Landing By 2024?

[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.