NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[yg1968]

When the Trump Administration created what we now call the Artemis program, there was no real competition for going to the Moon. And there still isn't. China talks about it for their long term plans, but they have a LOT of hardware they have to develop. So creating some sort of "race" to return to the Moon (and we already won the first Space Race) is not justification for returning to the Moon. There is nothing to win, and $Billions to lose.

This has been discussed before, the race isn't so much who gets much first as much as it is who gets access to the resources of the Moon. There is a reason that both NASA and China are looking at the South pole, because it has water. Ignoring China is not a good idea, their space program is steadily catching up to NASA's program and it's clear that they have ambitious long term goals.

The Artemis Accords came well after the Artemis program was created, and had more to do with ensuring the Artemis program was too well connected to be cancelled. They have nothing to do with promoting or supporting "globalism".

That is not true. Adhering to the Artemis Accords only means that you agree to the principles of the Artemis Accords. You can sign the Accords without contributing anything to the Artemis program. As of now, the contributions for the lunar surface agreements have yet to be set. Contributions to Gateway have been set but that only gates you to Gateway, not to the lunar surface.

The return to the Moon was created to give a second consecutive term in office for Trump something to celebrate. That is where the 2024 date came from, not from some real or perceived "Space Race". Nothing happens if we don't return to the Moon by 2024, or 2028, or well into the 2030's.

Not really true. That's just political spin. When the initial date was 2028, very little was being done to reach the Moon. Many (including Eilleen Colins) felt that the 2028 date did not create a sense of urgency. So, in March 19th 2019, VP Pence changed it to 2024. This sense of urgency is what prompted NASA to shift into gear and get on with HLS (as opposed to slow walking the lander program like Congress had done with commercial crew).

In fact if SpaceX hadn't already been working on reaching Mars with their Starship program, returning to the Moon this decade using anyone else but SpaceX would have likely been impossible. And no one, including the Trump Administration, was counting on SpaceX to build a Moon lander when the 2024 date was announced in 2017 - the Starhopper was still more than a year away from its first tethered hop, and no one thought of it for landing on the Moon. Everyone thought American aerospace would be up to the challenge of building a Moon lander in less than 10 years, but I don't think that was a rational assumption... 

So Artemis is not needed for a Space Race, and not needed to show that America can have working relationships with other countries.

BFR had already been announced in 2017 when the lunar initiative was announced. So NASA obviously knew about it. So yes, Artemis is needed in order to compete with China and the Artemis Accords and the upcoming lunar surface agreements are also needed because NASA wants to go back to the Moon with international and commercial partnerships this time.

[yg1968]

At 1h41m of this video, Administrator Bill Nelson emphasized the importance of commercial and international partnerships for LEO, the Moon and Mars.

youtube.com/watch?v=WY5R_0Qf_WM&t=2s

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/esaspaceflight/status/1626609502622457856

[Coastal Ron]

...So Artemis is not needed for a Space Race, and not needed to show that America can have working relationships with other countries.

...So yes, Artemis is needed in order to compete with China and the Artemis Accords...

There are plenty of reasons to have concerns regarding China, including how the government controls their economy and they leverage that to achieve the political goals of an autocracy. That said, there is a great deal of irrational fear regarding China's space goals, especially for resources (i.e. water on the Moon) that no one needs. Yep, that's right, no one "needs" the water on the Moon.

Also, since the U.S. Government has not stated that the goals of the Artemis program are to claim resources on the Moon, and exclude them from the use of any other non-Artemis partners, anyone claiming we are doing so is making things up. That would be backing into a rationale that is not reflected by reality. Even NASA's description of the Artemis program refutes this view.

There is no "Space Race" to the Moon.

...and the upcoming lunar surface agreements are also needed because NASA wants to go back to the Moon with international and commercial partnerships this time.

Not sure why this has to keep being pointed out, but NASA doesn't decide to do anything. NASA is like my car, and it would be silly to say "my car wants to go shopping", right? NASA is the organization within the U.S. Government that is used to carry out peaceful uses of space. NASA works for the U.S. President, and is tasked and funded by the U.S. Congress. NASA does NOT decide what it wants to do.

NASA's 17,000 odd employees can make recommendations, as can the politically appointed NASA Administrator. But it is up to the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government to decide what NASA does, not NASA itself. If NASA actually decided what it was going to do, then NASA would be bigger than the Department of Defense... 

[yg1968]

There are plenty of reasons to have concerns regarding China, including how the government controls their economy and they leverage that to achieve the political goals of an autocracy. That said, there is a great deal of irrational fear regarding China's space goals, especially for resources (i.e. water on the Moon) that no one needs. Yep, that's right, no one "needs" the water on the Moon.

Also, since the U.S. Government has not stated that the goals of the Artemis program are to claim resources on the Moon, and exclude them from the use of any other non-Artemis partners, anyone claiming we are doing so is making things up. That would be backing into a rationale that is not reflected by reality. Even NASA's description of the Artemis program refutes this view.

There is no "Space Race" to the Moon.

I never said NASA or the United States was trying to claim the water on the Moon. That would be against the OST and the Artemis Accords. But both countries are looking at the South pole because it has water and are obviously looking at extracting water from the Moon for in-situ resource utilization in the longer term.

Not sure why this has to keep being pointed out, but NASA doesn't decide to do anything. NASA is like my car, and it would be silly to say "my car wants to go shopping", right? NASA is the organization within the U.S. Government that is used to carry out peaceful uses of space. NASA works for the U.S. President, and is tasked and funded by the U.S. Congress. NASA does NOT decide what it wants to do.

NASA's 17,000 odd employees can make recommendations, as can the politically appointed NASA Administrator. But it is up to the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. Government to decide what NASA does, not NASA itself. If NASA actually decided what it was going to do, then NASA would be bigger than the Department of Defense... 

Not sure why you feel the need to point this out, NASA is working with the State Department on these agreements. Both NASA and the State Department are part of the Executive branch. These agreements are either executive agreements or non-binding agreements (the Artemis Accords are non-binding), Congress doesn't need to approve them. The lunar surface agreements will likely be executive agreements between the agencies. So yes, NASA is directly involved in them. Bridenstine, Gold (from NASA) and Gabriel Swiney from the State Department were all directly involved in the Artemis Accords. 

[yg1968]

Japan selects first new astronauts in 14 years to support Artemis program:
https://spacenews.com/jaxa-astronauts/

[yg1968]

High time humanity built a permanently occupied base on the moon

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630448186178273280

[yg1968]

The UK Space Agency has announced today that it will provide over £50m to UK companies to aid further Moon exploration projects:
https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/uk-space-agency-announces-funding-for-future-moon-exploration/30459/

[yg1968]

We flew an amazing #Artemis I mission, and our teams have been pouring through the data we collected during our flight test to prepare for crewed missions. Join me, and reps from @NASA_SLS, @NASA_Orion, and @NASAGroundSys for an update on Mar 7 at noon ET: https://go.nasa.gov/3kyOL5a

https://twitter.com/JimFree/status/1631367641641148435

[yg1968]

Now live:

At 29, 52 and 53 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II is still scheduled for November 2024 and Artemis III for 12 months after that (i.e., November 2025). However, for Artemis III, Free said that the date also depends on the availability of the lander and spacesuits.

At 59 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II and III are already fully funded for the current schedule but the missions after that partly depend on the FY24 and later budgets.

At 41 minutes, Free said that they are looking at the launch of Starship. He mentioned that they are some milestones related to propellant transfer that are related to HLS and they have to launch the first Starship orbital flight before getting to those milestones.

[VSECOTSPE]

At 29, 52 and 53 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II is still scheduled for November 2024 and Artemis III for 12 months after that (i.e., November 2025). However, for Artemis III, Free said that the date also depends on the availability of the lander and spacesuits.

Baloney from Free.  Artemis III needs EUS.  Completion of the EUS structural test article isn’t scheduled until mid-2024, about 16 months from now.  Only after that comes the EUS flight article.  There’s no way the flight article, which adds the engines, plumbing, avionics, etc., will take 17 months to complete when the structural test article took at least 16.

Even home builders know better.  Building the walls/roof to a house and then building the same walls/roof a second time with electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and appliance installation — and expecting both builds to take the same amount of time — is silly. 

The schedule is fantasy based on EUS alone, and the responsible AA doesn’t have attention or insight to see it and/or freedom to say so.  Not good.

At 59 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II and III are already fully funded for the current schedule but the missions after that partly depend on the FY24 and later budgets.

Sillier baloney from Free.  Even if we accept the fantasy schedule for Artemis III, that launch is out in the first month of FY26, at least.  Congress has to pass three more budgets (or CRs or whatever), and the White House has to propose at least two more, until we get there.  What budget dope is Free smoking and where can I get some?

I’m sorry to be so negative, but it’s really bad when PMs and AAs are this out of touch technically and budgetarily.  Management having no clue where their programs are at is one of the things that drives programs into the ditch.  Same goes for disappointing stakeholders with ridiculously stupid (even if inadvertent) lies.

Reminds me of late summer 2014, when SLS PM Todd May was certain that EM-1 (now Artemis I) was on track for 12/17 because his schedule showed a few months of slack, even though his own program office (per GAO) was telling him that his budget had a 90% likelihood of being insufficient to get there.

These old school NASA managers are supposed to bring complex programs to life, and they don’t even know how to find a pulse.

[Alvian@IDN]

At 29, 52 and 53 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II is still scheduled for November 2024 and Artemis III for 12 months after that (i.e., November 2025). However, for Artemis III, Free said that the date also depends on the availability of the lander and spacesuits.

Baloney from Free.  Artemis III needs EUS.  Completion of the EUS structural test article isn’t scheduled until mid-2024, about 16 months from now.  Only after that comes the EUS flight article.  There’s no way the flight article, which adds the engines, plumbing, avionics, etc., will take 17 months to complete when the structural test article took at least 16.

Wait, what?

[yg1968]

Lunar dust removal and material degradation from liquid nitrogen sprays:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576523000681

Abstract

Lunar regolith degrades human health and equipment making mitigation paramount for lunar missions. Cryogenic liquid sprays are a recently developed, simple, and convenient concept for dust mitigation in a lunar environment. [...] Traditional space suit dust mitigation technologies used on the Apollo missions, such as brushing and vacuuming, introduced suit fabric abrasion which must be addressed for all dust mitigation methods considered for lunar implementation. This publication reports the efficacy of dust removal in a simulated airlock vacuum environment and the associated impact of repeated dusting-washing cycles on spacesuit materials. Specimens were impinged with measured liquid nitrogen sprays at different spray angles within a vacuum chamber. Mean mass removal of 98.4% was achieved in a vacuum environment at optimal conditions, correlating to 95.9% removal of particles below 10 μm. [...] The conclusion is that liquid nitrogen sprays cause relatively less damage than conventional dust mitigation techniques, even under the extremes of cryogenic temperatures and vacuum.

[yg1968]

At 29, 52 and 53 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II is still scheduled for November 2024 and Artemis III for 12 months after that (i.e., November 2025). However, for Artemis III, Free said that the date also depends on the availability of the lander and spacesuits.

Baloney from Free.  Artemis III needs EUS.  Completion of the EUS structural test article isn’t scheduled until mid-2024, about 16 months from now.  Only after that comes the EUS flight article.  There’s no way the flight article, which adds the engines, plumbing, avionics, etc., will take 17 months to complete when the structural test article took at least 16.

Wait, what?

Artemis III doesn't use the EUS. It uses the iCPS. Artemis IV is the first mission that will use EUS.

[yg1968]

My own interpretation of what Jim Free said is that November 2024 is still very much possible. For Artemis III, he did caveat the November 2025 date considerably by saying that it depends on the lander and the spacesuit. He seemed to be almost admitting that there is a risk that those might be late.

One question that I wish that someone would ask is if it is possible that Artemis III might become a Gateway mission if the lander or the spacesuits aren't ready on time. My guess is that it is possible but I get the feeling that Gateway might be late too.

[woods170]

At 29, 52 and 53 minutes of the teleconference, Jim Free says that Artemis II is still scheduled for November 2024 and Artemis III for 12 months after that (i.e., November 2025). However, for Artemis III, Free said that the date also depends on the availability of the lander and spacesuits.

Baloney from Free.  Artemis III needs EUS.

No offense, but that is incorrect. Artemis 3 (the planned crewed lunar landing attempt) uses the last of the 3 SLS Block 1 vehicles. The upper stage for Artemis 3 is the third and final iCPS.

So no, Artemis 3 is NOT dependent on availability of EUS. That dependency applies to Artemis 4.

[yg1968]

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

Program Schedule

Date Significant Event

- Mar 2020 Selected and awarded SpaceX for initial HLS demonstration mission

- Nov 2022 Selected SpaceX for Option B Sustaining Lander Development

- 2024 Uncrewed HLS demonstration with SpaceX Starship to the Lunar surface

- Dec 2025 Crewed HLS demonstration with SpaceX Starship as part of Artemis III

- Sept 2028 Artemis IV, first mission utilizing sustainable transportation services to and from the lunar surface

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.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2024_cj_v2.pdf

[clongton]

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.

[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.

[VSECOTSPE]

No offense, but that is incorrect. Artemis 3 (the planned crewed lunar landing attempt) uses the last of the 3 SLS Block 1 vehicles. The upper stage for Artemis 3 is the third and final iCPS.

You’re right.  Brain fart on my part.  I conflated the first EUS mission with the first landing mission.  I’m still incredulous that crew will launch on the first EUS, and I think that’s why I conflate it with other firsts in the program.

I still stand by my earlier comments on budget and will post some FY24 follow up on that in a minute.