Landing By 2024?

[StarshipSLS]

Is landing back on the moon by 2024 still possible. Launches keep being pushed back.
Example:
2016 was the original time NASA was supposed to launch SLS.
Moved to...
2018
2020
2021/2
Artemis II was supposed to launch in 2022. Now in 2023.

[Khadgars]

It was always a aspirational goal, which I think is a good thing to motivate.  But its still unlikely.  Its more likely Artemis III in 2024 goes either to Gateway or does simulated mission in lunar orbit to practice for landing, possibly Artemis IV.

[Proponent]

2016 was the original time NASA was supposed to launch SLS.

SLS and Orion were supposed to be operational to LEO by 2016, implying one or more test flights, likely by 2015 at the latest.

[jadebenn]

SLS is not the pacing item for a Lunar landing. That would be the lander itself.

[Coastal Ron]

SLS is not the pacing item for a Lunar landing. That would be the lander itself.

I'd say that is too soon to claim, taking into account the past assumptions about when future SLS & Orion milestones would be met (and that were not), and the lack of any successful full-up flights for either systems yet. Have we finally moved past the point where the SLS program is still slipping year for year on its first launch date?

Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS, and the same for the first human-occupied flight of the Orion - which is seriously optimistic for both. We all know what happened with the first test flight of Starliner, which was a good reminder of how little things can produce large schedule delays.

In fact the only reason the 2024 date can't be ruled out at this point is because of SpaceX. If SpaceX hadn't bid for the HLS contract NASA would have not awarded any contracts for 2024. And many of us have estimated previously that none of the other HLS teams would have had the ability to meet the 2024 date anyways.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that doubt SpaceX will be ready with their HLS lander in time for a 2024 landing, but there are also plenty of people that think SpaceX will. Time will tell.

Bottom line is that I don't think we have enough evidence of schedule momentum to have confidence in a 2024 landing date yet. The SLS and Orion are still too early in their development programs.

[Avatar2Go]

The delays in the SLS program were for specific reasons that are well documented at NSF and elsewhere.  There is not a reason at present to believe there are similar delays still in the pipeline.  All the components are ready and have passed their individual testing phases.  The stack as a whole must still be tested (as described in a recent NSF article), and that will take time and may encounter minor delays.

I don't think the Starliner issues are very relevant to SLS.  They resulted from a rushed schedule and inadequate testing in a Boeing-led project.  SLS and Orion are NASA-led and testing has been very extensive, as we've seen, and will continue to be.  Definitely not rushed.

I would consider the lander to be the major risk factor at this point, given that it's actually the component that's in early stages of development.  No part of it actually exists at present, although prototypes are flying in the atmosphere to test portions of Earth reentry and landing.  Its booster also does not exist yet, or tanker.  The testing is well and good and I'm sure SpaceX will continue to make progress on all elements, but they are still some distance behind SLS and Orion in terms of maturity.

Therefore I would say that 2024 is a possibility but not a probability.  That has actually never changed from the moment it was proposed.  If the lander, booster, tanker, and orbital refueling are nearing maturity in 2 years, by the middle of 2023, there will be a good shot at 2024.

Musk generally achieves the things he sets out to do, but with some delay in the schedule, given how ambitious his goals are.  I would expect that delay to be about 2 years in this case, so perhaps 2026.  But that is just a guess, it's too early in the program to call.

[VSECOTSPE]

There is not a reason at present to believe there are similar delays still in the pipeline.  All the components are ready and have passed their individual testing phases.  The stack as a whole must still be tested (as described in a recent NSF article), and that will take time and may encounter minor delays.

The SLS stack for Artemis I in 2021/2022 is the not the SLS stack for Artemis III in 2024.  Just because the former is finally approaching the finish line does not ensure the latter will be on time.

Due to their very low flight rate and fragile heritage, SLS/Orion will have production, processing, and operational issues for years to come.  There’s no opportunity to rapidly iterate and wring the unknown unknowns out of the system or bring the workforce down the learning curve.  Expect schedule issues with every SLS/Orion launch for the foreseeable future.

I don't think the Starliner issues are very relevant to SLS.  They resulted from a rushed schedule and inadequate testing in a Boeing-led project.  SLS and Orion are NASA-led and testing has been very extensive, as we've seen, and will continue to be.  Definitely not rushed.

Starliner and SLS/Orion suffer from a paucity of integrated software testing.  Just because a program is slow does not mean that it’s done adequate/more/better validation and testing.

[Proponent]

SLS is not the pacing item for a Lunar landing. That would be the lander itself.

My purpose here is only to correct the very widespread misbelief that SLS was originally intended to fly for the first time in 2016.  Even Eric Berger gets this wrong.

[kdhilliard]

2010 NASA Authorization Act:

 SLS:

FLEXIBILITY. — The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations.  Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.

 Orion:

GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY. — It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016.  For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.

[TrevorMonty]

There is not a reason at present to believe there are similar delays still in the pipeline.  All the components are ready and have passed their individual testing phases.  The stack as a whole must still be tested (as described in a recent NSF article), and that will take time and may encounter minor delays.

The SLS stack for Artemis I in 2021/2022 is the not the SLS stack for Artemis III in 2024.  Just because the former is finally approaching the finish line does not ensure the latter will be on time.

Due to their very low flight rate and fragile heritage, SLS/Orion will have production, processing, and operational issues for years to come.  There’s no opportunity to rapidly iterate and wring the unknown unknowns out of the system or bring the workforce down the learning curve.  Expect schedule issues with every SLS/Orion launch for the foreseeable future.

I don't think the Starliner issues are very relevant to SLS.  They resulted from a rushed schedule and inadequate testing in a Boeing-led project.  SLS and Orion are NASA-led and testing has been very extensive, as we've seen, and will continue to be.  Definitely not rushed.

Starliner and SLS/Orion suffer from a paucity of integrated software testing.  Just because a program is slow does not mean that it’s done adequate/more/better validation and testing.

The first flight of SLS is test flight it will showup design issues that need fixing. Hopefully those issues won't result in mission failure.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[yg1968]

I am not convinced that 2024 isn't possible. In its HLS contract, SpaceX has commited to the 2024 date. Musk even said that SpaceX expects to be ready before that (presumably 2023).

If Starship can get to orbit this year, I would expect 2024 to be a possibility.

[whitelancer64]

I am not convinced that 2024 isn't possible. In its HLS contract, SpaceX has commited to the 2024 date. Musk even said that SpaceX expects to be ready before that (presumably 2023).

If Starship can get to orbit this year, I would expect 2024 to be a possibility.

It's probably not impossible but I personally don't think it's very likely. 2025 is where my money's at, assuming typical schedule slips and that development and test flights (both for Artemis and Starship) go reasonably well.

Delay to 2026 if there are a significant amount of technical issues with Artemis I / II, and/or Starship / HLS development, especially if issues pop up with refueling operations in orbit.

[Avatar2Go]

Artemis 3 is scheduled to use an SLS Block 1 stack, as is Artemis 1 and 2.  So there will be two complete rehearsal flights.  Historically that has been sufficient for mission success. 

There is no paucity of testing for SLS/Orion, only a different philosophy of testing than the frequent trial and error employed by SpaceX.  Both have advantages and disadvantages.  They both converge on the same result in the end.  As a public man-rated program, NASA is accustomed to minimizing perceived failure, so their strategy is a rigorous test campaign prior to test flight.

[VSECOTSPE]

Artemis 3 is scheduled to use an SLS Block 1 stack, as is Artemis 1 and 2.  So there will be two complete rehearsal flights.  Historically that has been sufficient for mission success.

The thread is about mission schedule, not failure/success.

There is no paucity of testing for SLS/Orion

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/asap-urges-software-test-artemis/

[Starlab90]

There is no paucity of testing for SLS/Orion

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/asap-urges-software-test-artemis/

Yes, well, this was one time when ASAP got it wrong. They're human beings too, and they can make mistakes just like the rest of us.

[VSECOTSPE]

Yes, well, this was one time when ASAP got it wrong.

Remains to be determined.  The Artemis I flight will be the first integrated test of SLS/Orion software.

And until the program implements an integrated software capability, Starliner-like incidents will be a threat for Artemis II, Artemis III, etc.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2020/10/nasa-sls-softwa.html

[yg1968]

There is no paucity of testing for SLS/Orion

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/10/asap-urges-software-test-artemis/

Yes, well, this was one time when ASAP got it wrong. They're human beings too, and they can make mistakes just like the rest of us.

It wasn't the only time. ASAP was firmly against commercial crew when it was first announced.

[Coastal Ron]

The delays in the SLS program were for specific reasons that are well documented at NSF and elsewhere.

Um, that is an empty statement devoid of any useful information, since EVERY delay for any program is usually well documented. That doesn't mean that history foretells the future though.

There is not a reason at present to believe there are similar delays still in the pipeline.

Similar, maybe not. However most of the historical delays were unique, not the same, meaning if there are future delays they are likely to be new issues. The classic, unknown unknowns.

All the components are ready and have passed their individual testing phases.  The stack as a whole must still be tested (as described in a recent NSF article), and that will take time and may encounter minor delays.

As someone who has spent decades in the manufacturing world I can tell you that just because you have all the components for something, that doesn't means you have a finished product. There are still many steps to go before a complete SLS is ready for launch, and only after the SLS launches will the final testing phase begin. When the testing program ends is up to the performance of each SLS flight.

I don't think the Starliner issues are very relevant to SLS.  They resulted from a rushed schedule and inadequate testing in a Boeing-led project.

The root cause NASA found was not related to schedule, it was related to a flawed testing program Boeing had created. Since Boeing is the prime contractor for the SLS it is not unreasonable to wonder if Boeing has flaws in other product testing programs.

Definitely not rushed.

Congress originally mandated the SLS to be OPERATIONAL (i.e. done with its testing program) by the end of 2016, so obviously Boeing has not felt any schedule pressure. And since the SLS program is a Cost Plus program, they haven't had any financial pressure to 'git er done'. In other words, Boeing has no financial incentive to support the 2024 date... 

[Joseph Peterson]

It a landing in 2024 still possible?  Yes, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are two primary pieces to the puzzle, the lander and the ride to and from the lander.  Since we're in the SLS section I'm going to focus on the ride to and from the lander, specifically the launch vehicle.  As of today it appears that the first test launch could happen before the year is out.  The question is how many problems are left to be discovered and their severity.  Given the low production rate of roughly one per year we'll only get at most one more chance at an uncrewed test flight if we want to have a crewed test flight before a 2024 landing attempt.  We have to hope that there aren't any severe problems that require a long stand down for redesign or a landing in 2024 is not going to happen.

The same applies to Orion.  The lander is also a risk, but at least SpaceX is flight testing early and often.

[Ben Baley]

It a landing in 2024 still possible?  Yes, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are two primary pieces to the puzzle, the lander and the ride to and from the lander.  Since we're in the SLS section I'm going to focus on the ride to and from the lander, specifically the launch vehicle.  As of today it appears that the first test launch could happen before the year is out.  The question is how many problems are left to be discovered and their severity.  Given the low production rate of roughly one per year we'll only get at most one more chance at an uncrewed test flight if we want to have a crewed test flight before a 2024 landing attempt.  We have to hope that there aren't any severe problems that require a long stand down for redesign or a landing in 2024 is not going to happen.

The same applies to Orion.  The lander is also a risk, but at least SpaceX is flight testing early and often.

I will consider 2024 probable when these three things happen, though not necessarily in this order

1. Starship launched to orbit on Super Heavy and booster recovered. Probably in 2021 maybe Q3

2. Orion launched on SLS for Artemis 1 with no major issues discovered. Probably Q1 2022

3. Successful in Space fuel transfer between Starships

I don't include landing Starship from orbit because even without tanker reuse it's still economical if not paradigm changing.

[Joseph Peterson]

I will consider 2024 probable when these three things happen, though not necessarily in this order

1. Starship launched to orbit on Super Heavy and booster recovered. Probably in 2021 maybe Q3

2. Orion launched on SLS for Artemis 1 with no major issues discovered. Probably Q1 2022

3. Successful in Space fuel transfer between Starships

I don't include landing Starship from orbit because even without tanker reuse it's still economical if not paradigm changing.

I generally agree on points 1 and 3.  I didn't go into detail on the lander because I decided it is best practice to never mention the 8-letter S-word in the SLS section during the kerfuffle in the SLS discussion threads earlier this year.

When it comes to point 2 I expect unknown unknowns that can only be found via flight testing.  SLS/Orion is getting little in the way of flight testing.  Orion docking/undocking won't be tested until at least Artemis III.  I'm not saying there will be a problem but I'm not ready to say a landing is probable until after crew is on the lander and Orion undocks.

[StarshipSLS]

We'll see. If Starship SN15 lands today, it would make a 2024 landing more possible. (NASA has said that they won't land people on the moon until a 100% successful prototype flight.)It all depends on Starship, SLS, and Orion progress.

[cplchanb]

Also depends on if starship wins the appeal or not. If they get stripped of their contract this might delay the landing if BO or dynetics have a delay themselves

[Cherokee43v6]

The way I see it, there are 2 long poles in the SpaceX Lunar Starship HLS.  Neither of them having to do with actually landing on the Moon.  The actual landing operation will have a lot of commonality with things they've already done and thus have experience with and data from.  Namely the hopper flights; SN6, SN5, Starhopper, and to a lesser extent the 'Grasshopper' flights.

The two long poles are:

1) Starship in orbit refueling and Tanker development/implementation.  Getting this in place is vital for the ability to perform the mission as described in their bid and it is the one thing that there is no existing body of operational knowledge available from which to draw.  (Rapid turn around, while nice, is not quite as critical, as SpaceX has already proven the ability to construct multiple iterations of its vehicles rapidly and could have several boosters and tankers on standby for the initial attempts.)

2) Large scale ECLSS.  Here, there is knowledge available from things like the ISS systems, and their hands on experience with Dragon will be useful, but the scale of the pressurized volume is a potential issue, being as it is a single system the size of the ISS.

If I had to narrow it down to one single critical path item, it would be the refueling tanker.  Luckily, since it is not a item singly dedicated to LSS, it is something that SpaceX can continue to work on even with the contract freeze in place pending GAO decision.  (I also personally think that this is the portion of the contract that all along was more heavily weighted toward internal SpaceX funding anyway due to its critical nature for their other plans.)  If they can perform a demonstration of this before the end of next year, then I believe the rest can fall into place for 2024, possibly with time to spare.

[StarshipSLS]

The way I see it, there are 2 long poles in the SpaceX Lunar Starship HLS.  Neither of them having to do with actually landing on the Moon.  The actual landing operation will have a lot of commonality with things they've already done and thus have experience with and data from.  Namely the hopper flights; SN6, SN5, Starhopper, and to a lesser extent the 'Grasshopper' flights.

The two long poles are:

1) Starship in orbit refueling and Tanker development/implementation.  Getting this in place is vital for the ability to perform the mission as described in their bid and it is the one thing that there is no existing body of operational knowledge available from which to draw.  (Rapid turn around, while nice, is not quite as critical, as SpaceX has already proven the ability to construct multiple iterations of its vehicles rapidly and could have several boosters and tankers on standby for the initial attempts.)

2) Large scale ECLSS.  Here, there is knowledge available from things like the ISS systems, and their hands on experience with Dragon will be useful, but the scale of the pressurized volume is a potential issue, being as it is a single system the size of the ISS.

If I had to narrow it down to one single critical path item, it would be the refueling tanker.  Luckily, since it is not a item singly dedicated to LSS, it is something that SpaceX can continue to work on even with the contract freeze in place pending GAO decision.  (I also personally think that this is the portion of the contract that all along was more heavily weighted toward internal SpaceX funding anyway due to its critical nature for their other plans.)  If they can perform a demonstration of this before the end of next year, then I believe the rest can fall into place for 2024, possibly with time to spare.

I agree with that.

[StarshipSLS]

New Artemis update from NASA's Office of Inspector General: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-018.pdf. It states, that "landing by 2024 is highly unlikely".  (End of Quote) Well, let's hope for the best.

[butters]

Refueling ops is unlikely to be the long pole for the crewed landing demo because it's on the critical path for the uncrewed landing demo. It's the stuff they only need for the crewed mission that's most likely to be deferred and become the long pole for Artemis 3. Particularly the requirements that don't have to be met for DearMoon.

[yg1968]

New Artemis update from NASA's Office of Inspector General: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-018.pdf. It states, that "landing by 2024 is highly unlikely".  (End of Quote) Well, let's hope for the best.

I didn't find this report very convincing. It says that Artemis I will likely be delayed by a few months and they then assume that this delay of a few months will cascade onto Artemis II and III. They then say that since Artemis III is already planned for the end of 2024, the 2024 timeline is therefore unlikely...

[punder]

SLS is not the pacing item for a Lunar landing. That would be the lander itself.

What an (obviously) deliberately obtuse, and (apparently unintentionally) hilarious assertion. I congratulate you, sir.

Needlessly snarky. Sorry jadebenn.

[JMS]

Landing by 2024 will not happen.

[Vultur]

I would kind of expect it to be delayed into 2025, just because everything seems to end up being delayed, but after SN15 I think it's at least as likely that the delay will be on the SLS/Orion side.

(The landing-flip itself isn't strictly necessary for HLS, but it should be a big help to the test program in general).

[SweetWater]

SN15's landing might not be directly applicable to the HLS since it won't land on the moon in the same way (or on Earth at all), but there will be multiple refueling tankers needed to get each HLS to the moon. I can imagine the first handful of Starships doing operational missions ending up like SN8/9/10/11 or the first few F9 booster landing attempts, but recovering Starships and rapidly reusing them are key for doing HLS at a sustainable flight rate.

I'm skeptical of a 2024 landing, but SN15 landing was encouraging. Assuming SpaceX doesn't loose any more Starship boosters than they did Starships before a successful landing, an orbital test yet this year might be realistic. That gives them another 3 years to meet the 2024 goal, but they still need to complete the necessary pad and construction infrastructure, finalize an operational design, get the flight rate up, address on-orbit cryogenic fuel fuel transfer, the HLS landing engines, as well as the entire crew section (control systems, environmental systems, airlock, crew/cargo elevator....) of the HLS.

[darkenfast]

Starship winning HLS is the item that makes 2024 possible. If the Artemis program was going to use the "business-as-usual" approach, then it would not be possible. But now, SLS only has to do one thing: deliver an Orion with crew to whatever high orbit they settle on and then Lunar Starship does the rest. Orion only has to deliver and then return those astronauts. These are things that Artemis should be able to do, if at high cost.

NASA has more insight into what SpaceX is doing with Starship than anyone outside the company. They know what's inside the white "mock-up" at Boca Chica. They've seen the telemetry from the SN-series of tests. They know how SpaceX intends to carry out LEO re-fueling. Most importantly, they know how the actual landing and take-off from the Moon will be done and how much capability will be available.

Any program can be derailed by disaster. But if there is no such disaster, the only reason 2024 won't happen is if political interference makes it not happen.

[Cherokee43v6]

Refueling ops is unlikely to be the long pole for the crewed landing demo because it's on the critical path for the uncrewed landing demo. It's the stuff they only need for the crewed mission that's most likely to be deferred and become the long pole for Artemis 3. Particularly the requirements that don't have to be met for DearMoon.

The bolded comment makes absolutely no sense as it completely contradicts itself.  As the uncrewed demo must come first, any delay there potentially delays the whole program.

The only people with any 'in space refueling' practical experience are the Russians and I highly doubt they are willing to share with SpaceX.  Of all the things that have to be done, in space refueling is the single critical item with the most development to be done with the least amount of data on how to do it successfully.

'Long Pole' means required items that require the most lead time to get done by the scheduled date.  You cannot divorce refueling from the LSS work that needs to be done because without it, there is no LSS landing.  Saying it is resolved for the demo mission and thus not important for the manned mission is like saying you're sitting down to eat in an hour, but you haven't gone grocery shopping for the ingredients yet.

[tbellman]

New Artemis update from NASA's Office of Inspector General: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-21-018.pdf. It states, that "landing by 2024 is highly unlikely".  (End of Quote) Well, let's hope for the best.

I didn't find this report very convincing. It says that Artemis I will likely be delayed by a few months and they then assume that this delay of a few months will cascade onto Artemis II and III. They then say that since Artemis III is already planned for the end of 2024, the 2024 timeline is therefore unlikely...

Note that there is a minimum of 20 months between Artemis I and Artemis II, because they are going to reuse some avionics components from the first Orion capsule in the second Orion.  That's NASA's own estimate of the time required to do that.  See for example page 19 in this OIG report on Orion from July last year.  Artemis I is also used to qualify many components for Artemis II (and onwards), so problems found have a good chance of pushing Artemis II further out.

I don't know what the minimum time between Artemis II and III is, though.

[Eric Hedman]

Landing by 2024 will not happen.

This comment would be useful if you told us why you believe this.

[AU1.52]

Refueling ops is unlikely to be the long pole for the crewed landing demo because it's on the critical path for the uncrewed landing demo. It's the stuff they only need for the crewed mission that's most likely to be deferred and become the long pole for Artemis 3. Particularly the requirements that don't have to be met for DearMoon.

The bolded comment makes absolutely no sense as it completely contradicts itself.  As the uncrewed demo must come first, any delay there potentially delays the whole program.

The only people with any 'in space refueling' practical experience are the Russians and I highly doubt they are willing to share with SpaceX.  Of all the things that have to be done, in space refueling is the single critical item with the most development to be done with the least amount of data on how to do it successfully.

'Long Pole' means required items that require the most lead time to get done by the scheduled date.  You cannot divorce refueling from the LSS work that needs to be done because without it, there is no LSS landing.  Saying it is resolved for the demo mission and thus not important for the manned mission is like saying you're sitting down to eat in an hour, but you haven't gone grocery shopping for the ingredients yet.

Likely a typo.. I would read "Unlikely" as "Likely". Then it makes sense.

[butters]

Refueling ops is unlikely to be the long pole for the crewed landing demo because it's on the critical path for the uncrewed landing demo. It's the stuff they only need for the crewed mission that's most likely to be deferred and become the long pole for Artemis 3. Particularly the requirements that don't have to be met for DearMoon.

The bolded comment makes absolutely no sense as it completely contradicts itself.  As the uncrewed demo must come first, any delay there potentially delays the whole program.

AU1.52: Nope, I meant unlikely. Refueling is a nearer-term requirement than many other requirements for Artemis 3. If that doesn't make sense, I don't know what to tell you folks.

My point is that orbital refueling is a 2022 project, and ECLSS is a 2023 project. I don't disagree that refueling is among the most significant development items, but SpaceX will tackle the hardest problems first, like developing Starship before Super Heavy.

Feel free to disagree with me. We'll check back in a few years and see who was correct about whether refueling will be demonstrated before life support or other crewed Artemis 3 requirements. I say refueling is problem they confront early and will not be among the final items to nail down for the crewed landing.  I'll be surprised if we don't see the first refueling *attempts* by early next year.

[sdsds]

Making the 2024 date, or gracefully slipping it. Either way the weight is totally on the shoulders of Bill Nelson. I'm not a Floridian; far from it. But anyone who's been following American human spaceflight knows what Nelson is like. Sure he's first and foremost a politician. But he'll lead NASA well enough, and in particular lead the NASA decision-making process well enough, that we'll get a good outcome.

[JohnF]

Moon landing by 2024 ?, yes could happen, maybe, however I see Boeing SLS = big time jobs program, Starship - terrible design for a lander, horizontal would be safer, or heck Starhopper would be a better design for a lander.

[VaBlue]

Moon landing by 2024 ?, yes could happen, maybe, however I see Boeing SLS = big time jobs program, Starship - terrible design for a lander, horizontal would be safer, or heck Starhopper would be a better design for a lander.

Would horizontal be better?  The structural rigidity needed for a horizontal lander would increase the weight, which directly affects payload capacity.  The added complexity would decrease cargo and living space.  You still need a crane, you still need ramps, you still need ladders.  You still need everything you need for a vertical lander, and it all comes with less space and more weight.  How is any of this "better"?

[electricdawn]

One could say that Starship was exactly designed for this case. That every little gram of payload is no longer worth bothering about. But landing a rocket horizontally is probably opening up a whole bunch of other cans of worms, so I guess somebody with a structural engineering degree is better suited to answer this question than a noob like me.

[StarshipSLS]

Update: NASA is now planning a landing by 2025. But, they have stated that a late 2024 landing is still possible.

[Reynold]

Note that there is a minimum of 20 months between Artemis I and Artemis II, because they are going to reuse some avionics components from the first Orion capsule in the second Orion.  [snip]  Artemis I is also used to qualify many components for Artemis II (and onwards), so problems found have a good chance of pushing Artemis II further out.

I don't know what the minimum time between Artemis II and III is, though.

That combination of reuse of components (Does anyone know if that has been done before? Stripping out components from one ship to build another?) and having to flight qualify so many "new" systems makes me suspect that some unexpected problem is likely to cause a delay between Artemis I and Artemis II.  Further, I doubt there is much slack built into the schedule between Artemis II and III, or they would plan for III earlier than they have it listed now.  I don't remember the last NASA led program with a flexible launch date that didn't slip some. 

Thus I predict that the Starship based HLS system will be ready on time, because I think there are fewer unknown unknowns about refueling in LEO, but the SLS will cause a slip until at least 2025.  That will still be substantially sooner than a lot of people were predicting a year or two ago, though, so not bad.   

I also suspect that Boeing will feel a little heat to keep on schedule if HLS readiness is breathing down their neck, though I'm sure nobody associated with NASA (or either company in question) will be so impolite as to point fingers at the SLS as being the delaying factor. 

[tbellman]

(Does anyone know if that has been done before? Stripping out components from one ship to build another?)

There was an example just a few hours ago: the heatshield from SpaceX Crew Demo-2, was reused on the CRS-22 Dragon spacecraft. 

Thus I predict that the Starship based HLS system will be ready on time, because I think there are fewer unknown unknowns about refueling in LEO, but the SLS will cause a slip until at least 2025.

I suspect all three of SLS, Orion, and Starship, will have challenges being ready for a lunar landing before 2024 is out.  I don't dare predict which of the three will be ready first, or which will be ready last.

That will still be substantially sooner than a lot of people were predicting a year or two ago, though, so not bad.   

I also suspect that Boeing will feel a little heat to keep on schedule if HLS readiness is breathing down their neck [...]

And HLS may feel a little heat from SLS and Orion, and Orion may feel a little heat from SLS and HLS.  And that's good; a bit of competition, and the feeling of not wanting to be the ones that hold the entire mission up, is helpful in keeping things moving at a good pace.  (But it shouldn't be too much pressure, so they skimp on quality, or turn bitter; just enough to keep everyone on their toes.)

[Toast]

I don't think the Starliner issues are very relevant to SLS.  They resulted from a rushed schedule and inadequate testing in a Boeing-led project.  SLS and Orion are NASA-led and testing has been very extensive, as we've seen, and will continue to be.  Definitely not rushed.

I agree with your general premise, but have a quibble here. NASA is definitely not rushing things with SLS, and I have a lot more faith in the process than I do with Starliner's process, but NASA leading the project does not in any way preclude problems. You don't have to look any further than the Space Shuttle for proof of that--remember, the inaugural launch was very nearly a disaster. I think overall mission success for Artemis I is likely, but if I had to spitball some odds, I'd wager about a 1 in 10 chance that Artemis I fails (and I'd be downright shocked if there aren't at least minor problems).

[laszlo]

(Does anyone know if that has been done before? Stripping out components from one ship to build another?)

There was an example just a few hours ago: the heatshield from SpaceX Crew Demo-2, was reused on the CRS-22 Dragon spacecraft.

During the pre-Challenger Shuttle program it was common practice to cannibalize the non-flying shuttles for parts for the next one to fly reuse components. The result was a constant churn of unstable configurations, lots of pointless expensive labor and many opportunities to break a working tested system. NASA had no choice because Congress did not properly fund the program.

[JohnFornaro]

...Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS...

Just a reminder to all that shuttle's first flight was manned.

With forty year old technology.

[JohnFornaro]

Landing by 2024 will not happen.

This comment would be useful if you told us why you believe this.

Bill Nelson?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

There was a NASA tidbit about Artemis III being NET FY2025. (Will have to see if I can find the statement.) But FY2025 starts 1 Oct 2024. So a landing could still be in CY2024 (CY is Calendar year and FY is US government Fiscal Year which is related to budget appropriations). But it starts to grow more unlikely. I think the Artemis III dates is about funding of SLS and Orion for the mission and not the HLS. But funding for HLS can also be a part of it.

Government out year funding for programs is always a huge ?

Delays and funding issues have a tendency to slow schedules down. Such that we will be lucky to have the landing sometime in CY2025.

[JohnFornaro]

Landing by 2024 will not happen.

If past is prologue, then probably not.

[JohnFornaro]

The result was a constant churn of unstable configurations, lots of pointless expensive labor and many opportunities to break a working tested system.

They didn't cannibalize broken parts.  They did cannibalize working parts.

[rmayerci]

...Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS...

Just a reminder to all that shuttle's first flight was manned.

With forty year old technology.

I don't follow the "forty year old technology" part - the shuttle was brand new when took its first flight.  Specifically what technology in the shuttle was already 40 years old at the time of STS-1?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

...Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS...

Just a reminder to all that shuttle's first flight was manned.

With forty year old technology.

I don't follow the "forty year old technology" part - the shuttle was brand new when took its first flight.  Specifically what technology in the shuttle was already 40 years old at the time of STS-1?

A BTW the HLS contract also has humans on the second Lunar SS to perform a landing on the Moon. So NASA is not as gung ho as it was but still willing to take risks.

The other note is that many of the developed just for Shuttle tech is still considered cutting edge. It also pioneered the redundant real time OS hardware/software that is now used in a lot of stuff. The principales used then are the same now just the hardware is faster and the software more complex but the reliability of the system like with the Shuttle is owed to the redundant architecture of the hardware and software.

[AC in NC]

...Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS...

Just a reminder to all that shuttle's first flight was manned.

With forty year old technology.

I don't follow the "forty year old technology" part - the shuttle was brand new when took its first flight.  Specifically what technology in the shuttle was already 40 years old at the time of STS-1?

Relax your literal instinct:

"Shuttle's first flight was manned [with forty year old technology without the advantage of 40 years of technology advancement]."

The former is the much easier read.

[Phil Stooke]

Or imagine this interpretation "with technology that is now 40 years old - so imagine how much better we can do today"

[rmayerci]

...Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS...

Just a reminder to all that shuttle's first flight was manned.

With forty year old technology.

I don't follow the "forty year old technology" part - the shuttle was brand new when took its first flight.  Specifically what technology in the shuttle was already 40 years old at the time of STS-1?

Relax your literal instinct:

"Shuttle's first flight was manned [with forty year old technology without the advantage of 40 years of technology advancement]."

The former is the much easier read.

Perhaps, but I stand by my statement that John's wording implied STS-1 used 40-year-old simply solid or liquid rockets, that seems like either bad/garbled wording or a real stretch.

[AC in NC]

Perhaps, but I stand by my statement that John's wording implied STS-1 used 40-year-old simply solid or liquid rockets, that seems like either bad/garbled wording or a real stretch.

Only to you.  Everyone else knows how to read a simple quip. 

It's tedious explaining this to you and no one wants to read it.  You've been registered here long enough to know that pedantic grammar parsing isn't interesting to anyone.

Let it go.

[Starlab90]

I have to admit, I originally read John Fornaro's post the same way rmayerci did, but having read John's posts for years, I didn't really think he meant it that way. Someone newer to the forums could be forgiven the misunderstanding.

But to address John's point, just because STS-1 had a crew on board doesn't necessarily mean other crewed spacecraft should have a crew on board for their first flight. To many within NASA who are really in the know, STS-1 is an object lesson that teaches we should always fly a new spacecraft without a crew if at all possible.

I was working at JSC at the time of STS-1, and at first it looked to all of us like a slam-dunk success. However, post-flight data review led to the discovery of the ignition overpressure and ascent aerodynamics issues that nearly caused loss of the vehicle, and probably the crew. So flying a crew on the first flight of a new spacecraft is not something we want to do, just because of all the unknowns associated with a new vehicle. Starliner could be considered a more recent case in point.

There is a presentation in these forums (link below) that discusses the STS-1 issues in a little more detail.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34135.0

BTW, you need L2 for the link to work.

[rmayerci]

Perhaps, but I stand by my statement that John's wording implied STS-1 used 40-year-old simply solid or liquid rockets, that seems like either bad/garbled wording or a real stretch.

Only to you.  Everyone else knows how to read a simple quip. 

It's tedious explaining this to you and no one wants to read it.  You've been registered here long enough to know that pedantic grammar parsing isn't interesting to anyone.

Let it go.

Judging by Starlabgo's post, I'm not the only one who parsed it the same way (even if only initially), but unlike him I haven't read as many of John's posts as you and he have and so didn't come to the same realization initially.  I'm sure we're not the only ones.
NI've got better things to do than prolong an argument with someone who apparently decided to cop an elitist attitude instead of being a bit more civil, so I'm going to go back to just lurking for a while.

[Welsh Dragon]

Perhaps, but I stand by my statement that John's wording implied STS-1 used 40-year-old simply solid or liquid rockets, that seems like either bad/garbled wording or a real stretch.

Only to you.  Everyone else knows how to read a simple quip. 

It's tedious explaining this to you and no one wants to read it.  You've been registered here long enough to know that pedantic grammar parsing isn't interesting to anyone.

Let it go.

That is the obvious reading of that comment and I don't know why you're suggesting it isn't, let alone why you're being so unpleasant  about it.

[Robert Thompson]

Moon landing by 2024 ?, yes could happen, maybe, however I see Boeing SLS = big time jobs program, Starship - terrible design for a lander, horizontal would be safer, or heck Starhopper would be a better design for a lander.

Would horizontal be better?  The structural rigidity needed for a horizontal lander would increase the weight, which directly affects payload capacity.  The added complexity would decrease cargo and living space.  You still need a crane, you still need ramps, you still need ladders.  You still need everything you need for a vertical lander, and it all comes with less space and more weight.  How is any of this "better"?

I've been looking for some type of resource that discusses the trade space between vertical axis and horizontal axis lunar landers. Would you feel strongly enough about your point here to start a thread in the lunar lander section? The HLS competition indicates that there is no consensus on best practice.

[JohnFornaro]

...Plus, the Artemis program requires flying humans on just the second flight of the SLS...

Just a reminder to all that shuttle's first flight was manned.

With forty year old technology.

I don't follow the "forty year old technology" part - the shuttle was brand new when took its first flight.  Specifically what technology in the shuttle was already 40 years old at the time of STS-1?

The brag today is how advanced our technology is these days.  It's so much better than the tech used 40 or 50 years ago.  It is interesting that with that technology from 40 years ago, they could make a manned first launch, but cannot do that today.

[electricdawn]

I think that we're a bit more safety conscious these days... And that's not a bad thing, IMHO. 

Manned spaceflight definitely should be more safe after all those years.

[JohnFornaro]

Dang!  just went back and read a few posts.  Thanks guys!  Sometimes the literati are too literati.

[spacenut]

Starship is to be the lunar lander.  If Starship gets orbital in a few months and is successful, SpaceX is in full speed ahead mode.  They will provide the lander by 2024.  Politics is everywhere today looking for things one way or the other.  This is the nature of things today.  Politics from one or two providers may try to hold up SpaceX, but there is not many in congress or the senate wanting to give NASA more money.  The lander doesn't have to be a small lander costing billions. 

[JohnFornaro]

Mod note:  I parsed out the *political* commentary of my previous post, and repost the part that had to do with mission failure only:

I have to admit, I originally read John Fornaro's post the same way rmayerci did, but having read John's posts for years, I didn't really think he meant it that way. Someone newer to the forums could be forgiven the misunderstanding.

Thanks for the kind words.

But to address John's point, just because STS-1 had a crew on board doesn't necessarily mean other crewed spacecraft should have a crew on board for their first flight. To many within NASA who are really in the know, STS-1 is an object lesson that teaches we should always fly a new spacecraft without a crew if at all possible.

I do not agree.  STS-51-L was the tenth flight of a fairly well designed platform, even if they lied about the two week turnaround...

It is more likely that groupthink was the underlying cause of the Challenger disaster:

I was working at JSC at the time of STS-1, and at first it looked to all of us like a slam-dunk success. However, post-flight data review led to the discovery of the ignition overpressure and ascent aerodynamics issues that nearly caused loss of the vehicle, and probably the crew. So ...

The launch was a success.  Perhaps, with the perspective you offer, not a "slam-dunk", but the post-flight data review had to [correct me if I'm wrong] have led to design changes which resulted in  eight more successful launches.  You are probably aware of the foam separation issues and O-ring issues which were noticed before Challenger, and seemingly not well addressed.  The seeds for failure, I hold, were grown in the bed of groupthink.

[Vahe231991]

If NASA decides to move the Artemis 2 mission forward to late 2022/early 2023, then the Artemis 3 mission could happen in late 2023. This is a possibility because the Apollo 7 and 8 missions (both of which were crewed) took place two months apart.

[joek]

If NASA decides to move the Artemis 2 mission forward to late 2022/early 2023, then the Artemis 3 mission could happen in late 2023. This is a possibility because the Apollo 7 and 8 missions (both of which were crewed) took place two months apart.

Crewed Artemis missions are gated by SLS-Orion cadence; what Apollo accomplished has little to do with it. If anything, Artemis crew missions are likely to shift right, and extremely unlikely we will see more than one ~1/yr for the foreseeable future.

[Proponent]

Crewed Artemis missions are gated by SLS-Orion cadence; what Apollo accomplished has little to do with it.

Especially since Apollos 7 and 8 took off from different pads on different launch vehicles.

[Vahe231991]

Crewed Artemis missions are gated by SLS-Orion cadence; what Apollo accomplished has little to do with it.

Especially since Apollos 7 and 8 took off from different pads on different launch vehicles.

That's right, I almost forgot that the Apollo 7 and Apollo 8 missions were launched with different launch vehicles. However, it is important to note that the Apollo 6 was launched the same year as Apollo 8, and like Apollo 8, was launched atop the Saturn V. Hence, as I was stressed before, there is some likelihood of the Artemis 2 mission being moved forward to late 2022/early 2023.

[tbellman]

That's right, I almost forgot that the Apollo 7 and Apollo 8 missions were launched with different launch vehicles. However, it is important to note that the Apollo 6 was launched the same year as Apollo 8, and like Apollo 8, was launched atop the Saturn V. Hence, as I was stressed before, there is some likelihood of the Artemis 2 mission being moved forward to late 2022/early 2023.

That likelihood depends on Lockheed Martin having built an extra Orion capsule in secret, on their own dime, and are planning to give that to NASA as a surprise birthday present or something.  Otherwise, they need to get the capsule from the Artemis 1 mission back first in order to scavenge it for parts for the Artemis 2 Orion, and that process puts Artemis 2 a minimum of 20 months after Artemis 1.  At least according to NASA themselves.

So to launch Artemis 2 on December 31st 2022 ("late 2022"), then they need to have launched Artemis 1 about two months ago.  If they launch Artemis 1 tomorrow, the earliest they can fly Artemis 2 is in March 2023.

[Overwatchfan123]

At this time, Artemis 1 is currently scheduled for November 2021, Artemis 2 is currently scheduled for September 2023, Artemis 3 is currently scheduled for October 2024, and Artemis 4 is currently scheduled for March 2026.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

With the increased support for full budgets for HLS and SLS/Orion in order to maintain Artemis mission schedules. The lack of funds side of "landing in 2024" risk looks to be lower. Now just need to get the various technical risks and supply chain risks of SLS/Orion reduced.

2024 remains on the table for now.

[Khadgars]

With the increased support for full budgets for HLS and SLS/Orion in order to maintain Artemis mission schedules. The lack of funds side of "landing in 2024" risk looks to be lower. Now just need to get the various technical risks and supply chain risks of SLS/Orion reduced.

2024 remains on the table for now.

Not sure how SLS/Orion is in the critical path for 2024.  Its the HLS technical risks that are imo.

[joek]

With the increased support for full budgets for HLS and SLS/Orion in order to maintain Artemis mission schedules. The lack of funds side of "landing in 2024" risk looks to be lower. Now just need to get the various technical risks and supply chain risks of SLS/Orion reduced.
...

Not seeing SLS/Orion contributing much risk. They have maintained funding in the past and are likely to do so for the near-medium future. HLS on the other hand...

Not sure how SLS/Orion is in the critical path for 2024.  Its the HLS technical risks that are imo.

Agree. Or at least everything other than SLS/Orion, to include gateway and HLS. As much as I have advocated against SLS/Orion, it is likely the lowest risk item on the list--at least in the short-medium term.[1] It has a straightforward job: deliver Orion to gateway.

That leaves us with the other components needed to put boots on the ground by 2024, which have both technical and funding risks: gateway and HLS. Of those, as you suggest, HLS appears to dominate.


[1] edit to clarify... longer term risk for SLS/Orion is sustainability due to cost. Think we've beat that horse enough, and not relevant to short-term (e.g., 2024) missions.

[Joseph Peterson]

Not sure how SLS/Orion is in the critical path for 2024.  Its the HLS technical risks that are imo.

The first operational SLS launch, Artemis 3, isn't scheduled to launch until October, 2024.  SLS has yet to have a single test launch.  With so little margin and an unproven rocket it is hard to imagine how SLS isn't in the critical path.

The same can be said about Orion and HLS but there are other sections for discussing those.  Since we're in the SLS section we should be focused on discussing SLS here.

[Overwatchfan123]

September 2024, according to Wikipedia.

[Coopman0]

I feel like we might get a clearer picture on any potential timeline after Artemis I has flown.

[spacexplorer]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

[Alvian@IDN]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

Real concern from IG report because of SLS-like traditional contracting with many companies involved. Hopefully xEVA which uses the new contracting like the one used in CRS, ComCrew, and HLS will fixed that

[Coastal Ron]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

Real concern from IG report because of SLS-like traditional contracting with many companies involved. Hopefully xEVA which uses the new contracting like the one used in CRS, ComCrew, and HLS will fixed that

This is just one more example of why the 2024 date was ALWAYS political, and never a real likelihood.

And not to say that it couldn't have happened if it truly a "National Imperative", just that while it was a political WISH by the Trump Administration, there was never any buy-in from all other stakeholders. Which included Congress, which had to fund the goal.

But when the 2024 date was announced, our aerospace industry was not involved. Not like they were in 60's with the Apollo program. And with such a short amount of time to develop all of the Moon related hardware (like spacesuits), the U.S. aerospace industry needed to be fully engaged.

So don't look at this as a failure by NASA, because NASA didn't come up with the 2024 date. This continues to be a failure of the politicians in the Trump Administration that came up with the 2024 date, and then never provided the needed support to make it happen.

Don't blame the child for the sins of the parent.

[yg1968]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

It's real but the IG doesn't set the timeline, they just point out risks of not meeting the deadline. As as of now, the timeline is still 2024. However, it is expected to change to 2025 but NASA has yet to officially announce that.

[yg1968]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

Real concern from IG report because of SLS-like traditional contracting with many companies involved. Hopefully xEVA which uses the new contracting like the one used in CRS, ComCrew, and HLS will fixed that

This is just one more example of why the 2024 date was ALWAYS political, and never a real likelihood.

And not to say that it couldn't have happened if it truly a "National Imperative", just that while it was a political WISH by the Trump Administration, there was never any buy-in from all other stakeholders. Which included Congress, which had to fund the goal.

But when the 2024 date was announced, our aerospace industry was not involved. Not like they were in 60's with the Apollo program. And with such a short amount of time to develop all of the Moon related hardware (like spacesuits), the U.S. aerospace industry needed to be fully engaged.

So don't look at this as a failure by NASA, because NASA didn't come up with the 2024 date. This continues to be a failure of the politicians in the Trump Administration that came up with the 2024 date, and then never provided the needed support to make it happen.

Don't blame the child for the sins of the parent.

The goal was 2028 before it was moved to 2024. It's likely to move to 2025 but not back to 2028. But I disagree that moving the goal to 2024 was a mistake. One of the reasons that Starship won was because NASA felt that SpaceX could realistically land in 2024. In terms of 2024 being a political goal, yes but so what. Commercial crew and SLS had a goal of 2017 and those were also political goals. In order to achieve anything, you need to set goals and 2024 is as good as any. Besides, we'll see what happens but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial companies could have spacesuits ready for 2024 (especially if SpaceX wins a contract for this services contract). Incidentally, the IG doesn't set the deadlines, NASA does and for now the goal for Artemis III is still 2024. As Lueders explained almost a year ago, 2024 is a goal, not an absolute deadline. If it needs to be pushed for safety or other reasons, NASA will push the deadline.

[spacenut]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

Real concern from IG report because of SLS-like traditional contracting with many companies involved. Hopefully xEVA which uses the new contracting like the one used in CRS, ComCrew, and HLS will fixed that

This is just one more example of why the 2024 date was ALWAYS political, and never a real likelihood.

And not to say that it couldn't have happened if it truly a "National Imperative", just that while it was a political WISH by the Trump Administration, there was never any buy-in from all other stakeholders. Which included Congress, which had to fund the goal.

But when the 2024 date was announced, our aerospace industry was not involved. Not like they were in 60's with the Apollo program. And with such a short amount of time to develop all of the Moon related hardware (like spacesuits), the U.S. aerospace industry needed to be fully engaged.

So don't look at this as a failure by NASA, because NASA didn't come up with the 2024 date. This continues to be a failure of the politicians in the Trump Administration that came up with the 2024 date, and then never provided the needed support to make it happen.

Don't blame the child for the sins of the parent.

No mater what any administration wants, CONGRESS still has to appropriate the money.  The Trump administration did get people in NASA focused returning to the moon.  Trump did ask if it was possible to go to Mars by 2024 and everyone said no, so he pushed the return to the moon date.  Not reported in main stream media.  I know he knew about SpaceX plans to orbit the moon with the Dear Moon project.  Always having a goal or objective to meet is better than not knowing what you are going to do, as it seems NASA didn't know what they were going to do with moon, Mars, and going to a nearby asteroid, flip flopping between them.  Also, Mars was always at least 20 years out with NASA. 

[Coastal Ron]

[This is just one more example of why the 2024 date was ALWAYS political, and never a real likelihood.

And not to say that it couldn't have happened if it truly a "National Imperative", just that while it was a political WISH by the Trump Administration, there was never any buy-in from all other stakeholders. Which included Congress, which had to fund the goal.

But when the 2024 date was announced, our aerospace industry was not involved. Not like they were in 60's with the Apollo program. And with such a short amount of time to develop all of the Moon related hardware (like spacesuits), the U.S. aerospace industry needed to be fully engaged.

So don't look at this as a failure by NASA, because NASA didn't come up with the 2024 date. This continues to be a failure of the politicians in the Trump Administration that came up with the 2024 date, and then never provided the needed support to make it happen.

Don't blame the child for the sins of the parent.

The goal was 2028 before it was moved to 2024.

Here is the problem. People think that just because someone, somewhere, in the U.S. Government says that maybe we should do something, that it is THE GOAL!

When a few in Congress were talking about a potential 2028 landing date, that was NOT OFFICIAL. NASA hadn't done an assessment to see what was needed to make the 2028 date, the Obama Administration wasn't supporting it, and Congress had not allocated funds for such a goal.

So there NEVER was an official 2028 goal.

As for the 2024 "goal", that was created by the Trump Administration without a full assessment from NASA to back it up. And Congress NEVER bought into the 2024 date either. So in reality, the 2024 date has been a planning date, but otherwise nothing bad happens if Americans are not back on the Moon by that year.

But I disagree that moving the goal to 2024 was a mistake. One of the reasons that Starship won was because NASA felt that SpaceX could realistically land in 2024.

Don't make things up. Read the HLS Source Selection document and you'll see that making the 2024 date was NEVER a consideration - for any of the competitors.

In terms of 2024 being a political goal, yes but so what.

You do realize how much taxpayer money is being spent on this "political" goal? And for what reason? Does it bolster international relations, like Apollo and ISS did? Does it provide a multi-purpose transportation system like the Shuttle did? How are American lives changed by this?

Commercial crew and SLS had a goal of 2017 and those were also political goals.

Oh please. Commercial Crew is a transportation system that allows America to have an independent way to transport crew to/from the ISS. The need is clear.

The SLS had no clear need when it was created, and no clear need without the Artemis program. And we all know the SLS was created by politics, not because NASA said they needed an SHLV (they did not).

In order to achieve anything, you need to set goals and 2024 is as good as any.

As a professional scheduler I can tell you that setting unrealistic goals on large programs leads to waste. Are you OK with taxpayer money being wasted? I'm not. Clearly defined goals are a must, of course, but they MUST BE realistic.

Besides, we'll see what happens but I wouldn't be surprised if commercial companies could have spacesuits ready for 2024...

You can believe whatever you want, but this contract is just one of many that are key to successful Artemis missions. And all you are seeing is the current long pole in the tent schedule-wise, but not the other long poles that NASA isn't talking about.

And that is because there is no one truly driving the 2024 date, or any other date. No one in charge of getting Americans back onto the surface of the Moon. Why? Because it isn't important, so no one is responsible. And when no one is responsible, dates are OK to miss. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just telling you the truth here... 

[spacexplorer]

Kind reminder for people still believing in Santa Klaus: going to the Moon has ALWAYS been a political goal, even before going there and finding that there isn't anything commercially useful up there.
Yes, two things drive moon-related activities: economy and politics.

[DreamyPickle]

The 2024 goal definitely moved things in the right direction and the fact that it will probably slip doesn't change that. The fact that the Artemis Program and a goal of landing on the Moon survived a presidential transition is remarkable by itself: Constellation and Asteroid redirect did not. The fact that the goal was close in time helped with that.

If the goal slips an year because of space suits that still fine and it still means that a landing will happen far sooner than 2028.

[spacexplorer]

If the goal slips an year because of space suits that still fine and it still means that a landing will happen far sooner than 2028.

We are not in '60s, there is no more infnite budget to build inter-continental ballistic missiles go to the Moon; in 1961 Kennedy announced ability to nuke Russia from 20.000km distance Moon landing by 1970, in 2019 Moon landing has been announced to happen by 2024.
In both cases project started from scratch.
Then Covid happened.
And '20s safety restrictions are way higher than '60s.

I will be glad if it will happen, but it will not happen: nobody will ever authorize to launch astronauts with 30% of chance to get them back safely.

[wannamoonbase]

The 2024 goal definitely moved things in the right direction and the fact that it will probably slip doesn't change that. The fact that the Artemis Program and a goal of landing on the Moon survived a presidential transition is remarkable by itself: Constellation and Asteroid redirect did not. The fact that the goal was close in time helped with that.

If the goal slips an year because of space suits that still fine and it still means that a landing will happen far sooner than 2028.

I like the 2024 goal, if it slips 1-2 years I won't be that upset.  At least it's movement in the right direction.  It's taking too long and costing too much but they are building up the pieces needed with Orion, SLS, Gateway (questionable need), suits and the big high risk piece, HLS.

Once all the pieces exist then repeated flights can begin and improvements can be made over time and surface elements can be designed and built.

Yes going to the moon is political and it is again with others showing interest in going.

Making it as affordable as possible is critical to an extended program.

[yg1968]

But I disagree that moving the goal to 2024 was a mistake. One of the reasons that Starship won was because NASA felt that SpaceX could realistically land in 2024.

Don't make things up. Read the HLS Source Selection document and you'll see that making the 2024 date was NEVER a consideration - for any of the competitors.

2024 is mentioned several times in the BAA. It is even desribed as the primary objective of the BAA (see the quote below). Offerors had to propose milestones that would result in a crewed demo mission in 2024. 2024 is also the reason that only one provider was selected. If the goal was whenever, there likely would have been two providers. So yes, 2024 was one of the reason that SpaceX was chosen because they were more likely to succeed in landing crew on the Moon in 2024 for various reasons.

The primary objective of this Appendix is to enable rapid HLS development and 2024 HLS flight demonstrations.

NASA hadn't done an assessment to see what was needed to make the 2028 date, the Obama Administration wasn't supporting it, and Congress had not allocated funds for such a goal.

The Obama Administration had nothing to do with the 2028 date. The return to the Moon was announced by VP Pence on October 5th 2017, at the first meeting of the National Space Council. At the time NASA anticipated returning to the Moon in 2028 because of various delays, Pence changed that to 2024 on March 26th 2019 (at the fifth meeting of the National Space Council).

[...] it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the Moon within the next five years. [...]

You know, after years of cost overruns and slipped deadlines, we're actually being told that the earliest we can get back to the moon is 2028.  Now, that would be 18 years after the SLS program was started and 11 years after the President of the United States directed NASA to return American astronauts to the Moon.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's just not good enough. [...]

As you will hear, in these recommendations, we will call on NASA not just to adopt new policies but to embrace a new mindset.  That begins with setting bold goals and staying on schedule.  To reach the Moon in the next five years, we must select our destinations now. [...]

And today, the National Space Council will recommend that when the first American astronauts return to the lunar surface, that they will take their first steps on the Moon's South Pole.  (Applause.)

But in order to accomplish this, NASA must transform itself into a leaner, more accountable, and more agile organization.  If NASA is not currently capable of landing American astronauts on the Moon in five years, we need to change the organization, not the mission.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-fifth-meeting-national-space-council-huntsville-al/

Transcript of VP Pence's remarks at the first meeting of the National Space Council on October 5th 2017:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice-president-meeting-the-national-space-council-chantilly-virginia

[Overwatchfan123]

The Obama administration cancelled the Constellation program and this paved the way for SLS.

[yg1968]

Is this real news or fake news?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618275/nasa-spacesuits-delay-inspector-general-report-2024-artemis

No more Moon landing in 2024 because NASA forgot how to build spacesuites?!?

Real concern from IG report because of SLS-like traditional contracting with many companies involved. Hopefully xEVA which uses the new contracting like the one used in CRS, ComCrew, and HLS will fixed that

This is just one more example of why the 2024 date was ALWAYS political, and never a real likelihood.

And not to say that it couldn't have happened if it truly a "National Imperative", just that while it was a political WISH by the Trump Administration, there was never any buy-in from all other stakeholders. Which included Congress, which had to fund the goal.

But when the 2024 date was announced, our aerospace industry was not involved. Not like they were in 60's with the Apollo program. And with such a short amount of time to develop all of the Moon related hardware (like spacesuits), the U.S. aerospace industry needed to be fully engaged.

So don't look at this as a failure by NASA, because NASA didn't come up with the 2024 date. This continues to be a failure of the politicians in the Trump Administration that came up with the 2024 date, and then never provided the needed support to make it happen.

Don't blame the child for the sins of the parent.

No mater what any administration wants, CONGRESS still has to appropriate the money.  The Trump administration did get people in NASA focused returning to the moon.  Trump did ask if it was possible to go to Mars by 2024 and everyone said no, so he pushed the return to the moon date.  Not reported in main stream media.  I know he knew about SpaceX plans to orbit the moon with the Dear Moon project.  Always having a goal or objective to meet is better than not knowing what you are going to do, as it seems NASA didn't know what they were going to do with moon, Mars, and going to a nearby asteroid, flip flopping between them.  Also, Mars was always at least 20 years out with NASA.

That makes a lot of sense but, out of curiosity, do you have any articles that discusses this in more detail?

I think that you are right because Trump seemed to prefer Mars but he must have realized that Mars wasn't going to happen before 2024, so the Moon was a necessary first step.

[rakaydos]

The Obama administration cancelled the Constellation program and this paved the way for SLS.

That's like saying throwing away an iphone 5 "cleared the way" for an iphone 6.

[Eric Hedman]

The Obama administration cancelled the Constellation program and this paved the way for SLS.

Replaced one poorly designed program with one that was almost as bad.

An architecture with smaller rockets, depots and refueling would have been better.

[Proponent]

The Obama administration cancelled the Constellation program and this paved the way for SLS.

The Obama administration proposed cancelling Constellation.  By drafting and overwhelmingly* approving the 2010 authorization act, Congress signalled strong approval of that decision and also created SLS, which the Obama administration eventually abided.


* The Senate wrote the act and approved it on a voice vote.  The House then took the unusual step of "suspending the rules" and adopting the Senate's bill, a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority.  Voting in favor where a number of representatives who later repeatedly and harshly criticized Obama for Constellation's cancellation.

[Overwatchfan123]

So who designed the SLS?

[Overwatchfan123]

By the way, I've got further doubts that NASA will reach their 2024 deadline.

Here's proof: https://www.independent.co.uk/space/nasa-artemis-moon-lunar-suits-b1900320.html

[Proponent]

So who designed the SLS?

Well, its chief designer would appear to be then Senator Clarence William Nelson II with assistance from then Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

In practice, I presume some actual engineers participated anonymously, likely with involvement of Senate staffer Jeff Bingham, who used to post extensively in this forum.  IIRC, it's been suggested here that Mike Griffin contributed.

If anybody has any concrete data on just how SLS's specs made it into S. 3729 in 2010 (the NASA authorization), I would be very interested.

[Proponent]

Replaced one poorly designed program with one that was almost as bad.

An architecture with smaller rockets, depots and refueling would have been better.

I agree with that statement but would take it a step further.  Rather than specifying the hardware to build -- which is the engineers' job -- Congress should set top-level goals, like going to the moon or to Mars.  What has happened with SLS is precisely the opposite:  Congress specified the hardware but was vague about what to with it.

Imagine that Congress had chosen hardware for NASA in the summer of 1961, when the man-moon-decade goal was set.  It very likely would have selected either the direct or the Earth-orbit rendezvous architecture, as support for lunar-orbit rendezvous was very much on the fringes.  Apollo might eventually have put a man on the moon, but it would have done so later at substantially greater cost and higher risk.

[dolphin5588]

I am not convinced that 2024 isn't possible. In its HLS contract, SpaceX has commited to the 2024 date. Musk even said that SpaceX expects to be ready before that (presumably 2023).

If Starship can get to orbit this year, I would expect 2024 to be a possibility.

Getting to orbit is one thing but human rated landing is another. 2024 seems a stretch, even controlling for the oft-discussed impediments to the original timeline (spacesuits, Bezos, etc). Assume orbital flight happen without a hitch in 2021; we’d need what, 3-4 perfect Starship landings in 2022-2023.

[Overwatchfan123]

What does SH mean?

[rakaydos]

What does SH mean?

It's a rocket twice a powerful as SLS, and almost as ready to fly.

[Overwatchfan123]

What is the SH rocket?

[jdon759]

What is the SH rocket?

Spacex Starship (First stage - Super Heavy)

[laszlo]

I am not convinced that 2024 isn't possible. In its HLS contract, SpaceX has commited to the 2024 date. Musk even said that SpaceX expects to be ready before that (presumably 2023).

If Starship can get to orbit this year, I would expect 2024 to be a possibility.

Getting to orbit is one thing but human rated landing is another. 2024 seems a stretch, even controlling for the oft-discussed impediments to the original timeline (spacesuits, Bezos, etc). Assume orbital flight happen without a hitch in 2021; we’d need what, 3-4 perfect SH landings in 2022-2023.

Expendable SH can lift Starship to orbit just as well as reusable SH. It would trade engines for return and landing complexity. Of course, then Raptor production becomes the long pole in the tent, but that's scaling up an established process. That's the kind of situation where throwing money and people at it works. It also allows the use of Raptors that aren't certified for multiple reflights, potentially relaxing some manufacturing/testing constraints and helping speed up production. It also replaces booster R&D with production and eliminates some regulatory hurdles (a flight to test landing that doesn't happen is one that doesn't need FAA approval).

Obviously this doesn't directly advance a reusable system for traveling to Mars. But it could help with NASA's lunar landing date which is the topic of this thread.

[spacenut]

I don't think they will have that much trouble landing the SH booster.  They already know how to land a booster from F9.  The only long pole I see is catching the booster at the launch mount.  If they have trouble doing this, Musk said they may have to start by adding legs to the booster. 

It also doesn't make much sense to make a 27-33 engine booster expendable.  Reusing the booster makes more sense than reusing the Starship.  They can strip a Starship of heat tiles, fins and legs and get more payload to orbit and only loose 6 engines vs around 30.  Engines are the most expensive and complex part of this system. 

[laszlo]

I don't think they will have that much trouble landing the SH booster.  They already know how to land a booster from F9.  The only long pole I see is catching the booster at the launch mount.  If they have trouble doing this, Musk said they may have to start by adding legs to the booster. 

It also doesn't make much sense to make a 27-33 engine booster expendable.  Reusing the booster makes more sense than reusing the Starship.  They can strip a Starship of heat tiles, fins and legs and get more payload to orbit and only loose 6 engines vs around 30.  Engines are the most expensive and complex part of this system.

Yeah, I never said that it was a good idea, just a possibility in the event of a schedule crunch. Probably a lot more reasonable to just slip the schedule.

[dolphin5588]

What does SH mean?

I meant Starship

[Khadgars]

What does SH mean?

It's a rocket twice a powerful as SLS, and almost as ready to fly.

Not sure where you get twice as powerful.  At the very most SS/SH gets 150 tons to earth orbit (which likely won't be achieved initially) while SLS Block II is 130 tons.  Even SLS Block I is likely to be over 90 tons to earth orbit.

[StarshipTrooper]

Not sure where you get twice as powerful.  At the very most SS/SH gets 150 tons to earth orbit (which likely won't be achieved initially) while SLS Block II is 130 tons.  Even SLS Block I is likely to be over 90 tons to earth orbit.

A rocket's power is often determined by the thrust of its first stage. The SLS will have about 8.4 million pounds of thrust. The SuperHeavy with 29 Raptor engines will have about 13.4 million pounds of thrust. The later variant Elon mentioned with 32 Raptor 2 engines would probably have about 16.1 million pounds of thrust.

(Fixed typo)

[Coastal Ron]

Not sure where you get twice as powerful.  At the very most SS/SH gets 150 tons to earth orbit (which likely won't be achieved initially) while SLS Block II is 130 tons.  Even SLS Block I is likely to be over 90 tons to earth orbit.

A rocket's power is often determined by the thrust of it's first stage. The SLS will have about 8.4 million pounds of thrust. The SuperHeavy with 29 Raptor engines will have about 13.4 million pounds of thrust. The later variant Elon mentioned with 32 Raptor 2 engines would probably have about 16.1 million pounds of thrust.

Good point, and the difference between "power" and "payload mass delivered" is likely because the Starship and Booster are reusable, and the SLS is completely expendable.

[DanClemmensen]

What does SH mean?

It's a rocket twice a powerful as SLS, and almost as ready to fly.

Not sure where you get twice as powerful.  At the very most SS/SH gets 150 tons to earth orbit (which likely won't be achieved initially) while SLS Block II is 130 tons.  Even SLS Block I is likely to be over 90 tons to earth orbit.

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. SLS only gets "90 tons to orbit" if you count ICPS as part of the payload. The initial Starship gets more than 100 tons to orbit if you do not count the Starship spacecraft as part of the payload and if both SH and Starship are to be recovered. If the spacecraft is the Starship HLS, then I think it's dry mass should be counted as part of the payload, just as the Orion spacecraft and ICPS are counted as SLS payload.  SLS block 2 will launch in 2029. We have no idea what 2029-model Starship performance will look like. Also at this point it's not clear that SLS (Artemis 1) will launch before Starship SN20/BN4. Both will probably launch some time after December 2021 and before April 2022, but when, exactly?

[Steven Pietrobon]

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. SLS only gets "90 tons to orbit" if you count ICPS as part of the payload.

That's not what my simulations show. I was able to get 89.0 t to a 200 km 28.45° orbit for SLS Block 1. This payload does not include the iCPS.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/

[MATTBLAK]

It beats me why they weren't building - from Day One - a version of SLS with 5x RS-25 engines on the Corestage and an Upper Stage powered by either 4x MB-60 engines or the J-2X!!

[rakaydos]

It beats me why they weren't building - from Day One - a version of SLS with 5x RS-25 engines on the Corestage and an Upper Stage powered by either 4x MB-60 engines or the J-2X!!

I'm guessint that they figured they couldnt get the new RS25 factory up and running before they ran out of old shuttle engines, if they used them 5 a year instead of 4 a year.

[Khadgars]

It beats me why they weren't building - from Day One - a version of SLS with 5x RS-25 engines on the Corestage and an Upper Stage powered by either 4x MB-60 engines or the J-2X!!

I'm guessint that they figured they couldnt get the new RS25 factory up and running before they ran out of old shuttle engines, if they used them 5 a year instead of 4 a year.

I doubt that has anything to do with it.  The architecture never required anything beyond SLS Block II with 46 tons to TLI or 130 tons to LEO.

For reference: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/sls_lift_capabilities_configurations_04292020_woleo.pdf

[DanClemmensen]

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. SLS only gets "90 tons to orbit" if you count ICPS as part of the payload.

That's not what my simulations show. I was able to get 89.0 t to a 200 km 28.45° orbit for SLS Block 1. This payload does not include the iCPS.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/

Thanks for the info. I was going from a reference somewhere on Wikipedia, and I am not a rocketry professional. I'll try to find and repair the Wikipedia article using a better reference. NASA
  https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/to-the-moon.html
claims 95 tonnes, but I think that's for the Artemis 1 mission "orbit" where the booster intersects the Earth in the way back from launching the ICPS.

My larger point still stands: The Starship HLS dry mass should count towards the payload.

[DanClemmensen]

I don't think they will have that much trouble landing the SH booster.  They already know how to land a booster from F9.  The only long pole I see is catching the booster at the launch mount.  If they have trouble doing this, Musk said they may have to start by adding legs to the booster. 

It also doesn't make much sense to make a 27-33 engine booster expendable.  Reusing the booster makes more sense than reusing the Starship.  They can strip a Starship of heat tiles, fins and legs and get more payload to orbit and only loose 6 engines vs around 30.  Engines are the most expensive and complex part of this system.

You should count expended cost, not number of engines. The marginal cost of a Raptor is already below $1.5 million and dropping fast as production ramps up. Expending $40 million in engines is 10% of the $400 million cost of the four RS-25s on an SLS core. The rest of the SH also looks to be fairly inexpensive (welded from standardized parts) compared to existing boosters.

[DanClemmensen]

What does SH mean?

It's a rocket twice a powerful as SLS, and almost as ready to fly.

Not sure where you get twice as powerful.  At the very most SS/SH gets 150 tons to earth orbit (which likely won't be achieved initially) while SLS Block II is 130 tons.  Even SLS Block I is likely to be over 90 tons to earth orbit.

NASA and the contractors have been touting SLS as "the most powerful rocket EVER" for years, because its thrust at liftoff would be a bit higher than the Saturn V. They chose this metric instead of mass to LEO, probably because the mass to LEO for SLS Block 1 is lower than that of the Saturn V. Since NASA picked this metric, they will be judged by it. By contrast, The first Starship will probably have about half again as much "power" and if expended will likely have more mass to LEO as the Saturn V, and Starship is likely to be improved much more quickly than SLS. But we don't rally know yet.

[jadebenn]

Please try and address multiple posts in one, DanClemmensen. Triple-posting is bad form.

[Steven Pietrobon]

It beats me why they weren't building - from Day One - a version of SLS with 5x RS-25 engines on the Corestage and an Upper Stage powered by either 4x MB-60 engines or the J-2X!!

That would have made too much sense! Plus, Congress should have never specified the 70 t to LEO version of SLS.

[Proponent]

Congress never should have specified rocket specs at all.

It hardly matters, though, since the 70-ton(ne) requirement (not to mention the absurd 2016 IOC date) has been ignored anyway, and Congress isn't complaining about it.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Congress never should have specified rocket specs at all.

I agree, but since NASA was only planning to "study" future heavy lift vehicles for the next five or so years, Congress decided to take the lead and tell NASA specifically what they wanted. Below is what NASA wanted to replace Constellation with. Basically, five years of research with nothing operational at the end of it.

[VSECOTSPE]

I agree, but since NASA was only planning to "study" future heavy lift vehicles for the next five or so years,

“Study” is a very inaccurate word for multiple, major technology development and flight demonstration projects.  And one summary slide does not do justice to the modern hydrocarbon engine, cryogenic propellant storage and transfer, high-power electric propulsion, etc. details of those projects.  Most of which NASA still needs and has had to pursue through other means, anyway.

Congress decided to take the lead and tell NASA specifically what they wanted. Below is what NASA wanted to replace Constellation with. Basically, five years of research with nothing operational at the end of it.

That proposal has to be put in the context of the imploding CX program and Augustine II report that immediately preceded it.  By that experience and those recommendations, NASA did not have the elements necessary to build a reasonably effective and affordable LV (heavy or otherwise).  The poor LOC requirement, ridiculously low flight rate, extremely high cost, and extended timeline of SLS have proven that assessment correct.  We can argue about the details — maybe these technology programs should have been a three-year effort, not five.  And nothing is perfect — almost any option would have been blown away by what SX has done over the past decade.  But Artemis would be on much stronger footing and likely farther along had NASA been funded to do what it was recommending after CX and Augustine II, not forced to spend tens of billions of dollars  and more than a decade resuscitating STS-era elements and reconfiguring them into an HLV that may barely launch once a year at a multi-billion dollar cost.

And we should be clear-eyed about what underlying congressional intent here.  It wasn’t about technology demonstration versus LV development.  It was about jobs.  Had the Administration had a clear, responsive plan for the CX workforce, Congress wouldn’t have made the effort.  That was the real failing in this proposal, not that it didn’t define a 70-ton (or whatever) LV by 20XX.

[Overwatchfan123]

What's the CX program?

[Zed_Noir]

What's the CX program?

Constellation program that ran at NASA from 2005 to 2010.

[Coastal Ron]

Congress never should have specified rocket specs at all.

I agree, but since NASA was only planning to "study" future heavy lift vehicles for the next five or so years...

Hold on, let's remember who is responsible for what here.

NASA does NOT create the NASA Budget Request, the President does through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA contributes of course, but the Budget Request reflects the goals of the President.

NASA is also NOT in charge of what they do, the NASA Administrator works for the President, and could take direction from other people in government depending on how the President wants NASA to be directed. During the Trump Administration NASA was part of the National Space Council (NSC), and took direction from Vice President Pence.

So the FY2011 Budget Estimates that you cite are actually what the President's goal for NASA were. And yes, President Obama at that time was proposing that NASA do "Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D" after the Ares I/V program was wound down, since at that time there was no projected need for a heavy-lift rocket. The return-to-Moon Constellation program was being cancelled, so why would NASA need a heavy-lift rocket?

Congress decided to take the lead and tell NASA specifically what they wanted.

Let's agree that Congress, as a whole, can have different motivations than whoever the President is at that moment, and as it turns out just a handful of people in Congress (all Senators) were the ones that decided that they wanted a heavy-lift rocket program to continue. And we all know that POLITICS was involved, so lets not pretend that Congress was acting on a request from NASA (which there wasn't), or some known need for a heavy-lift capability in the near term (which there wasn't). Boeing, ATK, AJR and other companies were set to lose BIG contracts, and the handful of Senators was listening.

The proof of this is in the fact that it took 7 years before the SLS program actually had a level of demand beyond one or two flights (i.e. the Artemis program), which is HIGHLY unusual for any transportation program to not know what they are needed for in the first 7 years of existence.

Below is what NASA wanted to replace Constellation with. Basically, five years of research with nothing operational at the end of it.

I remember that period of time fondly, and the speculation at the time was that the "Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D" line item was an effort to wean NASA contractors off the Ares I/V money. In other words, President Obama was playing politics - like EVERYONE in Congress - and essentially throwing a bone to some of the NASA contractors that were going to losing long-term contracts on the Constellation program. But otherwise Obama (and NASA too) did not see a need for a heavy-lift rocket.

So if anything the political bone that Obama was offering was judged too little, and the small handful of Senators decided to sweeten the pot by a LOT by creating the SLS (and the Orion MPCV too).

That is how politics is played, and creating the SLS was a purely political decision.

So complaining that Obama's pork offering was too small is kind of hypocritical when considering that the SLS pork offering was so much larger, right? 

[yg1968]

Congress never should have specified rocket specs at all.

I agree, but since NASA was only planning to "study" future heavy lift vehicles for the next five or so years...

I remember that period of time fondly, and the speculation at the time was that the "Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D" line item was an effort to wean NASA contractors off the Ares I/V money. In other words, President Obama was playing politics - like EVERYONE in Congress - and essentially throwing a bone to some of the NASA contractors that were going to losing long-term contracts on the Constellation program. But otherwise Obama (and NASA too) did not see a need for a heavy-lift rocket.

So if anything the political bone that Obama was offering was judged too little, and the small handful of Senators decided to sweeten the pot by a LOT by creating the SLS (and the Orion MPCV too).

That is how politics is played, and creating the SLS was a purely political decision.

So complaining that Obama's pork offering was too small is kind of hypocritical when considering that the SLS pork offering was so much larger, right? 

His point is still valid. The 5 year HLV R&D plan wasn't very good. By punting on HLV, the Obama Administration left a void that Congress was more than happy to fill. Instead of their R&D plan, the Obama Administration should have chosen one of Augustine options such as the commercial HLV option.

[VSECOTSPE]

The 5 year HLV R&D plan wasn't very good. By punting on HLV, the Obama Administration left a void that Congress was more than happy to fill.

The technology plan was about a lot more than HLV, and it was a good plan given where NASA was starting from post-Cx, given the in-space capabilities that were needed for any human Mars or substantive human lunar program, and given that SX had not started its meteoric rise.

Where the Obama Administration screwed up is that they didn’t have a plan for the Cx workforce and repeatedly failed to produce one when asked by Congress.  That’s why Congress stepped in to preserve Orion (not just an HLV) and reanimate Ares as SLS.  It wasn’t because the Obama White House or NASA didn’t back an HLV.  It was because the Obama White House and NASA didn’t have a plan for the Cx workforce.

And it’s a shameful waste.  There’s a lot more useful things that talent could have been doing this past decade.  And that to-do list is not limited to the Obama-era technology plan.  See the recent NRC report on nuclear fission and nuclear thermal propulsion.  To paraphrase one of the study leads, first-of new capabilities like that are exactly what NASA and its traditional contractors were built to do, not competing very poorly with the private sector in launch and capsules.

Instead of their R&D plan, the Obama Administration should have chosen one of Augustine options such as the commercial HLV option.

It wouldn’t have made a difference without a workforce plan.  That what Congress cares about.  Although Bolden was the wrong change agent for the time (arguably why Congress pushed him on the White House) and Garver didn’t pay attention to the all-important workforce issue either, I’m not sure any NASA Administrator or leadership team has ever been a good manager of the NASA workforce.  This is a perennial weakness at NASA.

[yg1968]

The 5 year HLV R&D plan wasn't very good. By punting on HLV, the Obama Administration left a void that Congress was more than happy to fill.

The technology plan was about a lot more than HLV, and it was a good plan given where NASA was starting from post-Cx, given the in-space capabilities that were needed for any human Mars or substantive human lunar program, and given that SX had not started its meteoric rise.

Augustine had recommended spending on R&D for space technology (and I agreed with that part). However, Augustine didn't recommend spending R&D on the HLV and then decide 5 years later what to do about the HLV. The Augustine Committee had various options for the HLV: Ares V, Ares V lite and commercial HLV.

[VSECOTSPE]

However, Augustine didn't recommend spending R&D on the HLV and then decide 5 years later what to do about the HLV. The Augustine Committee had various options for the HLV: Ares V, Ares V lite and commercial HLV.

Augustine’s HLVs assumed destinations that the Administration didn’t buy into.  Augustine’s HLVs assumed budgets that were not in the cards.  In the absence of a program requiring an HLV and in the absence of a budget to support its development, the best that can be done is put in place the technologies so that the cupboard’s not bare when a future HLV decision is needed.

What you’re really criticizing the Obama Administration for is not maintaining a lunar or human space exploration goal.  A near-term HLV development would have flowed from that.  But they didn’t and in that context, pushing out HLV development decisions makes sense.

What we got from Congress (and what the Obama Administration surrendered to) was the worst of all worlds — a near-term HLV development in the absence of an exploration program, adequate budget, and technology portfolio.  (And an oversized capsule to boot.)

[Coastal Ron]

The 5 year HLV R&D plan wasn't very good. By punting on HLV, the Obama Administration left a void that Congress was more than happy to fill.

The technology plan was about a lot more than HLV, and it was a good plan given where NASA was starting from post-Cx, given the in-space capabilities that were needed for any human Mars or substantive human lunar program, and given that SX had not started its meteoric rise.

Augustine had recommended spending on R&D for space technology (and I agreed with that part). However, Augustine didn't recommend spending R&D on the HLV and then decide 5 years later what to do about the HLV. The Augustine Committee had various options for the HLV: Ares V, Ares V lite and commercial HLV.

The Augustine Commissions official name was "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee", and "The Committee’s task was to review the U.S. plans for human spaceflight."

They were not concerned about budget or politics, their reason to exist was to provide a review of where the U.S. Government was at that moment in time, and to provide information to the President for them to use or ignore.

And at that moment in history the first two sentences of their summary report were:

The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources.

That of course was a critique of the Constellation program, which the Augustine Commission thought could not return to the Moon until the 2030's. Of course that was because of the need to build the Ares V, which was significantly larger than the SLS.

People can read whatever they want into the multiple scenarios that the Augustine Commission presented, but it is up to the President to take into account a multitude of factors in deciding what they want path they want to put America on. Congress takes into account a multitude of factors too, so it would be incorrect to say that Congress rejected what President Obama wanted, since they actually approved a majority of what he wanted.

The Constellation program was supposed to be 100% NASA assets, and it was not forecasted to reach the Moon until the 2030's. The Artemis program is relying on the private sector to pretty much move everything except for the Orion MPCV, and to build some of the in-space hardware too. The Augustine Commission thought the "burgeoning commercial space industry" could save money, and it is actually accelerating the schedule of challenging missions.

But until SpaceX submitted an HLS bid using their internally developed Starship, it was clear that NASA never could have returned humans to the Moon by 2024. It is still kind of fuzzy if they will be able to - my Magic 8-Ball says "Ask again later." 

[Timber Micka]

Taking into account the postponements already observed, IMO a realistic timeline of the Artemis program would look like this:
- Spring / Summer 2022 : Artemis 1
- H1 2024                      : Artemis 2
- H2 2026                      : Artemis 3 (or H1 2027 if they are really determined to land on the moon during this mission)

Maybe I'm pessimistic but it seems believable to me.

[yg1968]

We will find out at the Artemis Missions Update of today.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2308524#msg2308524

I expect that it will be officially announced that the Artemis III mission will be delayed to 2025.

[Phil Stooke]

Yes... no earlier than 2025, but preceded at an unspecified date by a demonstration landing without a crew.

[yg1968]

Nelson said today that landing in 2024 wasn't technically feasible with or without the protest/trial but apparently 2025 is...

[Hog]

It beats me why they weren't building - from Day One - a version of SLS with 5x RS-25 engines on the Corestage and an Upper Stage powered by either 4x MB-60 engines or the J-2X!!

I'm guessint that they figured they couldnt get the new RS25 factory up and running before they ran out of old shuttle engines, if they used them 5 a year instead of 4 a year.

I doubt that has anything to do with it.  The architecture never required anything beyond SLS Block II with 46 tons to TLI or 130 tons to LEO.

For reference: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/sls_lift_capabilities_configurations_04292020_woleo.pdf

But SLS requires 5 RS25s in the corestage to get 130 tonnes to LEO.  4 RS25 and the BOLE' boosters only do approx 113.4 tonnes to LEO as per S. Pietrobons simulations.

[Steven Pietrobon]

But SLS requires 5 RS25s in the corestage to get 130 tonnes to LEO.  4 RS25 and the BOLE' boosters only do approx 113.4 tonnes to LEO as per S. Pietrobons simulations.

That's correct, but using five RS-25's and EUS with four RL-10's only gets you 117.9 t. To take advantage of the higher thrust core you need a higher thrust second stage. Replacing the RL-10's with MB-60's (now called MARC-60) gets you 136.1 t.

[Vahe231991]

It was always a aspirational goal, which I think is a good thing to motivate.  But its still unlikely.  Its more likely Artemis III in 2024 goes either to Gateway or does simulated mission in lunar orbit to practice for landing, possibly Artemis IV.

According to the FY24 NASA Budget request, Artemis III is now scheduled for December 2025 and Artemis IV is now planned to launch in September 2028. SpaceX has been chosen to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis III and IV with the Starship HLS variant.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.msg2466058#msg2466058

[12345]

Nelson said today that landing in 2024 wasn't technically feasible with or without the protest/trial but apparently 2025 is...

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

[DanClemmensen]

I'm a SpaceX enthusiast, but reality intrudes. December 2024 is about 17 months away. Historically, the second launch of a new LV takes awhile:
    F9: 6 months
    Atlas V: 8 months
    Arianne 5: 16 months.

The first ten launches also take awhile:
     F9: 4 years
     Atlas V: 5 years
     Arianne 5: 5 years.

But the Starship HLS crewed demo will take at least 4 flights, and the crewed mission will take at least 6 flights, even if the tanker is has a major improvement in propellant mass delivered to orbit. Realistically, more like ten flights for each, so 20 total. This is in addition to several non-HLS early flights.

To achieve a landing as early as late 2025, SpaceX will need a ramp rate that is unprecedented in the history of space flight, on the largest LV ever by a factor of at least 2, developing at least three SS variants in parallel, one of which will EDL. As an enthusiast, I really hope this happens, but I won't bet any money on it even at long odds.

[arthuroMo]

Nelson said today that landing in 2024 wasn't technically feasible with or without the protest/trial but apparently 2025 is...

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

I'm paraphrasing here :Free says they're worried because SpaceX has a lot to do before Artemis III and not much time. They have to land on the moon in 2024 basically (unmanned demo).

[12345]

Nelson said today that landing in 2024 wasn't technically feasible with or without the protest/trial but apparently 2025 is...

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

I'm paraphrasing here :Free says they're worried because SpaceX has a lot to do before Artemis III and not much time. They have to land on the moon in 2024 basically (unmanned demo).

If HLS timeline is critical path I think its not wise to make it even riskier combining new LV and lander development effort in it.
1. I would decouple risks considering to use existing LV (FH, Atlas, soon coming NG, Vulcan).
2. Issue request for generic HLS design able to fly on multiple rockets. Use of the shelf components for HLS design as much as possible, there plenty: as uneducated guess would suggest Orion service module or other state of the art commercial satellite bus for propulsion/power/avionics and iss cargo module (Thales) for crew module. Of cause adaptation for purpose as it is usually done.

Regarding space suit: Appolo EMU as always there as fallback option or am I wrong?

[yg1968]

Nelson said today that landing in 2024 wasn't technically feasible with or without the protest/trial but apparently 2025 is...

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

I'm paraphrasing here :Free says they're worried because SpaceX has a lot to do before Artemis III and not much time. They have to land on the moon in 2024 basically (unmanned demo).

If HLS timeline is critical path I think its not wise to make it even riskier combining new LV and lander development effort in it.
1. I would decouple risks considering to use existing LV (FH, Atlas, soon coming NG, Vulcan).
2. Issue request for generic HLS design able to fly on multiple rockets. Use of the shelf components for HLS design as much as possible, there plenty: as uneducated guess would suggest Orion service module or other state of the art commercial satellite bus for propulsion/power/avionics and iss cargo module (Thales) for crew module. Of cause adaptation for purpose as it is usually done.

Regarding space suit: Apollo EMU as always there as fallback option or am I wrong?

For both Blue and SpaceX, the launch vehicles are not even close to being the long poles, the lander is.

For the Spacesuits, both Axiom Space and Collins Aerospace's spacesuits are based on NASA's EMU suits which were already in progress, so both companies have a bit of a head start because of this.

[DanClemmensen]

Nelson said today that landing in 2024 wasn't technically feasible with or without the protest/trial but apparently 2025 is...

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

I'm paraphrasing here :Free says they're worried because SpaceX has a lot to do before Artemis III and not much time. They have to land on the moon in 2024 basically (unmanned demo).

If HLS timeline is critical path I think its not wise to make it even riskier combining new LV and lander development effort in it.
1. I would decouple risks considering to use existing LV (FH, Atlas, soon coming NG, Vulcan).
2. Issue request for generic HLS design able to fly on multiple rockets. Use of the shelf components for HLS design as much as possible, there plenty: as uneducated guess would suggest Orion service module or other state of the art commercial satellite bus for propulsion/power/avionics and iss cargo module (Thales) for crew module. Of cause adaptation for purpose as it is usually done.

Regarding space suit: Appolo EMU as always there as fallback option or am I wrong?

You have some catching up to do. I suggest you read some Wikipedia articles at least. Try:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Landing_System
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Atlas is retiring and all remaining Atlas V have already been sold. Atlas is a medium-lift LV and cannot perform this function.   Starship is further along in development than NG and may launch before Vulcan.  You forgot SLS. One of the original HLS proposals, by Boeing, was to use SLS. It is prohibitively expensive. This leaves FH, which is the heaviest-lift active LV at 64 tonne to LEO. the original NASA HLS reference design was for a 3-part system. FH could probably have launched it. It was barely adequate to land a crew of 2 on the moon and maybe pick up a few rocks. The original BO HLS bid was of this type and the bid was for $6 billion. It tried to follow your reuse plan. SpaceX bid Starship HLS for less than $3 Billion. It could easily handle a crew of 10, land 50 or more tonne of cargo, and lift 10 or more tonne of cargo from the surface, but NASA's specs do not call for all this capacity and Artemis, tied to SLS/Orion, has no way to use it.

[DanClemmensen]

For both Blue and SpaceX, the launch vehicles are not even close to being the long poles, the lander is.

For SpaceX, the HLS mission depends on the Starship booster plus three Starship variants: Tanker, Depot, and HLS lander. From NASA's program perspective, yes "HLS" is on the critical path, but I do not think the lander itself is the hard part. Booster will be rady first, almost by definition: you cannot test Starships until the booster works. IMO the Tanker is the hardest because of EDL, Depot is easiest, and HLS is not too hard. SpaceX can afford to use expendable tankers if necessary to meet the schedule, especially since expendable Tanker can lift more propellant than reusable tanker and therefore may need fewer tanker missions.

[laszlo]

You have some catching up to do. I suggest you read some Wikipedia articles at least. Try:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Landing_System
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

Knowledge cut-off was September 2021.

[12345]

Atlas is retiring and all remaining Atlas V have already been sold. Atlas is a medium-lift LV and cannot perform this function.   Starship is further along in development than NG and may launch before Vulcan.  You forgot SLS. One of the original HLS proposals, by Boeing, was to use SLS. It is prohibitively expensive. This leaves FH, which is the heaviest-lift active LV at 64 tonne to LEO. the original NASA HLS reference design was for a 3-part system. FH could probably have launched it. It was barely adequate to land a crew of 2 on the moon and maybe pick up a few rocks. The original BO HLS bid was of this type and the bid was for $6 billion. It tried to follow your reuse plan. SpaceX bid Starship HLS for less than $3 Billion. It could easily handle a crew of 10, land 50 or more tonne of cargo, and lift 10 or more tonne of cargo from the surface, but NASA's specs do not call for all this capacity and Artemis, tied to SLS/Orion, has no way to use it.

On LVs:
Atlas days are counted - I agree, it not worth to count on it.
SLS is DOA as you noted correctly, that is why I did not even mention it.
NG and Vulcan - tough delayed, they are state of the art therefore low risk of failure, and I think their high chance they will be operational soon. If I would be PM of HLS project, I would reasonably count on them.
FH is ready to go.

On payload requirements:
63t LEO payload capacity is too small? This is really puzzles me: how Saturn 5 managed to launch full landing mission with 130-140t payload capacity, and now NASA requirement of 3x64=192t capacity needed only for HLS, how come?
I guess single FH could deliver a modern analog of Appolo lender, considering advicelines in technology I think its capacity will be much more then "few rocks". And who said that there demand for more? The race vs PRC for the moon and it south pole is on.

On the HLS quotes:
In the bid for HLS contract both BO and SX were more persuading they aims and not national interest, if winning the moon race is US national interest of cause.
If US government would kick Musk really hard in the butt, then he would probably come up functional lander within 2-3 years using Dragon as basis. Dragon has all ingredients for low-cost HLS: adequate pressure vessel, life support/comms, Draco RCS, Super Draco prolusion could be modified for landing/take off by removing heat shield and put there at the bottom more tanks volume, 2 super Draco's and landing legs. FH would probably be able to lift it.

Just my opinion.

[DanClemmensen]

In the bid for HLS contract both BO and SX were more persuading they aims and not national interest, if winning the moon race is US national interest of cause.

BO and SpaceX are for-profit companies. The "national interest" is not their job. NASA was supposed to make sure that "the national interest" was properly reflected in the bid requirements. IMO these requirements did not do this, but by happenstance the Starship HLS grossly exceeds the reequirements and spectacularly does serve the "national interest".

If US government would kick Musk really hard in the butt, then he would probably come up functional lander within 2-3 years using Dragon as basis. Dragon has all ingredients for low-cost HLS: adequate pressure vessel, life support/comms, Draco RCS, Super Draco prolusion could be modified for landing/take off by removing heat shield and put there at the bottom more tanks volume, 2 super Draco's and landing legs. FH would probably be able to lift it.

Musk does not build landers. SpaceX builds landers. You don't  kick a corporation in the butt: you offer the corporation a profitable contract.  How exactly would NASA structure a contract that would cause SpaceX to bid your proposed solution? How is your proposed solution better than Starship HLS?

[Kiwi53]

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

It’s starting to sound like Orion could be the long pole
8 months since Artemis-I and they still are only part way through the analysis of why the heat shield had some anomalies. It’s now officially termed a ‘problem’ and Jim Free said they can’t rule out “drastic” changes

[yg1968]

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

It’s starting to sound like Orion could be the long pole
8 months since Artemis-I and they still are only part way through the analysis of why the heat shield had some anomalies. It’s now officially termed a ‘problem’ and Jim Free said they can’t rule out “drastic” changes

They said that the heatshield ablation was different than the models but it probably wasn't significant enough to require any changes to the Artemis II heatshield. But they are still looking into it to make sure that it isn't an issue. However, they might take the new data into account when building a new heat shield for other missions.

[whitelancer64]

What is critical path/component that is defining the target mission date? Is it readiness of lander?

From what I gather NASA says it's HLS and the suits.
But it would be really easy for them to hang any delay on those guys to deflect criticism.

It’s starting to sound like Orion could be the long pole
8 months since Artemis-I and they still are only part way through the analysis of why the heat shield had some anomalies. It’s now officially termed a ‘problem’ and Jim Free said they can’t rule out “drastic” changes

They said that the heatshield ablation was different than the models but it probably wasn't significant enough to require any changes to the Artemis II heatshield. But they are still looking into it to make sure that it isn't an issue. However, they might take the new data into account when building a new heat shield for other missions.

Yeah, the heat shield ablation was not quite what they had modeled, but IIRC the ablation did not eat into any safety margins. They are right to look into this, but it likely won't result in any changes to Artemis II or III heat shields. There are a lot of variables at play.

Before anyone says "why doesn't SpaceX make the heat shield" if NASA were to open up that can of worms, Artemis will be delayed for years. They'd either have to open bid a new contract or sole-source one and both would be time consuming and open to legal challenges. Also, the baseline design of Orion had a PICA heat shield. Avcoat slightly outperformed it in testing so NASA switched to it.

[VSECOTSPE]

December 2024 is about 17 months away. Historically, the second launch of a new LV takes awhile:
    F9: 6 months
    Atlas V: 8 months
    Arianne 5: 16 months.

The first ten launches also take awhile:
     F9: 4 years
     Atlas V: 5 years
     Arianne 5: 5 years.

But the Starship HLS crewed demo will take at least 4 flights, and the crewed mission will take at least 6 flights, even if the tanker is has a major improvement in propellant mass delivered to orbit. Realistically, more like ten flights for each, so 20 total. This is in addition to several non-HLS early flights.

To achieve a landing as early as late 2025, SpaceX will need a ramp rate that is unprecedented in the history of space flight, on the largest LV ever by a factor of at least 2, developing at least three SS variants in parallel, one of which will EDL. As an enthusiast, I really hope this happens, but I won't bet any money on it even at long odds.

Good, sober analysis.  The lander needed to be started years ago for the Artemis schedule to make sense.  Could be looking at years of missions to lunar orbit and back.

[DanClemmensen]

December 2024 is about 17 months away. Historically, the second launch of a new LV takes awhile:
    F9: 6 months
    Atlas V: 8 months
    Arianne 5: 16 months.

The first ten launches also take awhile:
     F9: 4 years
     Atlas V: 5 years
     Arianne 5: 5 years.

But the Starship HLS crewed demo will take at least 4 flights, and the crewed mission will take at least 6 flights, even if the tanker is has a major improvement in propellant mass delivered to orbit. Realistically, more like ten flights for each, so 20 total. This is in addition to several non-HLS early flights.

To achieve a landing as early as late 2025, SpaceX will need a ramp rate that is unprecedented in the history of space flight, on the largest LV ever by a factor of at least 2, developing at least three SS variants in parallel, one of which will EDL. As an enthusiast, I really hope this happens, but I won't bet any money on it even at long odds.

Good, sober analysis.  The lander needed to be started years ago for the Artemis schedule to make sense.  Could be looking at years of missions to lunar orbit and back.

Yep. It's not SpaceX' fault that NASA asked for a schedule that requires an unprecedented ramp. I suppose SpaceX could have no-bid.  If they had, then NASA would still need an unprecedented ramp of new LVs from BO (NG or Vulcan) or from Dynetics (SLS or Vulcan).

Alternatively, SpaceX (or someone) could have proposed a three-element HLS like the NASA reference system, to fly on FH. But SpaceX had zero incentive to do this and NASA did not have enough budget to induce anyone to bid it, nor any hope to get such an HLS on time.

The only solution is to invent a time machine and go back and start HLS procurement in 2017.

So, the best path forward from 2021 was Starship HLS, but NASA should have reset the schedule to match.

[Vahe231991]

Since there's a lot that can happen between now and late 2025 when it comes to the preparing for Artemis 3, namely the lunar landing system and test flights of Starship, NASA could hold off on the notion of making changes to Artemis 3 if the second Starship launch reaches orbit. Some future Artemis missions might use the Blue Moon lunar lander for the lunar landing component because Blue Origin's intent to launch the Blue Moon aboard the New Glenn reminds me of when the unbuilt Ares V was designed to carry the Altair lunar lander.

[yg1968]

See below:

This has been mentioned a couple of times but it's possible that Artemis III could become a Gateway mission if Gateway were to be ready before HLS.

Bob Cabana mentioned it at 48m50s of this video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/humanstomars2023/videos/236226561

Although less detailed, Jim Free said something similar at 21 and 37 minutes of this press conference:



https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1688979704597053440

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1688983394565427201

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1688983014292746240

[yg1968]

I am guessing that the pessimism in this thread comes from the above. My own view is that I am skeptical that Gateway will be ready in 2025 as it has its own set of delays and I don't see the point in doing another Artemis II type of mission for Artemis III.

In terms of delays to Starship, I am not sure where the pessimism comes from, Starship has been progressing at a pretty good pace. Once Starship gets to orbit, we should start seeing some pretty good progress.

[DanClemmensen]

See below:

This has been mentioned a couple of times but it's possible that Artemis III could become a Gateway mission if Gateway were to be ready before HLS.

What's the earliest that Gateway would be in NRHO? The minimal Gateway is PPE+HALO, which will launch to an Earth orbit (LEO?) as a pre-assembled unit on an FH. After it reaches orbit, PPE must boost it all the way to NRHO using its ion thrusters, which takes awhile. So Gateway must launch months(?) before the Artemis III mission. The most recent update on Gateway that I recall was that they are still trying to reduce mass.

[TheRadicalModerate]

See below:

This has been mentioned a couple of times but it's possible that Artemis III could become a Gateway mission if Gateway were to be ready before HLS.

What's the earliest that Gateway would be in NRHO? The minimal Gateway is PPE+HALO, which will launch to an Earth orbit (LEO?) as a pre-assembled unit on an FH. After it reaches orbit, PPE must boost it all the way to NRHO using its ion thrusters, which takes awhile. So Gateway must launch months(?) before the Artemis III mission. The most recent update on Gateway that I recall was that they are still trying to reduce mass.

If the FH puts the PPE/HALO into a ballistic lunar transfer, the PPE only has to provide about 100m/s to get it into NRHO.  It does indeed take 3-6 months to get through the BLT, but I doubt it's actually much worse than chemical propulsion.

My big problem with this is that I don't think that any sort of reasonable mission is possible with just HALO, and I-HAB seems almost certain to be in the Arty 4 timeframe.  And of course Boeing would lose its mind if it couldn't show off Block 1B co-manifesting.


What are the chances of the FAA approving a license modification to increase the number of launches from BC?  There's obviously bad press floating around out there, and there's this whole wastewater thing to resolve, but if they could get 10 flights in 2024 and the refueling tech goes reasonably well, I could see the Option A uncrewed test flight happening by the end of 2024.

I doubt that LC-39A is going to be ready in 2024, and I agree that 9 flights probably isn't enough to get to a landing.  But 14 might be, if they can modify the license.  Otherwise, I agree that 2024 seems unlikely.

[DanClemmensen]

I am guessing that the pessimism in this thread comes from the above. My own view is that I am skeptical that Gateway will be ready in 2025 as it has its own set of delays and I don't see the point in doing another Artemis II type of mission for Artemis III.

In terms of delays to Starship, I am not sure where the pessimism comes from, Starship has been progressing at a pretty good pace. Once Starship gets to orbit, we should start seeing some pretty good progress.

We are seeing excellent, possibly unprecedented, progress, but I think to launch more than ten times within the next 18 months goes far beyond unprecedented. That's what it would take to execute the uncrewed demo before December 2024. I would love to see it happen.

[yg1968]

See below:

This has been mentioned a couple of times but it's possible that Artemis III could become a Gateway mission if Gateway were to be ready before HLS.

What's the earliest that Gateway would be in NRHO? The minimal Gateway is PPE+HALO, which will launch to an Earth orbit (LEO?) as a pre-assembled unit on an FH. After it reaches orbit, PPE must boost it all the way to NRHO using its ion thrusters, which takes awhile. So Gateway must launch months(?) before the Artemis III mission. The most recent update on Gateway that I recall was that they are still trying to reduce mass.

It's launching in November 2025 and it's a 10 month trip. So PPE and HALO would be in NRHO in Sept 2026, assuming that it's not delayed any further.

[12345]

Musk does not build landers. SpaceX builds landers. You don't  kick a corporation in the butt: you offer the corporation a profitable contract.  How exactly would NASA structure a contract that would cause SpaceX to bid your proposed solution? How is your proposed solution better than Starship HLS?
[/quote]

Well government/NASA actually can a do kick like Bridenstine did when Musk/SX focus started to drift away from Dragon toward SS in 2018-18. I look like it actually worked quite well.

Also, I did not mean that NASA had to decline SS based HLS bid, they simply needed to ask SX to come with back up HLS bid using available Dracon components as Step 1. I dot thin it would be terrible expensive. But it would be weird if company would handle two competitive bids

I guess it is unfortunate outcome of SX domination (hopefully not monopolization) of US space sector. And don't take me wrong, I like SX tech and development pace, it is just hugely harming US interests as country not having few more companies like SX right now. China is beefing from it.

[DanClemmensen]

Musk does not build landers. SpaceX builds landers. You don't  kick a corporation in the butt: you offer the corporation a profitable contract.  How exactly would NASA structure a contract that would cause SpaceX to bid your proposed solution? How is your proposed solution better than Starship HLS?

Well government/NASA actually can a do kick like Bridenstine did when Musk/SX focus started to drift away from Dragon toward SS in 2018-18. I look like it actually worked quite well.

Also, I did not mean that NASA had to decline SS based HLS bid, they simply needed to ask SX to come with back up HLS bid using available Dracon components as Step 1. I dot thin it would be terrible expensive. But it would be weird if company would handle two competitive bids

I guess it is unfortunate outcome of SX domination (hopefully not monopolization) of US space sector. And don't take me wrong, I like SX tech and development pace, it is just hugely harming US interests as country not having few more companies like SX right now. China is beefing from it.

To be clear: you now say that your original scenario was not in the present (i.e., start a Dragon-based HLS project now), but was something that happened in 2020 in an alternate universe. If we are going to change the past, I would try for something more ambitious than that, like replacing SLS/Orion. But I don't think this is supposed to be an alternate universe thread.

[yg1968]

Musk does not build landers. SpaceX builds landers. You don't  kick a corporation in the butt: you offer the corporation a profitable contract.  How exactly would NASA structure a contract that would cause SpaceX to bid your proposed solution? How is your proposed solution better than Starship HLS?

Well government/NASA actually can a do kick like Bridenstine did when Musk/SX focus started to drift away from Dragon toward SS in 2018-18. I look like it actually worked quite well.

Also, I did not mean that NASA had to decline SS based HLS bid, they simply needed to ask SX to come with back up HLS bid using available Dracon components as Step 1. I dot thin it would be terrible expensive. But it would be weird if company would handle two competitive bids

I guess it is unfortunate outcome of SX domination (hopefully not monopolization) of US space sector. And don't take me wrong, I like SX tech and development pace, it is just hugely harming US interests as country not having few more companies like SX right now. China is beefing from it.

To be clear: you now say that your original scenario was not in the present (i.e., start a Dragon-based HLS project now), but was something that happened in 2020 in an alternate universe. If we are going to change the past, I would try for something more ambitious than that, like replacing SLS/Orion. But I don't think this is supposed to be an alternate universe thread.

Interestingly, SpaceX did initially propose a Dragon derived lander for Appendix E. But SpaceX didn't propose that lander for the subsequent Appendix H. In any event, that ship sailed in 2020, NASA and SpaceX agreed on HLS-Starship. SpaceX was willing to contribute half of the funding for HLS-Starship but I don't think that they would have done so for a Dragon-derived lander.

[yg1968]

I am guessing that the pessimism in this thread comes from the above. My own view is that I am skeptical that Gateway will be ready in 2025 as it has its own set of delays and I don't see the point in doing another Artemis II type of mission for Artemis III.

In terms of delays to Starship, I am not sure where the pessimism comes from, Starship has been progressing at a pretty good pace. Once Starship gets to orbit, we should start seeing some pretty good progress.

We are seeing excellent, possibly unprecedented, progress, but I think to launch more than ten times within the next 18 months goes far beyond unprecedented. That's what it would take to execute the uncrewed demo before December 2024. I would love to see it happen.

Out of curiosity, why 10 times?

I think that the launches of Starship will ramp up as soon as they get the second flight launched. In any event, Free has already said that Artemis III will likely slip to 2026, so I think that also means that the uncrewed HLS-Starship is also likely to slip to 2025.

[DanClemmensen]

I am guessing that the pessimism in this thread comes from the above. My own view is that I am skeptical that Gateway will be ready in 2025 as it has its own set of delays and I don't see the point in doing another Artemis II type of mission for Artemis III.

In terms of delays to Starship, I am not sure where the pessimism comes from, Starship has been progressing at a pretty good pace. Once Starship gets to orbit, we should start seeing some pretty good progress.

We are seeing excellent, possibly unprecedented, progress, but I think to launch more than ten times within the next 18 months goes far beyond unprecedented. That's what it would take to execute the uncrewed demo before December 2024. I would love to see it happen.

Out of curiosity, why 10?

I think that the launches of Starship will ramp up as soon as they get the second flight launched. In any event, Free has already said that Artemis III will likely slip to 2026, so I think that also means that the uncrewed HLS-Starship is also likely to slip to 2025.

Ten is a rough guess. It's also the arbitrary number I used for ramp-up comparisons earlier in this thread. No medium or large orbital LV has launched more than ten in its first four years.

I think SpaceX will need at least 3 more test flights prior to start of uncrewed demo, and at least two more if they are going to try for EDL tankers. They apparenlty also intend to do the single-ship tank-to-tank cryo transfer demo, and at least one Starlink dispenser demo. That's six. Then for the uncrewed demo you need Depot, HLS, and at least two tankers, so ten total.  You are of course free to make you own estimate. My estimate involves no inside information whatsoever. I think most estimates would assume at least four tankers, not two, but I'm an optimist so I assume expendable tankers with higher payload mass, and sending some propellant up on Depot, and no attempt for HLS to ascent from the Moon.

[DanClemmensen]

My big problem with this is that I don't think that any sort of reasonable mission is possible with just HALO, and I-HAB seems almost certain to be in the Arty 4 timeframe.  And of course Boeing would lose its mind if it couldn't show off Block 1B co-manifesting.

It's not just in the Artemis IV timeframe". It's co-manifested on the SLS along with Orion on Artemis IV. Shifting I-HAB to any other launcher now will almost certainly delay it.

Artemis IV is the first block 1B SLS, and therefore has several prerequisites, any of which may delay the schedule:
    ML-2
    EUS
    Orion capsule
   

[TheRadicalModerate]

In theory, SpaceX could fulfill the Option A contract (and Option B and SLT) with no reusability of either SuperHeavy or Starship.  In practice, they'd take a bath on the contract and probably would make less progress than if they'd not bid on a Lunar Starship.  My question is:  How does progress on SH and SS reusability factor into how long it takes to get to Option A?

Maybe a way of tackling the scheduling is to guess how many SHes and SSes need to be manufactured to get to the uncrewed Option A landing.  My guesses:

LSS (six engines):  1

Naked or Starlink Starships with no refueling hardware (nine engines two flights from now):  5 (lost or unrecovered in flight test).

Depots (six engines):  3  (one lost to accident--hopefully at low speed, and one for engineering changes)

Tanker Starships (nine engines):  8 (some lost due to recovery bugs, some lost in docking/prop transfer failures, some overlapping for reprocessing before reuse)

SuperHeavies (33 engines):  8 (4 lost during recovery tests, 4 in the pipeline for reuse)

If I did the arithmetic right, that's 399 engines.  If we guess an average of 1.5 engines per day, that's roughly 8.9 months of production, which shouldn't be a problem.  Of course, every failure results in engineering changes, some of which may foul up Raptor production.  And of course it's by no means a given that Raptor production is the critical path.

I think that license restrictions on cadence are likely the critical path, but we shouldn't forget that there are other things that can get weird here.

[TheRadicalModerate]

My big problem with this is that I don't think that any sort of reasonable mission is possible with just HALO, and I-HAB seems almost certain to be in the Arty 4 timeframe.  And of course Boeing would lose its mind if it couldn't show off Block 1B co-manifesting.

It's not just in the Artemis IV timeframe". It's co-manifested on the SLS along with Orion on Artemis IV. Shifting I-HAB to any other launcher now will almost certainly delay it.

Artemis IV is the first block 1B SLS, and therefore has several prerequisites, any of which may delay the schedule:
    ML-2
    EUS
    Orion capsule
   

That was kinda my point.  Unless you view being spam in a can in HALO¹ as a worthwhile mission, nothing happens that's useful in NRHO until I-HAB arrives.  So an Arty 3 mission with no landing is useless.

__________________
¹Wikipedia says that Orion has a 21-day free-flyer life.  I assume that's ECLSS-limited, since Orion has its own solar arrays.  But my understanding is that HALO needs Orion's ECLSS, so Orion will be supporting 3-4x the volume (that's a guess--too lazy to do the math), which likely degrades its performance.  5 days out, 5 days back, and let's say a 25% degradation of the remaining 11 days of ECLSS:  8 days of spam in the can, less margin.  Not exactly a groundbreaking mission.

[yg1968]

My big problem with this is that I don't think that any sort of reasonable mission is possible with just HALO, and I-HAB seems almost certain to be in the Arty 4 timeframe.  And of course Boeing would lose its mind if it couldn't show off Block 1B co-manifesting.

It's not just in the Artemis IV timeframe". It's co-manifested on the SLS along with Orion on Artemis IV. Shifting I-HAB to any other launcher now will almost certainly delay it.

Artemis IV is the first block 1B SLS, and therefore has several prerequisites, any of which may delay the schedule:
    ML-2
    EUS
    Orion capsule
   

That was kinda my point.  Unless you view being spam in a can in HALO¹ as a worthwhile mission, nothing happens that's useful in NRHO until I-HAB arrives.  So an Arty 3 mission with no landing is useless.

__________________
¹Wikipedia says that Orion has a 21-day free-flyer life.  I assume that's ECLSS-limited, since Orion has its own solar arrays.  But my understanding is that HALO needs Orion's ECLSS, so Orion will be supporting 3-4x the volume (that's a guess--too lazy to do the math), which likely degrades its performance.  5 days out, 5 days back, and let's say a 25% degradation of the remaining 11 days of ECLSS:  8 days of spam in the can, less margin.  Not exactly a groundbreaking mission.

There is plans to accelerate Dragon XL to the Artemis IV mission (see the quote below). That might also be part of the equation.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106021

NASA previously planned to authorize the DSL contractor to start work on a logistics vehicle to support the Artemis V mission, but now plans to do so earlier to support the Artemis IV mission. Having a logistics delivery for Artemis IV could help address mass concerns for the PPE, HALO, and I-HAB because the logistics vehicle could deliver cargo and equipment to Gateway that would have previously needed to be launched on the other elements.

[whitelancer64]

My big problem with this is that I don't think that any sort of reasonable mission is possible with just HALO, and I-HAB seems almost certain to be in the Arty 4 timeframe.  And of course Boeing would lose its mind if it couldn't show off Block 1B co-manifesting.

It's not just in the Artemis IV timeframe". It's co-manifested on the SLS along with Orion on Artemis IV. Shifting I-HAB to any other launcher now will almost certainly delay it.

Artemis IV is the first block 1B SLS, and therefore has several prerequisites, any of which may delay the schedule:
    ML-2
    EUS
    Orion capsule
   

That was kinda my point.  Unless you view being spam in a can in HALO¹ as a worthwhile mission, nothing happens that's useful in NRHO until I-HAB arrives.  So an Arty 3 mission with no landing is useless.

__________________
¹Wikipedia says that Orion has a 21-day free-flyer life.  I assume that's ECLSS-limited, since Orion has its own solar arrays.  But my understanding is that HALO needs Orion's ECLSS, so Orion will be supporting 3-4x the volume (that's a guess--too lazy to do the math), which likely degrades its performance.  5 days out, 5 days back, and let's say a 25% degradation of the remaining 11 days of ECLSS:  8 days of spam in the can, less margin.  Not exactly a groundbreaking mission.

IIRC the time limit of 21 days is based on the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts. The ECLSS has large margins.

[TheRadicalModerate]

IIRC the time limit of 21 days is based on the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts. The ECLSS has large margins.

So then an 11-day stay is possible, less margin.

Anybody know what consumables are being launched with HALO?

[TheRadicalModerate]

There is plans to accelerate Dragon XL to the Artemis IV mission (see the quote below). That might also be part of the equation.

That doesn't really help to create a HALO-only, non-surface mission for Arty 3.

Note that, even in the unlikely event that I-HAB winds up being ready close to when an Arty 3 non-surface mission could be launched, removing it from the Block 1B co-manifest is difficult, both politically and from an engineering standpoint.  It's designed to be maneuvered into place on HALO with an Orion.  If it were re-hosted to an FH, it would need some kind of bus to perform that function.  While either DXL or Cygnus could be pressed into service by removing their pressure vessels, that's non-trivial work that's hard to test before using it on a unique, expensive payload.

[DanClemmensen]

IIRC the time limit of 21 days is based on the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts. The ECLSS has large margins.

So then an 11-day stay is possible, less margin.

Anybody know what consumables are being launched with HALO?

PPE+HALO was reported to be too heavy now and they are looking for ways to reduce mass. It might be better to use the first Dragon XL mission to carry the consumables. Sure, it's expensive, but running a "test" Dragon XL mission prior to the first crew use of Gateway is probably justifiable.

[TheRadicalModerate]

So then an 11-day stay is possible, less margin.

Anybody know what consumables are being launched with HALO?

PPE+HALO was reported to be too heavy now and they are looking for ways to reduce mass. It might be better to use the first Dragon XL mission to carry the consumables. Sure, it's expensive, but running a "test" Dragon XL mission prior to the first crew use of Gateway is probably justifiable.

Can HALO handle a DXL and Orion docked simultaneously?  DXL doesn't unload itself.

[DanClemmensen]

So then an 11-day stay is possible, less margin.

Anybody know what consumables are being launched with HALO?

PPE+HALO was reported to be too heavy now and they are looking for ways to reduce mass. It might be better to use the first Dragon XL mission to carry the consumables. Sure, it's expensive, but running a "test" Dragon XL mission prior to the first crew use of Gateway is probably justifiable.

Can HALO handle a DXL and Orion docked simultaneously?  DXL doesn't unload itself.

Orion would dock to the axial HALO port at the far end from PPE. Dragon XL would dock to one of the two HALO radial ports. Starship HLS would dock to the opposite HALO radial port.  It will get "interesting" if Starship HLS has a midships IDSS port instead of a nose port, but I think there is still sufficient clearance from HLS to PPE.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Orion would dock to the axial HALO port at the far end from PPE. Dragon XL would dock to one of the two HALO radial ports. Starship HLS would dock to the opposite HALO radial port.  It will get "interesting" if Starship HLS has a midships IDSS port instead of a nose port, but I think there is still sufficient clearance from HLS to PPE.

If we're just talking about a non-surface Arty 3 mission, then we don't need to worry about the LSS.  Mind you, I think this is full-blown bat-guano crazy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need some mission analysis, if only to show that it's full-blown bat-guano crazy.

[Zed_Noir]

Orion would dock to the axial HALO port at the far end from PPE. Dragon XL would dock to one of the two HALO radial ports. Starship HLS would dock to the opposite HALO radial port.  It will get "interesting" if Starship HLS has a midships IDSS port instead of a nose port, but I think there is still sufficient clearance from HLS to PPE.

If we're just talking about a non-surface Arty 3 mission, then we don't need to worry about the LSS.  Mind you, I think this is full-blown bat-guano crazy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need some mission analysis, if only to show that it's full-blown bat-guano crazy.

Crazy like an expendable logistic & service Starship with 4 midship radial IDSS ports plus a nose IDSS port.

Probably can be ready earlier than the Dragon XL, which is still a paper spacecraft. While a L & S starship have the experience of work done with the Moonship (HLS lander) to draw upon. Replaces the Dragon XL for the Gateway logistics role. 

[DanClemmensen]

Orion would dock to the axial HALO port at the far end from PPE. Dragon XL would dock to one of the two HALO radial ports. Starship HLS would dock to the opposite HALO radial port.  It will get "interesting" if Starship HLS has a midships IDSS port instead of a nose port, but I think there is still sufficient clearance from HLS to PPE.

If we're just talking about a non-surface Arty 3 mission, then we don't need to worry about the LSS.  Mind you, I think this is full-blown bat-guano crazy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't need some mission analysis, if only to show that it's full-blown bat-guano crazy.

If NASA really feels forced to do a non-landing Arty3, the least-ludicrous mission would be to have Orion dock to the uncrewed Starship demo HLS in NRHO. No Gateway needed. Presumably uncrewed HLS demo is available a year before the actual Starship HLS, and is in a schedule race with Gateway.

Uncrewed demo SS HLS could also be used as a demo for an eventual SS station to replace Gateway, or to replace some or most of its modules. Bigger, cheaper, available sooner.

[deltaV]

If NASA really feels forced to do a non-landing Arty3, the least-ludicrous mission would be to have Orion dock to the uncrewed Starship demo HLS in NRHO. No Gateway needed. Presumably uncrewed HLS demo is available a year before the actual Starship HLS, and is in a schedule race with Gateway.

If uncrewed HLS Starship is available a year before crewed HLS Starship the long pole for crewed HLS will probably be NASA paperwork. Much of that paperwork is probably required before a docking with crewed Orion could be done - if a Starship malfunctions while docked with Orion that could easily kill the crew. So I don't think having Orion dock with an uncrewed Starship would save much time compared to a full lunar landing.

[DanClemmensen]

If NASA really feels forced to do a non-landing Arty3, the least-ludicrous mission would be to have Orion dock to the uncrewed Starship demo HLS in NRHO. No Gateway needed. Presumably uncrewed HLS demo is available a year before the actual Starship HLS, and is in a schedule race with Gateway.

If uncrewed HLS Starship is available a year before crewed HLS Starship the long pole for crewed HLS will probably be NASA paperwork. Much of that paperwork is probably required before a docking with crewed Orion could be done - if a Starship malfunctions while docked with Orion that could easily kill the crew. So I don't think having Orion dock with an uncrewed Starship would save much time compared to a full lunar landing.

How does docking with the uncrewed demo HLS differ from docking with Gateway? If the paperwork differs, it's a triumph of process over reality.
If NASA really cared, Artemis III would not be the very first time Orion files with a functional docking port. Orion would perform an uncrewed docking in LEO to demonstrate the hardware. But SLS/Orion missions are so expensive that NASA skipped this obvious step.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Crazy like an expendable logistic & service Starship with 4 midship radial IDSS ports plus a nose IDSS port.

If SpaceX can do that, then the LSS is no longer on the critical path, and the question is moot.

[TheRadicalModerate]

If NASA really feels forced to do a non-landing Arty3, the least-ludicrous mission would be to have Orion dock to the uncrewed Starship demo HLS in NRHO. No Gateway needed. Presumably uncrewed HLS demo is available a year before the actual Starship HLS, and is in a schedule race with Gateway.

Uncrewed demo SS HLS could also be used as a demo for an eventual SS station to replace Gateway, or to replace some or most of its modules. Bigger, cheaper, available sooner.

If you're worried about Starship's schedule, then building an alternate schedule with Starship on or near the critical path doesn't sound like a good idea.

Why do you think there's a one-year gap between the uncrewed demo and the crewed landing?  If the demo is successful, SpaceX can turn things around for the Real Thing in a few months.

There's obviously the question of how quickly NASA is willing to turn a successful demo into a crew certification, but that's kinda their problem, isn't it?

[tbellman]

How does docking with the uncrewed demo HLS differ from docking with Gateway?

For one thing, the HLS uncrewed demo ship is almost certainly going to lack an actual cabin and docking port.  Its purpose is after all just to demonstrate landing, and possibly also take-off, not to be a fully functional crew vehicle, and said landing will have a high risk of ending in a crash, so a cabin would just be a waste of money and effort.

[TheRadicalModerate]

How does docking with the uncrewed demo HLS differ from docking with Gateway?

For one thing, the HLS uncrewed demo ship is almost certainly going to lack an actual cabin and docking port.  Its purpose is after all just to demonstrate landing, and possibly also take-off, not to be a fully functional crew vehicle, and said landing will have a high risk of ending in a crash, so a cabin would just be a waste of money and effort.

I'd expect the cabin to be Artemis I-like:  No ECLSS, but close enough to get ergonomic and stress data.  The other thing that's going to be hugely important is to demonstrate the elevator.  There's no CLIN for it, but I'd be surprised if NASA didn't point out that it would be much easier to crew-certify with a live test.  And there's no limit to what NASA or SpaceX might want to deploy if it were cheap enough.