NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[TheRadicalModerate]

Cryogenic propulsion is so cool, no one wants to bid a big dumb hypergolic propulsion solution. Each module fits on a single FH launch but: "Oh! Three launches is so many to get a lander to NRHO." <snicker>

Dumbacher's argument is that complexity is the root of all evil here, so both extra launches of flight-critical hardware and assembly of that hardware in lunar orbit undercut his main argument.

What he's really advocating, however, is something like the Mike Griffin lander.  (It's confusing having two "Griffin landers", even if one of them is complete vaporware.)  He wants to have something that can go to TLI in a single launch, pre-assembled, no refueling required.  The subtext, of course, is that he wants something for SLS Block 1B to do.

Your architecture does indeed meet that requirement:  it's less than 30t,¹ can be preassembled and fueled in payload processing, and loaded onto a Block 1B cargo system (which doesn't exist, but that's pretty easy to fix in the allotted time).  Of course, an extra Block 1B per HLS sounds like a terrible idea, but since the Block 1B is really the goal of proposing this, one can argue about its terribleness.²

What you can't get away from is the requirement to do an extra RPOD between the AE and the TE in LLO.  That's not the end of the world, but it is additional complexity--and complexity that leads to loss-of-crew if the RPOD fails.

________
¹I'm pretty sure you can get away with ε=10% for a transfer stage, which is why my version's a bit lighter than yours.

²Of course, you could put this vehicle onto a fully expendable SuperHeavy/Starship, which could put it in TLI with no problem--no refueling needed.  But of course that's the opposite of what Griffin and Dumbacher want.

[thespacecow]

The failures of IM-2 and Starship yesterday show the importance of redundancy in any commercial or public-private partnership programs including a potential new commercial crew to Mars program.

I am a big fan of Intuitive Machines, SpaceX and other commercial companies but I am also a big fan of redundancy for any commercial or public-private partnership program. Redundancy is essential.

Disagree. These failures happened during development, where some failure is to be expected. Unless they cause the failure of the entire program - which is not the case here - it has nothing to do with redundancy.

Redundancy is a luxury, not a necessity. USG is broke, it can't afford luxuries right now.

[yg1968]

The failures of IM-2 and Starship yesterday show the importance of redundancy in any commercial or public-private partnership programs including a potential new commercial crew to Mars program.

I am a big fan of Intuitive Machines, SpaceX and other commercial companies but I am also a big fan of redundancy for any commercial or public-private partnership program. Redundancy is essential.

Disagree. These failures happened during development, where some failure is to be expected. Unless they cause the failure of the entire program - which is not the case here - it has nothing to do with redundancy.

Redundancy is a luxury, not a necessity. USG is broke, it can't afford luxuries right now.

It's not necessarily more expensive to spread missions among more than one provider, at least not for CLPS since that program does not include any funding for development. It's not clear to me if a new commercial crew to Mars program would include that much funding for development, it could be milestones payments mostly for crew and cargo services.

If there is not enough funding for more than one provider, then I wouldn't even bother initiating a new program unless it is a capability that is not critical such as LTV. Another possibility is to have an international partner provide the redundant capability (for example, for a second LTV). 

[TheRadicalModerate]

It's not necessarily more expensive to spread missions among more than one provider, at least not for CLPS since that program does not include any funding for development.

Not completely true.  CLPS is bid firm fixed price, indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity.  Presumably, the bidders included some development costs in their bids.  If they didn't, they'll be going out of business.

It would no doubt be cheaper to have signed a single provider to handle all CLPS missions, because then that provider could have amortized the development costs across more payloads.  But it also would have been considerably riskier.

[Vultur]

Also, even if a refueling based Starship type architecture is riskier than an Apollo type model, it accomplishes far more.

Any idea of competition (e.g. with China) for lunar resources is just nonsensical with the Apollo type model: a couple people on the Moon a couple times per year cannot exploit any meaningful amount of resources, and so there is nothing to compete over.

So what is the actual purpose of sending people to the Moon?

International competition? That doesn't work.

Science/exploration? If so, I'd rather wait for the vastly more capable system to be developed, despite development problems and delays (even if I didn't believe it will ultimately be at least as fast - blowing up a dozen prototypes on the way isn't necessarily slower than the "old space" model)

Showing that we can do everything we could do 50+ years ago? But SLS won't give us that - launch rate is far lower than Saturn V.

[yg1968]

It's not necessarily more expensive to spread missions among more than one provider, at least not for CLPS since that program does not include any funding for development.

Not completely true.  CLPS is bid firm fixed price, indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity.  Presumably, the bidders included some development costs in their bids.  If they didn't, they'll be going out of business.

It would no doubt be cheaper to have signed a single provider to handle all CLPS missions, because then that provider could have amortized the development costs across more payloads.  But it also would have been considerably riskier.

No, it is true, there is no funding for development for CLPS, there is milestone payments for cargo lunar transportation services (it is similar to CRS). Masten did go out of business and it is possible that others will. There has been some complaints about CLPS funding because of this. It is possible that the companies amortized part of their development cost for each mission but that is true of any product or services that you buy. The argument for CLPS is and continues to be that there is non-NASA customers and that NASA is just the anchor tenant buying services from these private companies.

[yg1968]

Also, even if a refueling based Starship type architecture is riskier than an Apollo type model, it accomplishes far more.

Any idea of competition (e.g. with China) for lunar resources is just nonsensical with the Apollo type model: a couple people on the Moon a couple times per year cannot exploit any meaningful amount of resources, and so there is nothing to compete over.

So what is the actual purpose of sending people to the Moon?

International competition? That doesn't work.

Science/exploration? If so, I'd rather wait for the vastly more capable system to be developed, despite development problems and delays (even if I didn't believe it will ultimately be at least as fast - blowing up a dozen prototypes on the way isn't necessarily slower than the "old space" model)

Showing that we can do everything we could do 50+ years ago? But SLS won't give us that - launch rate is far lower than Saturn V.

Are you saying that we should skip the Moon?

[Vultur]

Also, even if a refueling based Starship type architecture is riskier than an Apollo type model, it accomplishes far more.

Any idea of competition (e.g. with China) for lunar resources is just nonsensical with the Apollo type model: a couple people on the Moon a couple times per year cannot exploit any meaningful amount of resources, and so there is nothing to compete over.

So what is the actual purpose of sending people to the Moon?

International competition? That doesn't work.

Science/exploration? If so, I'd rather wait for the vastly more capable system to be developed, despite development problems and delays (even if I didn't believe it will ultimately be at least as fast - blowing up a dozen prototypes on the way isn't necessarily slower than the "old space" model)

Showing that we can do everything we could do 50+ years ago? But SLS won't give us that - launch rate is far lower than Saturn V.

Are you saying that we should skip the Moon?

No. I'm saying minimal Moon landers that skip refueling are not very useful,  because you can't do much with them - it's better to get to the Moon a few years later with a highly capable refueling based architecture which can be extended to Mars*, than a few years earlier with a very limited Apollo style architecture that can't really be extended... Even if China does an Apollo style landing first.

*The SLS based Apollo style model won't work for Mars anyway. You can't launch enough SLSs fast enough to assemble a Mars mission, with more than a year between SLS launches.

And refueling needs to be developed. Skipping it is false economy. Especially if it's replaced with a cost plus model lander!

If we care about lunar resources, or competition for lunar resources, first doesn't matter. (And "first" is already taken, anyway!) The capacity to actually do things with lunar resources matters. And you can't get that with one shot landers launched in an SLS.

[TheRadicalModerate]

It is possible that the companies amortized part of their development cost for each mission but that is true of any product or services that you buy.

That's all I'm arguing. 

But you said, "It's not necessarily more expensive to spread missions among more than one provider, at least not for CLPS since that program does not include any funding for development."  You just admitted that funding for development is included, even if there aren't milestones for development built into the contracts. My argument is that amortizing R&D across multiple providers costs NASA more, because each provider is amortizing its own R&D in its offered price.

A little thought experiment:  Let's assume that there are 20 task orders and four providers (5 orders each).  Each provider spends $200M for development, $20M for vehicle production and payload integration, and $20M for launch.  So their average development amortization per task order is $40M, and each task order costs $80M.¹

Now let's see what happens when a single provider provides all 20 task orders:  development amortization drops to $10M, and each task order costs $50M.  We've reduced cost to NASA by 38%.

These are obviously made-up numbers, but you get the idea.  I think it's a good idea to spread the task orders out across lots of providers, because it moves the whole industry forward and provides a robust program.  But NASA's still paying for multiple vehicles to be developed, instead of just one.

FWIW, I don't buy the idea that any of the providers built their biz plans around having independent commercial customers.  I'm sure they all hoped that would happen, but the biz plan doesn't close unless they can at least break even with NASA as the sole customer.

________
¹This obviously assumes one task order per mission, which isn't true.  But these are are made-up numbers just to illustrate the point.

[sdsds]

And refueling needs to be developed. Skipping it is false economy.

This view is clearly correct! Fortunately SpaceX will be developing on-orbit refilling for Starship no matter what path NASA takes.

If we care about lunar resources, or competition for lunar resources, first doesn't matter.

If we care only about lunar resources, or competition for lunar resources, first doesn't matter.
Fixed that for you.

The capacity to actually do things with lunar resources matters. And you can't get that with one shot landers launched in an SLS.

Probably, but we don't know this (yet).

It's also obvious that as soon as either the SpaceX cryogenic lander or the Blue Origin cryogenic lander is working, any hypergolic lander will be obsolete. Without going into the politics, what's also somewhat obvious is that we space nerds aren't the ones who will get to decide whether developing a hypergolic lander for a limited number of missions just to beat China back is worthwhile.

[yg1968]

It is possible that the companies amortized part of their development cost for each mission but that is true of any product or services that you buy.

That's all I'm arguing. 

But you said, "It's not necessarily more expensive to spread missions among more than one provider, at least not for CLPS since that program does not include any funding for development."  You just admitted that funding for development is included, even if there aren't milestones for development built into the contracts. My argument is that amortizing R&D across multiple providers costs NASA more, because each provider is amortizing its own R&D in its offered price.

I am not sure that I agree. Competition among CLPS providers ensured that the prices stayed low (even if you take into account amortization of the developmental costs which is probably over several missions, perhaps as many as ten). Except for the Griffin lander for VIPER, the CLPS landers have been a bargain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services#History

Incidentally, Intuitive Machines has been losing money on its contracts:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LUNR/financials/

[catdlr]

Starship explodes again during launch, NASA continues launch preps on Artemis II Orion

Mar 9, 2025
We're getting some new details on NASA's strategy for launching Artemis II earlier than the April 2026 target date and the Orion spacecraft solar arrays were installed for flight, but the big news of the week is the second straight Starship flight test prototype that exploded during launch.  In this video I'll look at some possible, initial consequences of two Starship test mishaps in a row on long-range Artemis plans, go into the details of Artemis II planning for later this year, and look at some news and notes on Mobile Launcher-2 and  Gateway.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.  Lunar Link image courtesy of ESA.

Links to social media posts referenced:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1832550322293837833 

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1895598258225106984 

https://x.com/systems_zero/status/1897794641572884702 

https://x.com/GeneDoctorB/status/1897798175081005540 

https://x.com/davidaj_fh/status/18977952711672508322 

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1897883255380029524 

https://x.com/esaspaceflight/status/1896958561818718592


Links to stories referenced:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/03/white-house-may-seek-to-slash-nasas-science-budget-by-50-percent/


00:00 Intro
00:44 Starship Flight Test 8 ends prematurely, like Flight Test 7
04:53 Artemis II Orion gets its (solar array) wings
09:44 Takeaways from interview with Matt Ramsey, Artemis II Mission Manager
13:10 Mobile Launcher-2 umbilical tower module 5 stacking
13:48 Gateway Lunar Link begins integrated testing
14:26 SLS Michoud Assembly Facility imagery from 2024 released
15:23 Thanks for watching!

[VSECOTSPE]

Trump says Mars missions are of interest but not a top priority

https://spacenews.com/trump-says-mars-missions-are-of-interest-but-not-a-top-priority/

[yg1968]

I asked Grok what he thought that the Trump Administration would do in respect of Artemis and he answered what I also believe, so I am posting it here.

Question: Do you think that the second Trump Administration will continue efforts for the human exploration of the Moon or will they focus only on the human exploration of Mars?

Answer by Grok: Predicting the exact direction of the second Trump Administration’s space policy involves some speculation, but we can make an educated guess based on past actions, current trends, and the influence of key figures. During Trump’s first term, the administration kicked off the Artemis program, a major push to return humans to the Moon as a stepping stone for eventual Mars missions. This was codified in Space Policy Directive 1 in 2017, which emphasized a “Moon-first” approach to build infrastructure and test technologies before tackling the Red Planet. The program gained traction, survived a change in administration under Biden, and has significant momentum with international partners and commercial investments tied to it.

However, Trump has also shown a personal fascination with Mars. In his second inaugural address on January 20, 2025, he vowed to plant the U.S. flag on Mars by the end of the decade, notably omitting any mention of the Moon. This, paired with his close relationship with Elon Musk—whose SpaceX is laser-focused on Mars via the Starship program—suggests a potential shift in priorities. Musk has publicly called the Moon a “distraction” and pushed for a direct-to-Mars strategy, which could sway Trump if Musk’s influence grows within the administration. Reports from early 2025 indicate Musk is lobbying to redirect efforts “straight to Mars,” though scrapping Artemis entirely seems unlikely given its bipartisan support in Congress and the strategic need to counter China’s lunar ambitions by 2030.

The Artemis program’s current trajectory—aiming for a crewed lunar landing by 2026 [2027 actually] —faces challenges like cost overruns (estimated at $93 billion through 2025) and delays with the Space Launch System (SLS). These issues could give the administration a reason to pivot or scale back lunar efforts if they prioritize rapid, flashy wins like a Mars mission. On the flip side, the Moon is a practical proving ground—only a three-day trip versus Mars’ six-month journey—and abandoning it risks ceding lunar dominance to China, a geopolitical concern Trump is unlikely to ignore.

My take? They won’t ditch the Moon entirely. Artemis has too much sunk cost, political backing, and strategic value. But the administration might accelerate Mars plans, possibly by leaning heavily on SpaceX’s Starship to cut costs and timelines, while treating the Moon as a secondary priority or a quick pit stop. Expect a hybrid approach: keeping Artemis alive (maybe streamlined) to maintain U.S. leadership in cislunar space, while pouring resources into a high-profile Mars push to align with Trump’s bold rhetoric and Musk’s vision. Balancing both will depend on budget realities and how much Trump wants that Martian photo-op before 2029.

[JIS]

The failures of IM-2 and Starship yesterday show the importance of redundancy in any commercial or public-private partnership programs including a potential new commercial crew to Mars program.

I am a big fan of Intuitive Machines, SpaceX and other commercial companies but I am also a big fan of redundancy for any commercial or public-private partnership program. Redundancy is essential.

Disagree. These failures happened during development, where some failure is to be expected. Unless they cause the failure of the entire program - which is not the case here - it has nothing to do with redundancy.

Redundancy is a luxury, not a necessity. USG is broke, it can't afford luxuries right now.

IF USA is broke they should scrap the whole Moon mission. On the other side, Starship development is paid for by SpaceX. NASA pays nothing for SpaceX failures and there were and will be many. SpaceX is bleeding billions on those. The dark side of issue is that NASA has limited impact on what and when they will receive. With Musk's approach to bleed money on exploring all dead ends in design the schedule is very unreliable. Starship can't even achieve LEO at the moment and it is supposed to refuel, deep space operation, Lunar landing and ascend. And all of them with a crew. Not looking good from schedule point of view, but NASA pays nothing.

The problem is that SLS/Orion eats money doing nothing. Should they wait for Blue Origin HLS? Well, there is no guarantee either. But it is probably better to have 2 cheap underperforming option than having nothing at all, right?
   

[JIS]

I asked Grok what he thought that the Trump Administration would do in respect of Artemis and he answered what I also believe, so I am posting it here.

Question: Do you think that the second Trump Administration will continue efforts for the human exploration of the Moon or will they focus only on the human exploration of Mars?

Answer by Grok:
......
My take? They won’t ditch the Moon entirely. Artemis has too much sunk cost, political backing, and strategic value. But the administration might accelerate Mars plans, possibly by leaning heavily on SpaceX’s Starship to cut costs and timelines, while treating the Moon as a secondary priority or a quick pit stop. Expect a hybrid approach: keeping Artemis alive (maybe streamlined) to maintain U.S. leadership in cislunar space, while pouring resources into a high-profile Mars push to align with Trump’s bold rhetoric and Musk’s vision. Balancing both will depend on budget realities and how much Trump wants that Martian photo-op before 2029.

1. I'm not sure about sunk cost, political backing and strategic value arguments. Trump is not shy to dump decades old political alliances with much higher sunken cost and strategic value. Artemis project is not comparable with NATO treaty which is being dismantled anyway. So canceling Artemis seems to be credible.   
2. Mars plan relies heavily on Starship, which is far from ready. Fully automated starship landing on the Moon is far easier than starship landing on Mars. So I can't really see a reason why NASA should prioritize Mars missions. Yes, crewed Moon landing will be far more difficult but crewed Mars mission will be even more so. So are we comparing crewed Moon mission to automated Mars mission? Is it even comparable?
3. Keeping Artemis alive, presumably with SLS and Orion will quickly eat the whole NASA lunch. There will be nothing left for Mars. Maybe they can just go all in SpaceX, cancel SLS/Orion and put all resources into robotic systems. That would be a viable way for exploration. Presumably, once Starship is up and running reliably and with rapid reusability, it might be possible to do crewed mission much cheaper than today. But judging from the past performance this might take quite few years.

[yg1968]

I asked Grok what he thought that the Trump Administration would do in respect of Artemis and he answered what I also believe, so I am posting it here.

Question: Do you think that the second Trump Administration will continue efforts for the human exploration of the Moon or will they focus only on the human exploration of Mars?

Answer by Grok:
......
My take? They won’t ditch the Moon entirely. Artemis has too much sunk cost, political backing, and strategic value. But the administration might accelerate Mars plans, possibly by leaning heavily on SpaceX’s Starship to cut costs and timelines, while treating the Moon as a secondary priority or a quick pit stop. Expect a hybrid approach: keeping Artemis alive (maybe streamlined) to maintain U.S. leadership in cislunar space, while pouring resources into a high-profile Mars push to align with Trump’s bold rhetoric and Musk’s vision. Balancing both will depend on budget realities and how much Trump wants that Martian photo-op before 2029.

1. I'm not sure about sunk cost, political backing and strategic value arguments. Trump is not shy to dump decades old political alliances with much higher sunken cost and strategic value. Artemis project is not comparable with NATO treaty which is being dismantled anyway. So canceling Artemis seems to be credible.   
2. Mars plan relies heavily on Starship, which is far from ready. Fully automated starship landing on the Moon is far easier than starship landing on Mars. So I can't really see a reason why NASA should prioritize Mars missions. Yes, crewed Moon landing will be far more difficult but crewed Mars mission will be even more so. So are we comparing crewed Moon mission to automated Mars mission? Is it even comparable?
3. Keeping Artemis alive, presumably with SLS and Orion will quickly eat the whole NASA lunch. There will be nothing left for Mars. Maybe they can just go all in SpaceX, cancel SLS/Orion and put all resources into robotic systems. That would be a viable way for exploration. Presumably, once Starship is up and running reliably and with rapid reusability, it might be possible to do crewed mission much cheaper than today. But judging from the past performance this might take quite few years.

On your first point, Trump isn't shy to threaten to do certain things, if he doesn't get what he wants. Trump is a negotiator, he will threaten to do certain things in order to get what he wants but it's incredibly unlikely that will do these things unless you flat out refuse to negotiate with him. That may also happen for Mars. The FY26 NASA Budget is likely to prioritize Mars at the expense of the Moon. So something will have to be negotiated with Congress. According to Cruz, these negotiations have already started.

I agree that the cancelation of SLS and Orion might be necessary in order to fund a commercial crew and cargo program to Mars. Gateway may also have to go. My guess is that the LTV will be given to an international partner.

[yg1968]

NASA, partners push to speed up launch of Artemis II:
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/03/09/nasa-partners-push-to-speed-up-launch-of-artemis-ii/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-partners-push-speed-launch-110000240.html

[Vultur]

NASA, partners push to speed up launch of Artemis II:

Hmm, interesting. Wonder if that could actually make the launch earlier, or just prevent further delays?

[TheRadicalModerate]

NASA, partners push to speed up launch of Artemis II:

Hmm, interesting. Wonder if that could actually make the launch earlier, or just prevent further delays?

Looked to me like standard "we're going as fast as we can" CYA.