mars makes no sense, but in the world of politics things don't have to make sense to get funded... 

[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.

At the current expected mission rate, Artemis XIV or XV would be in the late 2030s or more likely 2040s.
Unless SpaceX fails completely, by that time they will be in their fifth or sixth synod of Mars exploration and settlement. IMO the chances in that circumstance of $4B/shot, 4-person 30-day Moon missions being politically supportable are zero.

It's possible that Starship will accelerate the cancellation of SLS and Orion before Artemis XIV or XV. In terms of Mars exploration, I hope that SpaceX succeeds but I don't think that we will see any kind of settlements on Mars before 2040.

[yg1968]

Presumably, you would use SLS and Orion to get to Gateway before leaving for Mars but you are right that Earth orbit would make more sense. But the reason for using SLS and Orion are political, so it isn't dictated by logic.

I'm having an orbital mechanics problem with this.  Using a Gateway in NRHO or another other cislunar orbit might make sense if you have a pure-SEP system for getting to Mars orbit but, otherwise, why would you tack on an extra 475m/s of delta-v to get into an orbit that would allow you to use a small amount of chemical prop and a large Oberth effect at perigee to get you all the way to a Mars transfer orbit?

I thought all the Mars DRMs had been rolled over to hybrid chemical/SEP architectures already, and everybody more-of-less agreed that SEP could reduce trip time only by something else had already reached C3=0.  Am I mistaken?

I am not an engineer, so I don't know the answers to any of these questions but I just assumed that the Gateway would be used, you know, as a Gateway.

[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.

Sure you don't want to remove the 'X' from the front of those Roman numerals?

I understand the temptation to treat the out-year plans as if they were serious.  But... they're not.  They're no more serious than the Mars design reference missions.

You are the second person to say this in this thread but what makes you think that the out-year budget for missions past Artemis IV is not realistic. If you assume that the SLS and Orion budget stays about the same in the out years and NASA no longer has to pay for further development of SLS (except for the advanced boosters), it seems realistic that cost will go down and production should go up. It's not like one SLS and Orion per year is a super ambitious plan.

[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.

That still leaves the loose end that SLS needs to fly "at least once per year" to maintain personnel proficiency. If I recall correctly, a longer cadence than 12 months between launches is likely to be detrimental to any program that depends on SLS.

SLS and Orion will start flying one mission per year after Artemis IV.

[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.)

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).

Um… Okay. I am completely lost, but must assert that IMO, NO POSSIBLE CHANCE Orion and/or SLS will EVER have anything to do with human exploration of Mars. Never ever ever. The end. My apologies if I mistook your meaning.

[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).

Um… Okay. I am completely lost, but must assert that IMO, NO POSSIBLE CHANCE Orion and/or SLS will EVER have anything to do with human exploration of Mars. Never ever ever. The end. My apologies if I mistook your meaning.

On a trip to Mars, Orion would likely be parked at Gateway, it wouldn't go all the way to Mars. The Architecture that will be released in April should have some updates on Mars. Attached is a recent slide. I admit that I haven't paid that much attention to Mars because I am skeptical that NASA will be going to Mars any time soon.

[kevinof]

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.

That still leaves the loose end that SLS needs to fly "at least once per year" to maintain personnel proficiency. If I recall correctly, a longer cadence than 12 months between launches is likely to be detrimental to any program that depends on SLS.

SLS and Orion will start flying one mission per year after Artemis IV.

That might be the plan (or aspiration) but I'll put $100 down now that they will NEVER make that cadence.

[DanClemmensen]

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).

Um… Okay. I am completely lost, but must assert that IMO, NO POSSIBLE CHANCE Orion and/or SLS will EVER have anything to do with human exploration of Mars. Never ever ever. The end. My apologies if I mistook your meaning.

SLS/Orion has quite a lot to do with Mars. SLS/Orion funding has suppressed a viable NASA Mars program and will continue to do so for at least a decade, providing the Chinese an opportunity to put the first humans on Mars.

[clongton]

SLS/Orion has quite a lot to do with Mars. SLS/Orion funding has suppressed a viable NASA Mars program and will continue to do so for at least a decade, providing the Chinese an opportunity to put the first humans on Mars.

Assuming Starship works as planned (after recovering from unplanned hiccups I'm sure), SpaceX will proceed to Mars - without NASA if necessary. For heaven's sake that is the entire reason that SpaceX even exists at all - to go to Mars! He did not design and build Starship for NASA's use - he built it for SpaceX's use! If NASA is ready when he is, he'll invite them to go along for the ride but he's NOT going to wait for them, he's just not going to do that! For the life of me I just can't picture Elon asking NASA for permission to go to Mars, nor waiting for NASA to be ready to become part of the mission. THAT is why he did not even bother seeking NASA funding to develop Starship; he plans to just go ahead and do it! IMO anyone who thinks Elon will wait for NASA before heading to Mars is smoking something illegal.

[yg1968]

SLS/Orion has quite a lot to do with Mars. SLS/Orion funding has suppressed a viable NASA Mars program and will continue to do so for at least a decade, providing the Chinese an opportunity to put the first humans on Mars.

I am OK with Mars being an R&D project for now. If SpaceX is able to show that it can land on Mars with Starship, NASA should then buy services from them. I am pretty sure that the Chinese will be focusing on the Moon first.