Artemis III (EM-3) UPDATE thread - 2025

[Vahe231991]

According to NASA officials, the Orion spacecraft planned to be used for the Artemis 2 mission won't be reused, but the Orion for Artemis 3 will be used again for the future Artemis 6 mission.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A question. Does the Artemis 2 Orion still dependent on some of the Artemis 1 avionics boxes?

If so what happens if the Orion for Artemis 1 is not successfully recovered?

If I remember correctly the long pole for the time between the launch of Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 was those avionics boxes reuse on Orion. Which was a delay between the two launches of 18 or 20 months if I remembered correctly.

If I am wrong please correct my memory of the relationship between Orion on Artemis 1 and 2.

[Surfdaddy]

According to NASA officials, the Orion spacecraft planned to be used for the Artemis 2 mission won't be reused, but the Orion for Artemis 3 will be used again for the future Artemis 6 mission.

Kick the reuse can down the road?

[lrk]

If so what happens if the Orion for Artemis 1 is not successfully recovered?

If the Artemis 1 Orion is not successfully recovered, there will be major delays regardless of avionics hardware availability. 

[Vahe231991]

If so what happens if the Orion for Artemis 1 is not successfully recovered?

If the Artemis 1 Orion is not successfully recovered, there will be major delays regardless of avionics hardware availability.

The Orion capsule for the Artemis 1 capsule will surely be successfully retrieved, even though the Orion capsules earmarked for the Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 missions won't be reused.

[lrk]

If so what happens if the Orion for Artemis 1 is not successfully recovered?

If the Artemis 1 Orion is not successfully recovered, there will be major delays regardless of avionics hardware availability.

The Orion capsule for the Artemis 1 capsule will surely be successfully retrieved, even though the Orion capsules earmarked for the Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 missions won't be reused.

I mean in case there is a major failure causing LOV, there is certain to be a long investigation and major delays to future missions, if not outright cancellation.  Certainly not impossible for the first test flight of a new rocket, and a partially new capsule (lots of changes since EFT-1.)  Artemis-1 doesn't even have a live launch escape system. 

[Vahe231991]

I found this news item about the latest progress in assembly of the core stage of the SLS rocket for the Artemis 2:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/07/boeing-second-sls-core-march/

[Vahe231991]

The latest progress in fabricating components for the SLS rocket for the Artemis 3 mission:

The liquid oxygen (LOX) tank for Core Stage-3, which is assigned to the Artemis 3 SLS vehicle, is the last structure that needs to be assembled. There are five main structural elements for a Core Stage, a forward skirt, LOX tank, intertank, liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank, and engine section.

This thread may be best moved to Missions to the Moon (HSF) because now that the Artemis 1 mission has been launched in the final week of this month, all eyes will turn to the Artemis 2 mission.

[Robotbeat]

Upper Stage Propulsion System for Future Artemis Mission Reaches Major Milestone [dated May 25]

While the Artemis I team prepares for its upcoming mission, NASA and contractor teams are already building rockets to support future Artemis Moon missions. In United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) factory in Decatur, Alabama, major components have been completed for the Artemis III interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) that will provide the power to send astronauts to the Moon. The ICPS, which is built by ULA under a collaborative partnership with Boeing, provides in-space propulsion for the Orion spacecraft after the solid rocket boosters and core stage put SLS into an Earth orbit, and before the spacecraft is flying on its own. The liquid hydrogen tank (left) is built, and soon it will be mated to the intertank (right) that connects it with the liquid oxygen tank.

Good looking hardware.

[Vahe231991]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-candidate-landing-regions-for-artemis-iii-moon-mission

[whitelancer64]

"While the Artemis I team prepares for its upcoming mission, NASA and contractor teams are already building rockets to support future Artemis Moon missions. In United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) factory in Decatur, Alabama, major components have been completed for the Artemis III interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) that will provide the power to send astronauts to the Moon. The ICPS, which is built by ULA under a collaborative partnership with Boeing, provides in-space propulsion for the Orion spacecraft after the solid rocket boosters and core stage put SLS into an Earth orbit, and before the spacecraft is flying on its own. The liquid hydrogen tank (left) is built, and soon it will be mated to the intertank (right) that connects it with the liquid oxygen tank. The intertank is comprised of composite-material truss structures in an X design. The eight bottles around the perimeter of the trusses store helium used to pressurize the stage's propellant tanks. The liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks provide propellant for a single RL10 engine built by Aerojet Rocketdyne in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Artemis III ICPS will provide the big push needed to propel Orion toward the Moon and send the crew on the first mission where humans once again will land on the lunar surface.

Image Credit: United Launch Alliance

Last Updated: May 25, 2022
Editor: Lee Mohon"

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/upper-stage-propulsion-system-for-future-artemis-mission-reaches-major-milestone.html

[Vahe231991]

From Military Embedded Systems website:

Moreover, Ladwig states, the Artemis II vehicle will reuse select avionics from the Artemis I crew module; this practice will continue to dramatically increase, she says, to the point where the Artemis III pressure vessel capsule will be entirely refurbished for the Artemis VI mission.

Is there any reason why select avionics from the Artemis 1 capsule will be re-used for the Artemis 2 capsule?

[deltaV]

Is there any reason why select avionics from the Artemis 1 capsule will be re-used for the Artemis 2 capsule?

My guess: Orion lacks the flight rate to make reuse pay off but they're reusing anyway to make Orion look more sustainable and less out of date.

[Kansan52]

Reusing electronics happened during Apollo mostly for speed, to my knowledge.

[gemmy0I]

Reusing electronics happened during Apollo mostly for speed, to my knowledge.

Ironically, the effect will be the opposite for Orion: the need to refurbish and reuse the same electronics boxes between Artemis I and II introduces a more-than-year-long (I don't recall the exact number of months but it's been discussed frequently around here) "iron bar" into the program schedule, so called because it represents an incompressible minimum delay between Artemis I and II. This "iron bar" is often represented visually as such on official Artemis program schedules.

My guess as to why they're doing this is the same as deltaV's in the previous post: it's primarily for PR optics (to look like they're getting a head start on the more substantial reuse plans to be phased in later in the program). Even if the value of reuse were not highly dubious to begin with for a program with such a low flight rate, it never made sense to not plan on alternating between at least two sets so as to decouple schedule slips from mission to mission.

IIRC they do intend to have more sets available in the future (and I wouldn't be surprised if they already have them on hand in some stage of completion, since electronics are rarely made in batches of one) but they are insisting on reusing the Artemis I set on Artemis II in order to conduct "risk reduction" for future flights.

(Never mind the obvious schedule risk that this plan creates for Artemis II itself, since it means every slip to Artemis I's launch date was at least a day-for-day slip for Artemis II. Supposedly, since Artemis III will use a new set of avionics, they'll have some opportunity to "catch up" with a smaller gap between II and III; but I'll believe it when I see it.)

[jadebenn]

I think y'all think about "PR" way more than the actual engineers do.

[AmigaClone]

Personally it would not be a surprise if it came out that the 'reusing' a specific set of electronics actually cost significantly more than having two sets of those electronics.

Alternatively, those electronics being 'reused' are so out of date that many of their components are no longer being produced. Artemis III would be have a new set of electronics. That set would functionally be equivalent to the one on Artemis I and II but would be using more modern components.

[sdsds]

I suspect the program (LM and NASA) have some contingency options which they don't have a need or an opportunity to discuss much. As stated the plan of record is to reuse some of the tried-and-true electronics from the Artemis 1 Orion for the Artemis 2 Orion. Flight-proven is more than just a buzzword. The time and effort to re-qualify the once-flown assemblies on the ground for their second flight is likely less than the time and effort to qualify new-built and unflown assemblies.
That said, I would expect the program has on the ground right now nominally non-flight hardware that closely matches the hardware on the Artemis 1 Orion. That would be used to identify and test potential fixes if an anomaly arose with the in-flight hardware. Could that hardware set be pressed into service for Orion on Artemis 2 if the equivalents weren't recovered from the currently flying Orion? I don't believe LM or NASA have spoken much in public about that contingency.
Hopefully the new-built electronics planned for Orion on Artemis 3 incorporate lessons learned from the extant design. Careful and gradual improvement seems to be the LM and NASA philosophy.

(Disclaimer equivalent to that of Leonard McCoy applies: "I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer.")

[AnnK]

The core stage still confuses me—all of that booster to put Orion2 and the service module into a very low LEO. As far as I can tell, the Saturn 5 put more payload on the moon. Artemis is a waste of money. Can SpaceX just put a different fairing on a Falcon Heavy, which will place the Orion into a trip to Lunar orbit? What does it prove to put the core stage into a very low LEO? Artemis should be canceled or redone. No one wastes money like NASA. Could you tell me where my thinking is wrong? a 200 million launch vs. 2 billion?

[John Santos]

The core stage still confuses me—all of that booster to put Orion2 and the service module into a very low LEO. As far as I can tell, the Saturn 5 put more payload on the moon. Artemis is a waste of money. Can SpaceX just put a different fairing on a Falcon Heavy, which will place the Orion into a trip to Lunar orbit? What does it prove to put the core stage into a very low LEO? Artemis should be canceled or redone. No one wastes money like NASA. Could you tell me where my thinking is wrong? a 200 million launch vs. 2 billion?

It put Orion, its service module and a fully fueled ICPS stage into LEO.  The ICPS second stage is many times heavier than the Orion (including service module.)