NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[yg1968]

Strategy and Architecture Status – Nujoud Merancy:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20240829-nac-heo-nujoud-merancy-d03.pdf

Anybody seen this artwork of the HDL version of HLS Starship and Blue Moon Mk2?

Yes, it's not new. See this link:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/artemis-campaign-development-division/human-landing-system-program/work-underway-on-large-cargo-landers-for-nasas-artemis-moon-missions/

[TheRadicalModerate]

Strategy and Architecture Status – Nujoud Merancy:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20240829-nac-heo-nujoud-merancy-d03.pdf

Anybody seen this artwork of the HDL version of HLS Starship and Blue Moon Mk2?

Yes, it's not new. See this link:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/artemis-campaign-development-division/human-landing-system-program/work-underway-on-large-cargo-landers-for-nasas-artemis-moon-missions/

That's a big freakin' hatch, complete with ribbing and stringers.  It's--what?--6m wide?  7m?

I wonder if the Pez Dispenser experiments have changed that design.

Another thing that's interesting in the architecture slides is that they're listing max cargo capacity for the Starship at 15t in the accompanying slide.  Is that because that's the biggest payload NASA can imagine, or is there something limiting it? 

Obviously no way to know, but it's... annoying?... that nobody's considering something like 100t of solar power masts.  The penny doesn't quite seem to have dropped that payloads can now be massively overdesigned for minimal marginal cost, and you can dream up applications for the overdesign later.

[catdlr]

Phillip Sloss Report

NASA Artemis II, III, IV Quarterly Update #3

Sep 29, 2024
This video covers completed milestones and current status of planning, development, assembly, and preparations for NASA's upcoming Artemis II, III, IV missions as the 3rd quarter of 2024 ends.  A lot of the Artemis II hardware is ready for stacking at Kennedy Space Center, but NASA still needs to announce what it is going to do about Orion's heatshield.

Arrival of more flight hardware for the Artemis III lunar landing mission at KSC signals incremental progress in preparations, but little is known about the forward outlook.  In the video, we go over why the new hardware deliveries aren't helping to clarify when the spacecraft, spacesuits, SLS, and Starship will all be ready for Artemis III.

We also recap the available status and outlook for the Artemis IV Gateway assembly and lunar landing mission projected at the end of the decade.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
01:21 The missing future outlook for upcoming Artemis missions
02:50 Quick recap of the quarter (July, August, September)
06:13 Artemis II status
12:45 Artemis II forward outlook
14:06 Artemis III status
28:15 Artemis III forward outlook
31:28 Artemis IV status
40:50 Artemis IV forward outlook
41:37 Note that the SLS forward outlook beyond Artemis IV remains cloudy
42:22 Thanks for watching!

[DanClemmensen]

Phillip Sloss Report

NASA Artemis II, III, IV Quarterly Update #3

Sep 29, 2024
This video covers completed milestones and current status of planning, development, assembly, and preparations for NASA's upcoming Artemis II, III, IV missions as the 3rd quarter of 2024 ends.  A lot of the Artemis II hardware is ready for stacking at Kennedy Space Center, but NASA still needs to announce what it is going to do about Orion's heatshield.

Arrival of more flight hardware for the Artemis III lunar landing mission at KSC signals incremental progress in preparations, but little is known about the forward outlook.  In the video, we go over why the new hardware deliveries aren't helping to clarify when the spacecraft, spacesuits, SLS, and Starship will all be ready for Artemis III.

We also recap the available status and outlook for the Artemis IV Gateway assembly and lunar landing mission projected at the end of the decade.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
01:21 The missing future outlook for upcoming Artemis missions
02:50 Quick recap of the quarter (July, August, September)
06:13 Artemis II status
12:45 Artemis II forward outlook
14:06 Artemis III status
28:15 Artemis III forward outlook
31:28 Artemis IV status
40:50 Artemis IV forward outlook
41:37 Note that the SLS forward outlook beyond Artemis IV remains cloudy
42:22 Thanks for watching!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=03q5pJzFOxc

Well, that was depressing. Basically, everything is slipping.

To me, the most pressing issue is the Orion heat shield for Artemis II. NASA was supposed to complete their analysis and decide how to proceed by now, but there has been no announcement, nor has Phillip seen any other indication of progress.
   

[yg1968]

Strategy and Architecture Status – Nujoud Merancy:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20240829-nac-heo-nujoud-merancy-d03.pdf

Anybody seen this artwork of the HDL version of HLS Starship and Blue Moon Mk2?

Yes, it's not new. See this link:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/artemis-campaign-development-division/human-landing-system-program/work-underway-on-large-cargo-landers-for-nasas-artemis-moon-missions/

That's a big freakin' hatch, complete with ribbing and stringers.  It's--what?--6m wide?  7m?

I wonder if the Pez Dispenser experiments have changed that design.

Another thing that's interesting in the architecture slides is that they're listing max cargo capacity for the Starship at 15t in the accompanying slide.  Is that because that's the biggest payload NASA can imagine, or is there something limiting it? 

Obviously no way to know, but it's... annoying?... that nobody's considering something like 100t of solar power masts.  The penny doesn't quite seem to have dropped that payloads can now be massively overdesigned for minimal marginal cost, and you can dream up applications for the overdesign later.

The requirements in the BAA is for 12mt to 15mt, so I am guessing that is where the 15mt comes from.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The requirements in the BAA is for 12mt to 15mt, so I am guessing that is where the 15mt comes from.

Sounds right, but it also sounds like a pretty big architectural oopsie.

There's a lot to be said for designing early payloads so that they can be supported by either of the HDL providers.  Without doing this, dissimilar redundancy doesn't buy you anything.  But there is also a class of payloads where packing ten of them on an LSS instead of one on a generic HDL costs very little extra, and widens out all of the trade spaces for future expansion of surface facilities.  The two most obvious ones are solar masts and batteries/fuel cells.  Another one is heat rejection radiators, and still another would be methalox-powered APUs, which can provide months if not years of nighttime power, without having to get exotic about keeping batteries and fuel cells warm enough to work.

Maybe NASA has designs for these expanded payloads in their back pocket, but they don't want to make them public for fear of political brouhaha.  But one would want to think pretty carefully about power and coolant buses if that were true.  It might be worth watching for signs of such thought.  It doesn't increase payload mass very much, and pays big dividends when everybody gets comfy enough with LSS to make it essential to the architecture.

Another one that does require committing to LSS would be a much bigger pressurized rover.  You can make the wheelbase wider/longer and make the batteries at least 3x heavier (both of which will pay dividends for stability on steep grades), double or even triple pressurized volume, and maybe even add methalox storage and APUs for better longevity in shadow.  But all of this would put its mass and footprint well outside the ability for Blue Moon to handle it.

[clongton]

Well, that was depressing. Basically, everything is slipping.
To me, the most pressing issue is the Orion heat shield for Artemis II. NASA was supposed to complete their analysis and decide how to proceed by now, but there has been no announcement, nor has Phillip seen any other indication of progress.   

Well there's this:
They slow-walked SLS to 1st flight (5 years behind schedule and $13 to $14 billion cost overrun*). Now they're slow-walking fixing Orion**. In my opinion that suits NASA leadership and their industrial complex partners just fine. After all, Artemis isn't about lunar exploration. It was designed to launch a spacecraft that was deliberately designed to be too heavy for any other rocket of the time to lift. Orion is its only payload. It's not a launcher - it's an excuse. It's a jobs program, designed to keep as many employees as possible working (punching time cards) as long as possible in vote-rich districts and states. It keeps the fat cats in Washington satisfied.

*Originally, the estimated cost to develop and launch the SLS through its first flight was around $10 billion when it was first conceptualized in 2011. This estimate covered the development of the rocket and its associated systems through the initial launch.

However, by the time the SLS actually flew in November 2022 for the Artemis I mission, the actual costs had ballooned to around $23–24 billion. This includes development, testing, and preparations for the first launch, reflecting a cost overrun of roughly $13-14 billion beyond the original projection. That represents a lot of happy voters in their high-paying aerospace jobs.

** In 2009, the head of the Orion program at Lockheed Martin was T. Cleon Lacefield. He was vice president and Orion program manager. At a conference in Florida, Ross and I  asked him directly how long it would take to finish the Orion spacecraft and have it ready for crew in-flight testing. He told us - to our face - that if Congress would properly find the development that Orion would be ready for flight testing in 12 months.

[DanClemmensen]

Well, that was depressing. Basically, everything is slipping.
To me, the most pressing issue is the Orion heat shield for Artemis II. NASA was supposed to complete their analysis and decide how to proceed by now, but there has been no announcement, nor has Phillip seen any other indication of progress.   

Well there's this:
They slow-walked SLS to 1st flight (5 years behind schedule and $13 to $14 billion cost overrun*). Now they're slow-walking fixing Orion. In my opinion that suits NASA leadership and their industrial complex partners just fine. After all, Artemis isn't about lunar exploration. It's a jobs program, designed to keep as many employees as possible working (punching time cards) as long as possible in vote-rich districts and states. It keeps the fat cats in Washington satisfied.

*Originally, the estimated cost to develop and launch the SLS through its first flight was around $10 billion when it was first conceptualized in 2011. This estimate covered the development of the rocket and its associated systems through the initial launch.

However, by the time the SLS actually flew in November 2022 for the Artemis I mission, the actual costs had ballooned to around $23–24 billion. This includes development, testing, and preparations for the first launch, reflecting a cost overrun of roughly $13-14 billion beyond the original projection. That represents a lot of happy voters in their high-paying aerospace jobs.

I'm not all that concerned about the schedule slip to date: that's just a fact of life as you say. I'm concerned about the potential risk to the Artemis II crew. The Artemis I Orion heat shield showed serious spalling. Some fairly big change will be needed, and IMO NASA will need another uncrewed flight to validate that change. But it's not clear that the Artemis program can tolerate another uncrewed mission: it's too expensive and the consequences of the one-year (at least) delay will be severe. This will put pressure on NASA's decision makers to press on without another uncrewed flight. It's analogous to the Starliner CFT situation: that decision was deferred while they looked for some way to justify sending the crew home on Starliner. I fear that this time NASA is deferring the Orion heat shield decision the same way, but this time the NASA might convince itself to accept a larger risk to the crew.

[tbellman]

There's a lot to be said for designing early payloads so that they can be supported by either of the HDL providers.  Without doing this, dissimilar redundancy doesn't buy you anything.  But there is also a class of payloads where packing ten of them on an LSS instead of one on a generic HDL costs very little extra, and widens out all of the trade spaces for future expansion of surface facilities.  The two most obvious ones are solar masts and batteries/fuel cells.  Another one is heat rejection radiators, and still another would be methalox-powered APUs, which can provide months if not years of nighttime power, without having to get exotic about keeping batteries and fuel cells warm enough to work.

All of those are utterly useless by their own.  Building out infrastructure without having any users is stupid.  You don't (or at least shouldn't) build a railway station without having at least pretty firm plans for a town that it can service.  And you don't build the station ten times larger than it needs to be to service the town.  Likewise, delivering several tens of kilowatts of electricity generation to the Moon is silly if you don't have any payloads that can use that.

No, you need to start by figuring out what instruments, rovers and/or habitats you want, and can afford; the payloads that figuratively pays your bills.  (And before that, you of course need to figure out what you actually want to achieve, just like VSECOTSPE is repeatedly saying.)  Then you can figure out what and how much infrastructure you need.

But unfortunately NASA doesn't seem to know what they actually want to achieve, and the chance of US Congress funding any significant end-payloads seem slim.

[TheRadicalModerate]

There's a lot to be said for designing early payloads so that they can be supported by either of the HDL providers.  Without doing this, dissimilar redundancy doesn't buy you anything.  But there is also a class of payloads where packing ten of them on an LSS instead of one on a generic HDL costs very little extra, and widens out all of the trade spaces for future expansion of surface facilities.  The two most obvious ones are solar masts and batteries/fuel cells.  Another one is heat rejection radiators, and still another would be methalox-powered APUs, which can provide months if not years of nighttime power, without having to get exotic about keeping batteries and fuel cells warm enough to work.

All of those are utterly useless by their own.  Building out infrastructure without having any users is stupid.  You don't (or at least shouldn't) build a railway station without having at least pretty firm plans for a town that it can service.  And you don't build the station ten times larger than it needs to be to service the town.  Likewise, delivering several tens of kilowatts of electricity generation to the Moon is silly if you don't have any payloads that can use that.

No, you need to start by figuring out what instruments, rovers and/or habitats you want, and can afford; the payloads that figuratively pays your bills.  (And before that, you of course need to figure out what you actually want to achieve, just like VSECOTSPE is repeatedly saying.)  Then you can figure out what and how much infrastructure you need.

But unfortunately NASA doesn't seem to know what they actually want to achieve, and the chance of US Congress funding any significant end-payloads seem slim.

You're building the railway station no matter what.  But it's cheaper to build it bigger than it needs to be than to have to build a second, or third, or fourth station to service the growth.

Every payload delivered to the lunar surface needs at least power and thermal.  You can have every payload solve those problems over and over, at great cost, or you can provide a piece of infrastructure that solves the problem for everything.  That's an overall cost reduction.

You can also build the infrastructure to exactly the n payloads that somebody laid out in an architecture document, which is of course the absolute cheapest thing you can do.  But what happens when the n + 1st payload comes along?  You can expand the infrastructure, but that inevitably costs more than just overbuilding it.

There's a fine argument to be had on how much overbuilding is appropriate, but that argument needs to factor in the availability of a vehicle that can deploy multiple modules of the same thing for the marginal cost of the module (low compared to its DDT&E) and an extra tanker or two (not quite as low, but close).

Even if you leave the extra modules sitting on the ground, undeployed, it still makes sense to send them.

FWIW, when I modeled this in terms of prop, using 150t propellant loads on the tankers, the minimum number of tankers needed for an expendable HDL Starship to land was 3, delivering 21t.  To deliver 150t, 10 tankers were required.

[dglow]

Eric Berger’s take on how to rectify Artemis:

The politically incorrect guide to saving NASA’s floundering Artemis Program

…here are the principal policy choices I believe should be made to shore up the Artemis Program both in the near and long term:

• Cancel the Lunar Gateway
• Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
• Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.

[yg1968]

NASA Needs a ‘Lunar Marathon’ to Match China on the Moon (By Thomas Zurbuchen):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-needs-a-lunar-marathon-to-match-china-on-the-moon/

https://twitter.com/Dr_ThomasZ/status/1841340449396576699

[TheKutKu]

Eric Berger’s take on how to rectify Artemis:

The politically incorrect guide to saving NASA’s floundering Artemis Program

…here are the principal policy choices I believe should be made to shore up the Artemis Program both in the near and long term:

• Cancel the Lunar Gateway
• Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
• Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.

That country is not messing around with a lunar space station but would rather concentrate on the surface

But they are? ILRS includes an in-orbit component. It's just further away, but as much part of ILRS as the surface base.

[Tywin]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

[dglow]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

[deadman1204]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

fnding on what? Flag and footprints? NASA spends more money on PR for "lunar outposts and staying on the moon" than they actually put towards development efforts.
The concept of "commercial lunar bases" is as fantastic as dragons solving mysteries in victoria era london. The only real source of the money will be government, so calling it "commercial" is just pretend.

[yg1968]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

It wouldn't save that much money, Gateway isn't that expensive.

Japan is also contributing to Gateway. Contributions to Gateway and to lunar surface exploration are separate from each other.

[yg1968]

The concept of "commercial lunar bases" is as fantastic as dragons solving mysteries in victoria era london. The only real source of the money will be government, so calling it "commercial" is just pretend.

It's not pretend, commercial simply means that there are also non-NASA customers that will pay for the services being offered.

[DanClemmensen]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

It wouldn't save that much money, Gateway isn't that expensive.

Japan is also contributing to Gateway. Contributions to Gateway and to lunar surface exploration are separate from each other.

Gateway modules are not terribly expensive. Delivery of those modules using SLS is terribly expensive.

[dglow]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

It wouldn't save that much money, Gateway isn't that expensive.

Japan is also contributing to Gateway. Contributions to Gateway and to lunar surface exploration are separate from each other.

Gateway modules are not terribly expensive. Delivery of those modules using SLS is terribly expensive.

Yes. And Berger’s argument is that, by eliminating Gateway you can also eliminate Block 1B, thus constraining SLS at “terribly” and keeping it from escalating to “obscenely” expensive. Again, I’m repeating his argument.