NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 2

[su27k]

The first thread is: NASA aims for quick start to 2024 Moon landing via newly named Artemis Program

The first thread was locked due to political infighting, let's try to do better this time around.

[su27k]

Starting a 2nd thread since there seems to be some pivoting going on in Artemis program, first reported by @nasawatch: Is There Another NASA Destination Pivot Ahead?

There is a pervasive rumor circulating in the space sector that the President will make a statement associated w/the #Apollo11 anniversary. It would supposedly have more to do w/Mars than #moon2024. Sources talk about a 24 Jul event at @NASA - maybe JSC. #rumor #hearsay #gossip pic.twitter.com/g5q4s75dnu

Of course it would be a typical Trump tactic to pivot to a #Mars destination for @NASA - and not #Moon2024 - right after @JimBridenstine fires (promotes) Bill Gerstenmaier and his staff for not getting to the Moon fast enough per orders from @VP Pence. #Artemis #whiplash

NASA Administrator to Talk Moon Landing Anniversary, Moon to Mars Plans https://t.co/w1nKn42cKY #Artemis #Mars #Moon #Apollo50

#NASA sources now talking about 19 Jul event w/President to talk about @NASA plans/destinations. Since White House usually only confirms events shortly before they happen official word likely next week - perhaps at 15 Jul press event with @JimBridenstine #artemis #moon2024 #Mars

I believe Bridenstine hinted at this in the Loren Grush interview: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691740/nasa-administrator-jim-bridenstine-bill-gerstenmaier-reassignment

But there’s been a lot of talk of sustainability on the Moon. Do we want to create a sustainable outpost on the Moon, or is it not going to be a long-term thing?

Gateway will be an orbit around the Moon for 15 years, and the lander will be able to go back and forth to the Moon from the Gateway over and over again, and we will have access to any part of the Moon any time we want. That’s the goal. And in fact, if we want to have people on the surface of the Moon for long periods of time, we could do that as well. And we’ll probably have to do that to prove the technologies and capabilities for Mars.

But the goal is to get to Mars, and we need to know what we need to do on the Moon for the Mars mission. It is also true that because we have international partners and commercial partners, they might want to build out on the surface of the Moon. We would love that.

But what we’re focused on and what we are going to do is build the capabilities to get to Mars and partner with commercial to do so. And if they want to do things on the Moon that maybe are in commercial interest but not necessarily in NASA’s interest, we welcome that.

“THE MOON IS THE PROVING GROUND. MARS IS THE DESTINATION.”

It’s important to remember that if we build out in one spot on the surface of the Moon, we’re going to know a whole lot of information about that one spot where we landed. That’s what we did in Apollo. We landed on the Moon six times, and we know a lot about the Moon in the six locations where we landed. What we missed for 40 years was the fact that there are hundreds of millions of tons of water ice on the south pole of the Moon. So what we don’t want to do is limit our ability to have access to the entirety of the Moon. We want to not only go sustainably to the Moon, but go sustainably and have access to any part of the Moon at any time we want, utilizing technology that will get us to Mars.

And if there is an industry partner or an international partner that wants to build out a certain part of the Moon, partnering with us on the architecture, we welcome that.

I see, but for NASA specifically, building out an outpost on the surface of the Moon is not the priority right now?

It depends on what you mean by outpost. We could have numerous missions on the surface of the Moon, all at the same time. But are we looking to build a base on the Moon? That’s not necessarily the agenda. I’m not saying it can’t be done or it shouldn’t be done or that our commercial partners wouldn’t want to do it. All I’m saying is, our focus is using the Moon for the technology capabilities to go on to Mars. But you know when you talk about an outpost or a lunar base, that means 100 different things to 100 different people. It’s very difficult for me to say, “No, that’s not what we’re doing” or “Yes, that’s what we are doing.”

But the goal is to have access to any part of the Moon anytime we want and to enable commercial and international partners to join us in that effort. And if some of them want to build up more capability on the surface of the Moon, that’s great for NASA, it’s great for science, it’s great for our country.

But what we’re going to continue to focus on is the capabilities and the technology that we need to go on to Mars.

Sounds to me there's a lot more emphasis on a flag & footprint Moon mission, instead of a surface base & resource extraction.

[Scylla]

Newsmakers With Jim Bridenstine
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussed the Apollo 11 moon landing 50 years ago this month, looks ahead to U.S. plans to return to the moon and to go to Mars, and talks about U.S. space policy overall, including President Trump’s goal to develop a Space Force.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462496-1/newsmakers-jim-bridenstine

[su27k]

Here's the article based on the C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” interview: https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-says-leadership-changes-linked-to-urgency-in-nasas-exploration-programs/

A lot of stuff in it, what interests me is the funding for Artemis:

He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”

“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.

One area of concern, though, is that the 2020 fiscal year is likely to start on a continuing resolution (CR), as has been the case throughout recent history. Continuing resolutions, which fund agencies at levels of the previous fiscal year, restrict the ability to start new programs unless they’re formally authorized through an “anomaly” to the CR.

“If that happens,” Bridenstine said, “we need to look at how NASA can move forward in some kind of anomaly.”

[freddo411]

The current Artemis effort has some glaring problems:

* it is not funded
* it lacks a lander
* it lacks space suits
* it's architecture is politically contrived, causing serious operational and scheduling difficulties.  (insert your favorite SLS/Orion/Gateway lashing here).

If there would be a "pivot" coming from the WH that would direct manned spaceflight toward Mars, while still keeping all the current constraints, then any manned Mars effort is wildly unrealistic technically, politically and financially.    Will we see this WH trying to sell the Potemkin space program like #JourneyToMars?

[TheRadicalModerate]

Let's do a little back-of-napkin on how much money would be freed up if commercial launch got Orion to TLI instead of SLS Block 1.  I'm going to use a nine-year baseline (2020-2028) for this, because that's the slate of erstwhile SLS-based missions (8 of them, IIRC) we know about:

SLS: $2.1B/year right now.  Let's get really optimistic and say that that drops to $1.7B/year in 2026.
EGS: $575M, $505M, $443M, $442M, then let's guess an average of $250M for the out years 2024-2028.

Total stuff we plan to kill: $15.8B

Note that I'm leaving the Orion out of all of these, since it's the same cost for all architectures.  If you'd like to do the same exercise where you substitute a sup'ed-up D2 or CST-100 for Orion, feel free, but it's beyond the scope here.

Some architectures:

1) D4H just barely launches uncrewed Orion to LEO (you need a mass-reduced LAS that only jettisons the ogive), CCP launch boards crew on orbit, FH2R launches ICPS, crew/Orion rendezvous with ICPS and go to TLI.
R&D:  $2B
Per-Mission: $500M D4H, $170M FH2R, $80M ICPS/DCSS, $150M CCP = $900M
R&D + 8 missions = $9.2B total
$6.6B freed up for other Artemis goodies

2) Crewed Frankenrocket:  FHE + ICPS + Orion + LAS + crew.
R&D: $4B (if it's even possible--that's one really long payload for an F9 S2).  Includes crew-rate for FH.
Per-Mission:  $200 FHE, $80M ICPS/DCSS = $280M
R&D + 8 missions: $6.2B
$9.6B freed up for other Artemis goodies

3) Crewed FH3R to launch Orion/crew, no-payload New Glenn S2 to do TLI with remaining prop.  Note that a BE-3U should be able to throttle below the 300 kN limit for Orion's NASA Docking System.  But also note that, by my figuring, the NG S2 will come up 200-400 m/s short of TLI.  I'm assuming that that's within the acceptable range of delta-v that could be made up by the Orion and still allow it to complete an NRHO mission.
R&D: $1B to crew-rate FH, $1B to crew-rate NG S2 = $2B
Per-Mission: $130M FH3R, $100M NG = $230M
R&D + 8 missons: $3.8B
$12.0B freed up for other Artemis goodies

4) Uncrewed Orion/FH3R launch, Orion stays in LEO for a while, then CCP launch to board crew, followed by no-payload FHE launch, with a deep-throttlable F9 S2 using the remaing prop to take the Orion to TLI.  Note that the big deal here is getting the MVac to throttle down to 32% to get to the 300 kN limit for the NDS.
R&D: $1.5B
Per-Mission: $100M FH3R, $150M CCP, $180M FHE = $430M
R&D + 8 missions: $4.9B
$10.9B freed up for other Artemis goodies.

Now:  The odds of this happening in FY20 are basically nil, with FY21-22 being low probability.  So let's assume that we get through Artemis-2 on SLS, then decide to cut over to one of the alternatives starting with A-3.  That means we spend $7.8B on SLS in addition to the R&D for the various alternatives, and now the alternatives run for 6 missions instead of 8.  Then the savings we get are:

$0.6B in savings for the D4H/Orion+FHE/ICPS+CCP option
$2.3B in savings for the Frankenrocket option
$4.6B in savings for the FH3R/Orion + NG/no payload option.
$3.9B in savings for the FH3R/Orion + FHE/no payload + CCP option

The moral of the story here is that killing SLS at almost any time is probably worth it, but it's much, much more worth it if it's done soon.  If the goal is to free up cash for Artemis landers and suits and surface equipment for a run at actually making the 2024 date, then it needs to be killed right away.

I'm not holding my breath.

[butters]

This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.

How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?

[jadebenn]

Per-Mission: $500M D4H, $170M FH2R, $80M ICPS/DCSS, $150M CCP = $900M

The per-mission cost of SLS is $876M (slide 18). Your commercial alternative is not cheaper in absolute terms, and imposes additional costs in the form of increased mission risk.

You can argue about ground support infrastructure costs as well, of course, but then you also need to quantify the increased risk of failure inherent in doing so many launches and dockings while fuel slowly boils off in the LEO thermal environment.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Per-Mission: $500M D4H, $170M FH2R, $80M ICPS/DCSS, $150M CCP = $900M

The per-mission cost of SLS is $876M (slide 18). Your commercial alternative is not cheaper in absolute terms, and imposes additional costs in the form of increased mission risk.

You can argue about ground support infrastructure costs as well, of course, but then you also need to quantify the increased risk of failure inherent in doing so many launches and dockings while fuel slowly boils off in the LEO thermal environment.

The $876M is a marginal cost, and has nothing to do with the program costs needed to keep SLS staffed and operational.

The best way to compute a per-launch cost is to take the amount of money spent in the budget for SLS and EGS, which I computed (fairly optimistically [1]) at $15.8B for the next nine years, and divide that by the number of missions over that period, which is eight.  That gives you $2.0B per launch.

It's a completely fair criticism to argue that the complexity of distributed launch is much higher than an SLS launch--it is.  But even if the complexity increases the chances of an abort, the costs are so much lower that you'd likely come out ahead even if a mission aborted.

As for boil-off:  Also a fair criticism, but a couple of things to note:

1) You'd obviously launch the cryo stage last, after the crew is buttoned up on orbit in the Orion.  If there's a hitch in getting things ready, the cryo launch can be delayed so the tanks are topped off.

2) The Delta IV User Guide lists DCSS mission lifetime as 8 hours.  The F9 S2 used in the Falcon Heavy test flight did a restart after 6 hours.  I don't know what the New Glenn S2 will do for mission life, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least 6 hours.  That's four orbits.  The Russians have been doing two-and-a-half-orbit rendezvous to the ISS since last year.  Assuming you have good orbital elements on the Orion before doing the cryo launch, I don't see any reason why it should be any different.

3) You would have to have an expedited checkout before TLI, but that's what automation is for.

Bottom line:  there is definitely more risk, and likely some mission-smithing to do to minimize that risk and get the rendezvous stuff clean.  But it's soooooo much cheaper.

------------------
[1] If you just extend out the SLS and EGS budgets straight into the out-years using the 2023 numbers, you actually get something closer to $2.9B per launch.

[Lar]

This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.

How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?

That's just crazy talk. Too sensible. 

[JohnFornaro]

We should have a lunar base which can sustain itself for twenty two months.  Then we can be reasonably sure that the Mars base could sustain itself for the same amount of time.

[freddo411]

We should have a lunar base which can sustain itself for twenty two months.  Then we can be reasonably sure that the Mars base could sustain itself for the same amount of time.

Good idea.   I thought it would be a great idea to actually construct a habitat module that would be used on the trip to Mars, attach it to ISS, and run it for 9 months to see how well it worked.   

Thankfully, SS now breaks that paradigm.   

[su27k]

Transcript: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on "Face the Nation," July 14, 2019, some further clarification of the Mars goal.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Tell me, though, about your plans for Artemis, the plan to put humans back on the Moon just five years from now.

BRIDENSTINE: That's right. So we want to go back to the Moon sustainably, in other words, to stay, but we also want to keep our eye on what is President Trump's goal? What is his vision? He wants to put an American flag on Mars. So we go to the Moon so that we can learn how to live and work on another world and ultimately have more access to the solar system than ever before. So that we can get- no kidding- to Mars.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But then the president tweeted "NASA should not be talking about going to the Moon. We did that 50 years ago. We should be focused on much bigger things." Is he fully onboard with what you just laid out?

BRIDENSTINE: A hundred percent. I talked to him after that tweet. I wanted to make sure we were in alignment, we absolutely are. He understands, and in fact he said to me, "I know we've got to go to the Moon to get to Mars." But he said, "What is that generational achievement that will inspire all of Americans?" It's putting an American flag on Mars. He said, "Make sure you're committed to the- to the flag on Mars."

[jadebenn]

MARGARET BRENNAN: But then the president tweeted "NASA should not be talking about going to the Moon. We did that 50 years ago. We should be focused on much bigger things." Is he fully onboard with what you just laid out?

BRIDENSTINE: A hundred percent. I talked to him after that tweet. I wanted to make sure we were in alignment, we absolutely are. He understands, and in fact he said to me, "I know we've got to go to the Moon to get to Mars." But he said, "What is that generational achievement that will inspire all of Americans?" It's putting an American flag on Mars. He said, "Make sure you're committed to the- to the flag on Mars."

Translation: "After that tweet, we all panicked because we weren't sure if the President was on the same page as us. Thankfully, after talking to him, it seems like he just wanted us to emphasize how this leads to Mars, which is why we're going to make an announcement to that end pretty soon."

It's pretty much what everyone eventually decided Trump's tweet actually meant, once we got over the collective heart attack it caused.

[Coastal Ron]

Translation: "After that tweet, we all panicked because we weren't sure if the President was on the same page as us. Thankfully, after talking to him, it seems like he just wanted us to emphasize how this leads to Mars, which is why we're going to make an announcement to that end pretty soon."

It's pretty much what everyone eventually decided Trump's tweet actually meant, once we got over the collective heart attack it caused.

That is Bridenstine's version of what happened. And maybe it's the true version, but this is still a situation where no one knows what the heck Trump means when he tweets something, and then all we know is what is reported back by a third person.

I think we should all long for the day where our leaders proclamations don't constantly need interpreting by 3rd parties... 

[jadebenn]

I think we should all long for the day where our leaders proclamations don't constantly need interpreting by 3rd parties... 

Agreed. It would indeed be nice not to need interpreters to figure out what our Commander in-Chief means whenever he opens his mouth, especially since his tweets apparently count as official government communication.

I'm just glad we're sticking to the Moon-first path for now. Mars-first was trying to run before we re-learnt how to walk (in this analogy, LEO is learning how to crawl). Knowing that Trump is at least begrudgingly accepting of the Moon-first approach is good news for BLEO exploration.

[Eric Hedman]

Translation: "After that tweet, we all panicked because we weren't sure if the President was on the same page as us. Thankfully, after talking to him, it seems like he just wanted us to emphasize how this leads to Mars, which is why we're going to make an announcement to that end pretty soon."

It's pretty much what everyone eventually decided Trump's tweet actually meant, once we got over the collective heart attack it caused.

That is Bridenstine's version of what happened. And maybe it's the true version, but this is still a situation where no one knows what the heck Trump means when he tweets something, and then all we know is what is reported back by a third person.

I think we should all long for the day where our leaders proclamations don't constantly need interpreting by 3rd parties... 

Where's the fun in keeping things calm and steady?  This will keep the team on their toes.  Hopefully it keeps people thinking and moving things forward and reduces the  complacency that always seems to settle into programs over time.  It's not like complacency hasn't been a regular in NASA's HSF programs.

[Coastal Ron]

Where's the fun in keeping things calm and steady?  This will keep the team on their toes.  Hopefully it keeps people thinking and moving things forward and reduces the  complacency that always seems to settle into programs over time.

When you're developing plans that cost ten's of $Billions, you need stable requirements. So when the President tweets something that seems to change the requirements it slows down progress until everyone can find out what the heck is the new plan, and then start anew.

I'm not sure how you see this as a good thing.

It's not like complacency hasn't been a regular in NASA's HSF programs.

NASA's HSF program hasn't been funded to do anything new, so why would you say they are complacent? I'm sure you know that NASA employees do not control their own destiny, they work for the NASA Administrator, who works for the President, who signs the funding bills Congress creates.

Where is NASA complacent in all of this?

[Eric Hedman]

Where's the fun in keeping things calm and steady?  This will keep the team on their toes.  Hopefully it keeps people thinking and moving things forward and reduces the  complacency that always seems to settle into programs over time.

When you're developing plans that cost ten's of $Billions, you need stable requirements. So when the President tweets something that seems to change the requirements it slows down progress until everyone can find out what the heck is the new plan, and then start anew.

I'm not sure how you see this as a good thing.

It's not like complacency hasn't been a regular in NASA's HSF programs.

NASA's HSF program hasn't been funded to do anything new, so why would you say they are complacent? I'm sure you know that NASA employees do not control their own destiny, they work for the NASA Administrator, who works for the President, who signs the funding bills Congress creates.

Where is NASA complacent in all of this?

In my career developing software for engineering and manufacturing I have been in literally hundreds of engineering departments.  I have yet to run into one where complacency doesn't settle in to some level.  I don't expect NASA to be the one exception.  It's impossible to completely avoid.  I'm talking about a number of issues including not paying attention to how the rest of the world does things.  Best practices in management, tools, training all are issues that I'm referring to.  Also no organization is perfect when technical problems are discovered and how to handle them including bringing it up the chain to people who don't want to hear it.  I don't expect any organization to be perfect.  Having someone keeping people a little on edge helps keep people looking at how they can do their job better.  Without this complacency grows.

[RDoc]

He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”

“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.

Does anyone have any ideas as to what he's referring to here?

Personally, I find it exceptionally difficult to imagine any company investing a significant amount of money for Lunar access capability to sell to a customer base with commercial Lunar plans.

What possible customers would these be?

[Rocket Science]

He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”

“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.

Does anyone have any ideas as to what he's referring to here?

Personally, I find it exceptionally difficult to imagine any company investing a significant amount of money for Lunar access capability to sell to a customer base with commercial Lunar plans.

What possible customers would these be?

Imaginary ones...

[Coastal Ron]

He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”

“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.

Does anyone have any ideas as to what he's referring to here?

Personally, I find it exceptionally difficult to imagine any company investing a significant amount of money for Lunar access capability to sell to a customer base with commercial Lunar plans.

What possible customers would these be?

I think we all know that when a government official provides a range for budget and schedule, that it is usually the highest number that is more believable estimate.

And I would imagine that Bridenstine is being optimistic with regards to international partners, since President Trump has ostracized our European partners on many fronts, and I can't imagine which companies would be willing to invest hundreds of $Millions, much less $Billions, in this effort.

To be clear, I think there has always been lots of interest in getting humans back to the Moon, and certainly lots of recent interest in applications for the lunar water that has been discovered. However I don't know of any business plans that would support the long-term investments it will take to generate some form of ROI from activities on or near the Moon.

There are plenty of companies that will gladly be contractors for the Artemis program, which is a risk on its own. I don't know of any that would be interested in a Public/Private Partnerships that requires them to pony up significant amounts of money in order to participate. I certainly don't see public companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin doing that, nor SpaceX or Blue Origin. Who else would have the resources for what Bridenstine is suggesting?

[su27k]

He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”

“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.

Does anyone have any ideas as to what he's referring to here?

Personally, I find it exceptionally difficult to imagine any company investing a significant amount of money for Lunar access capability to sell to a customer base with commercial Lunar plans.

What possible customers would these be?

There're two interpretations:
1. He's just trying to be optimistic/putting up a brave face, probably using some vague future lunar commercial plans such as lunar water as propellant. I hope he doesn't pin his hope on these, since you're right that no company would invest large amount of money based on these plans.
2. He's counting on SpaceX and Blue Origin. Blue is obviously investing their own money into lunar landers, we don't know if they have a commercial plan since Bezos doesn't want to tell us, could be the customer is Bezos himself which is fine given his net worth. SpaceX's Starship is the best example of a lunar access capability with a realistic - albeit non-lunar - commercial plan. Both companies are investing heavily into their respective plan and would proceed with or without NASA, they're the only companies who can share a significant portion (maybe even the majority portion) of the development cost of a lunar lander. I think Bridenstine is smart enough to realize this, the question is will he act on it.

[envy887]

There are plenty of companies that will gladly be contractors for the Artemis program, which is a risk on its own. I don't know of any that would be interested in a Public/Private Partnerships that requires them to pony up significant amounts of money in order to participate. I certainly don't see public companies like Boeing or Lockheed Martin doing that, nor SpaceX or Blue Origin. Who else would have the resources for what Bridenstine is suggesting?

SpaceX, Blue, Orbital ATK, and SNC all put in their own money for COTS/CRS. Getting them to do the same for Artemis logistics (and perhaps more) should be reasonably easy as long NASA can convince them that this is a long term program like ISS and there will be enough contracts available to eventually pay back their investment.

Of course, since Congress isn't enthused about financing the program, and there is minimal international partnership so far, convincing private companies that this is a long-term effort by NASA (and is not just another in the long series of human exploration bait and switch programs) is going to be exceedingly difficult.

[TheRadicalModerate]

SpaceX, Blue, Orbital ATK, and SNC all put in their own money for COTS/CRS. Getting them to do the same for Artemis logistics (and perhaps more) should be reasonably easy as long NASA can convince them that this is a long term program like ISS and there will be enough contracts available to eventually pay back their investment.

Of course, since Congress isn't enthused about financing the program, and there is minimal international partnership so far, convincing private companies that this is a long-term effort by NASA (and is not just another in the long series of human exploration bait and switch programs) is going to be exceedingly difficult.

It strikes me that this may ultimately be the best argument for the Gateway that we can construct.  If you have an asset sitting in NRHO, which can be used at whatever operational tempo Congress will allow it to be used, then the companies offering logistical support for it have a pretty decent chance of getting a return on their R&D, irrespective of what happens with lunar surface ops.  Presumably, the transfer stage of the lander architecture is pretty much the same as the logistics modules, so that defrays its risk.  That lander as a standalone for heavy robotic missions also makes sense at some sustainable tempo.

That leaves the crewed ascender, which NASA would no doubt like to have more control over anyway.  So, if they decide to go for a cost-sharing arrangement with a service provider, they'll likely have to put more skin in the game to make it attractive.

[su27k]

Some Bridenstine quotes from today's Senate Commerce Committee’s hearing on NASA’s deep space exploration plans:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1151503837796151297

Wicker: what happens if we start FY2020 on a continuing resolution?
Bridenstine: it would be devastating. Want to work with industry on lunar lander development; if we end up in a CR, that lander doesn’t continue to get developed.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1151505398018584576

Bridenstine: working with administration on FY21 budget proposal, which will include out-years projections for Artemis through 2024. [But that budget won’t be released until next Feb.]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1151507842341441536

Bridenstine, as he did in Monday’s call with reporters, says he’s not ruling out a 2033 human Mars mission. He says a small team looking at options, including “orbital physics” not previously studied.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1151511739260964867

Bridenstine says some companies are willing to invest 30% or more into development of commercial landers. Want to select three such landers for initial development, then downselect to two.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1151515896055238656

Markey: what’s schedule for developing spacesuits for 2024 lunar landing?

Bridenstine: it’s a challenge; want a “flexible” suit architecture that can be used in LEO and on the Moon.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Astronaut Andy Thomas is not happy with the new plan.

Concerns about moon mission timeline: Aussie Astronaut
Max Blenkin
18 July 2019

As NASA continues to push forward with an ambition to return to the moon by 2024, Australian astronaut Dr Andy Thomas has raised concerns about the risks to life and resources.

https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/operations/3564-concerns-about-moon-mission-timeline-dr-andy-thomas

[JohnFornaro]

This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.

How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?

Possibly, but remember that the Trans-Continental railroad was built first, then "somebody else" invested in all the real estate along the way.

[butters]

This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.

How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?

Possibly, but remember that the Trans-Continental railroad was built first, then "somebody else" invested in all the real estate along the way.

No, the railroad companies were granted the land beside the line by the federal government as part of their compensation for building it, and these analogies are silly even when they're factual.

[JohnFornaro]

Astronaut Andy Thomas is not happy with the new plan. ...
As NASA continues to push forward with an ambition to return to the moon by 2024, Australian astronaut Dr Andy Thomas has raised concerns about the risks to life and resources.

https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/operations/3564-concerns-about-moon-mission-timeline-dr-andy-thomas

Well yeah.  Putting an Astro on top of a highly explosive tube of propellant is not "safe".  And it's not "safe" for humans to be walking around on the Moon.   According to Bridienstine's "help wanted ad", he closes with, "At NASA, safety is our highest priority.  cost and schedule also matter.  It is important that we all stay focused on the work ahead to successfully land on the Moon in 2024." 

The semantic problem of "safety" keeps banging into the real world fact that off planet exploration is risky.

Having said that, I expect the chorus of naysayers to erupt in a Cathy Newman outburst:  "What you're saying is that NASA should engage in activities that it knows are not safe."

[JohnFornaro]

This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.

How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?

Possibly, but remember that the Trans-Continental railroad was built first, then "somebody else" invested in all the real estate along the way.

No, the railroad companies were granted the land beside the line by the federal government as part of their compensation for building it, and these analogies are silly even when they're factual.

Got it.  So even if I'm right, I'm wrong.  The principle is directionally accurate if one considers the function of the railroad with the function of the gateway.  But no.  What happens should the USG privatize the Gateway?  Don't push the analogy to the breaking point.

[jadebenn]

New OP-Ed on the Artemis program by none other than Lori Garver:

Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.

Suffice to say, she's not a fan. Though she goes a lot farther in opposing it than I expected. Not like this kind of argument is anything new, though.

[TrevorMonty]

New OP-Ed on the Artemis program by none other than Lori Garver:

Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.

Suffice to say, she's not a fan. Though she goes a lot farther in opposing it than I expected. Not like this kind of argument is anything new, though.

She says NASA should be focused on climate change, mainly monitoring of it.
There is rural saying that is explicable to this "A pig don't fatter more you weigh it". The solution is not in studying it but doing something about it ie reduce carbon emission.

Our emissions are all created by generation of energy by fossils. One green solution that can meet most of our energy demands is space based solar power, unlike fusion there are no major technology break throughs required, just lots of engineering problems. The biggest of which is mining the materials in space to build these large gigawatt stations.
That is where NASA and moon come into picture. We need lunar resources to start ball rolling, eventually asteriods will provide bulk of construction material.

Long term we will need human in loop on moon or space nearby but in near term lot can be done robotically for lot cheaper than HSF to moon.

If you think building GW space stations is pie in sky stuff, look back at history. 100yrs ago nobody would consider building ships out of aluminum, which was almost as precious as gold. Same could be said 1000yrs ago about building mega ton structures from steel.

[hektor]

Obviously she is still pursuing her perennial objective of being the NASA Administrator of a democrat Administration.

And she is assuming a Green New Deal or something of the kind will be in the order of the day.

[JohnFornaro]

"Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth."

What a pitiful headline.  Lori Garver is now doing her part to dis-assemble NASA.  She took a fair amount of illogical abuse during her tenure; maybe this is payback?

[JohnFornaro]

Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.


Our emissions are all created by generation of energy by fossils. One green solution that can meet most of our energy demands is space based solar power, unlike fusion there are no major technology break throughs required, just lots of engineering problems. ...

Yeah.  Engineering problems such as adding even more heat from the Sun into the Earth's eco-system.  Right?  Because the waste product of all this solar power is heat?  So we're gonna make the planed cooler by warming it?

[JohnFornaro]

The fact that Bridenstine cannot show a spacesuit for use on the moon is enough evidence for me to say the whole HSF program should be cancelled.  There are no materials I know of that will be flexible/seal correctly at the extreme cold temperatures at the permanently shadowed craters on the moon.

How about space suit, period?

You do realize that the astros will drive into the craters, not walk?

Later on, the astros will need a rover with good insulation, and will probably never walk outside the rover while in the crater, but this is not the first problem to be solved.

[TrevorMonty]

Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.


Our emissions are all created by generation of energy by fossils. One green solution that can meet most of our energy demands is space based solar power, unlike fusion there are no major technology break throughs required, just lots of engineering problems. ...

Yeah.  Engineering problems such as adding even more heat from the Sun into the Earth's eco-system.  Right?  Because the waste product of all this solar power is heat?  So we're gonna make the planed cooler by warming it?

From what I've read its not that big a deal a few Terawatts is nothing compared to sun heating, which is 1.5TW per 1000km2 (10x100km).

If we can build space solar power stations then sunshades should be easy. They are one possible way to help cool earth.

[Todd Martin]

Obviously she is still pursuing her perennial objective of being the NASA Administrator of a democrat Administration.

And she is assuming a Green New Deal or something of the kind will be in the order of the day.

No, I think she has permanently removed herself from serious consideration as NASA administrator under any plausible administration with this WP article.  I had a high opinion of Lori and her work as Deputy Administrator.

Lori's argument boils down to NASA spending could be better applied elsewhere while ignoring the other 99% of the Federal budget.  Assuming she is correct and climate change deserves 19 Billion a year in funding more than NASA, why pick on NASA's slice instead of some other Federal agency?  The lowest hanging fruit for budget cutting isn't NASA.
 
Artemis has flaws as we have all commented on, but Bridentine is trying to improve the program and make it successful.  He deserves support in those efforts, not philosophical arguments.

[punder]

And so Garver goes gaga. Sigh. Another one bites the dust.     

[speedevil]

Well since it will be the first woman on the moon, the problem is not only making just a  spacesuit... but making a spacesuit that that can fit a woman.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-all-female-spacewalk-for-want-of-a-medium-sized-spacesuit

That was not related to her gender.
Just her size.

[ncb1397]

New logo for Artemis

[HeartofGold2030]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

[speedevil]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

I have only read at the moment Attachment A1.
I cannot find any language that would preclude a bid from SS.
SS docks at LOPG - after a retanking in LEO, and then one in HEO, for a total of perhaps nine launches, lands on the moon, and then returns to gateway. And then 'disposes' of itself back to earth.

2024 seems an achievable timeline.

[lonestriker]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

I have only read at the moment Attachment A1.
I cannot find any language that would preclude a bid from SS.
SS docks at LOPG - after a retanking in LEO, and then one in HEO, for a total of perhaps nine launches, lands on the moon, and then returns to gateway. And then 'disposes' of itself back to earth.

2024 seems an achievable timeline.

Of the many reasons why Elon has had the pedal-to-the-metal and accelerating SS development, Artemis is one of its biggest targets.  If SpaceX shows significant progress between now and the time the RFP submissions are evaluated, there's no way for NASA to pretend that SLS, Orion, and LOP-G/Gateway are the "only" way, or even "a" way, to return to the moon.

Either NASA awards SpaceX a good chunk of the work and gets to claim some credit (and save a little face.)  Or they bury their heads in the sand and when 2024 comes around their astronauts will be stuck on earth still, while SS may be orbiting around the moon with a bunch of civilians.  I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Artemis will produce any results by 2024; certainly not with their current plan for SLS and Orion, let alone all the new contracts and development that has to start from scratch after award.

[Endeavour_01]

Even as someone who has not been a fan of Lori Garver I am surprised at the level of her anti-HSF beliefs. One of NASA's jobs should be to monitor climate but as TrevorMonty pointed out the way for NASA to contribute more than just analysis is to promote expansion into space and extraction of resources.

Ultimately the article is just the same tired anti-HSF argument we've heard over and over again. I am so glad she is not NASA admin right now.

The fact that Bridenstine cannot show a spacesuit for use on the moon is enough evidence for me to say the whole HSF program should be cancelled.  There are no materials I know of that will be flexible/seal correctly at the extreme cold temperatures at the permanently shadowed craters on the moon.

So you really expect NASA to have a lunar space suit ready to go when the actual political go ahead to land on the moon happened 4 months ago? Heck, until the end of the previous admin landing on the moon was verboten.

I have no idea if what you are saying about current sealants is true but I am reminded of a 1930s NYT article that confidently proclaimed that no human would ever fly to the moon.

[A_M_Swallow]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

For a non military lunar lander project does the contractor really need 2 people with Top Secret security clearance?
(Ref: Appendix H Attachment G 4.11) They must be worried about a terrorist attack or something.

[FinalFrontier]

New OP-Ed on the Artemis program by none other than Lori Garver:

Forget new crewed missions in space. NASA should focus on saving Earth.

Suffice to say, she's not a fan. Though she goes a lot farther in opposing it than I expected. Not like this kind of argument is anything new, though.

And here I really thought for years she was pro space exploration.
This argument is bunk and should not be taken seriously. You are not going to reverse the effect of climate change. If you stopped all emissions ALL emissions right now the effects would not stop for 500 years. The only solution to that problem you can hope for is reducing the population on the planet the only reasonable way to do that is by moving people OFF planet to other planets.

Anithumanists always argue against exploration or scientific progress but it's funny to see the places they pop up in.

As far as Artemis is concerned it's doomed by SLS. Until nasa switches launch procurement to commercial none of this is going to work well if at all.

[randomly]

The only solution to that problem you can hope for is reducing the population on the planet the only reasonable way to do that is by moving people OFF planet to other planets.

What argument is bunk?

[HeartofGold2030]

Can we discuss more about crewed lunar landers and less about Lori Garver’s recent bout of insanity?

[su27k]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for human landing systems:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

I have only read at the moment Attachment A1.
I cannot find any language that would preclude a bid from SS.
SS docks at LOPG - after a retanking in LEO, and then one in HEO, for a total of perhaps nine launches, lands on the moon, and then returns to gateway. And then 'disposes' of itself back to earth.

2024 seems an achievable timeline.

Attachment_F_-_HLS_Requirements_-_2019-07-18_Rev1.zip, HLS-Gateway Interface Requirements - Draft BAA 2019-07-08.xlsx:

HLS-Gateway-0011
Provide Gateway-HLS (Integrated) Attitude Control
The HLS shall not exceed 45mT (TBR), while docked at the Gateway.   
While docked, the Gateway will provide integrated, mated stack attitude control. Assumes no HLS control required for mated operations. This control mass can be re-evaluated as more details are available for mass of the specific provider's design as well as the performance of the Gateway's power and propulsion element.

This is going to be a problem for SS.

[speedevil]

The HLS shall not exceed 45mT (TBR), while docked at the Gateway.   
While docked, the Gateway will provide integrated, mated stack attitude control. Assumes no HLS control required for mated operations. This control mass can be re-evaluated as more details are available for mass of the specific provider's design as well as the performance of the Gateway's power and propulsion element.

This is going to be a problem for SS.

Indeed, if no flexibility in negotiation (as SS probably can fully take over attitude control for the periods it is docked)

Taking the extreme approach, it seems permitted to have stuff hang out near the gateway. A 'starkicker' based SS-moon-lander with no heatshield and much else left off may be able to hit 45 tons in docked state, if it is paired with a more capable SS/tanker nearby.

Unless it is precluded by the contract language to have the propellanting done with astronauts onboard.

This would also be useful for supporting lunar surface operations by a fully SpaceX stack, as the  lander in LLO would be an excellent tanker removing the need to take the TEI propellant through 2*1700m/s.

Whatever the result, it is nice to see a much less prescriptive contract.

[Endeavour_01]

Attachment_F_-_HLS_Requirements_-_2019-07-18_Rev1.zip, HLS-Gateway Interface Requirements - Draft BAA 2019-07-08.xlsx:

From that same section:

Interface Requirement: HLS-Gateway-0005

Interface Function: Receive Power

The HLS shall have the capability to exchange power via the Gateway interface.

While docked, the HLS (Ascent element specifically) can receive power from the Gateway. Power flows through the power connectors of the docking mechanism. The programs are studying the function for HLS to transfer power to Gateway.

There has been discussion about what role the Gateway would play in terms of providing power and attitude control to the lander. This seems to indicate that the plan is for Gateway to provide both, which reduces lunar lander complexity. NASA doesn't seem married to the idea though as the 45 mt limit is to be reviewed.

I think that is the right way forward. This gives an idea of what is the max size the Gateway could handle on its own but leaves open the door to Starship.

[Endeavour_01]

More tidbits from Attachment F HLS Requirements - Appendix H Draft BAA - 2019-07-17 Rev1 (attached below)

-The HLS shall be capable of operating on the lunar surface for a minimum of 6.5 earth days. The DAC2 ConOps nominal mission is a 6.5 day surface mission for a 2-crew complement.

-The initial HLS shall be capable of operating in continuous daylight conditions on the lunar surface. The initial mission will be designed to avoid lunar night, eclipse and occultation, such that the HLS will not need to survive periods of darkness on the surface.

-In the sustained architecture, the HLS will be required to survive periods of lunar night (TBD), periods of eclipse (TBD) and periods of occultation (TBD).

-The HLS shall be capable of conducting an automated uncrewed sortie to the lunar surface.

-The HLS shall provide automated rendezvous, proximity operations, docking and undocking with the Gateway.

-HLS shall be evolvable to reusable elements with at least 5 (TBR) designed mission uses over a 10 (TBR) year period.  The period between reuse may be up to 3 years (TBR). Sustainability is a NASA objective. The HLS reusable elements are expected to support multiple missions.  Reusability is not required for the initial mission, however the crew module should be reusable in the sustained architecture. The ratio of uses assumes at least 1 HLS mission every 2 years. Five uses provides enough duration to continue missions while the next-generation reusable elements undergo DDT&E.  Due to cadence of crew missions, the uncrewed period may be up to 3 years.

[Endeavour_01]

Eric Berger reports that NASA has awarded the mini-hab contract to NGIS. It will be a modified Cygnus vehicle.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251?p=v

[TrevorMonty]

NGIS have been selected to provide habitat  module ie enhanced Cygnus with extra docking ports and life support

Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) tweeted at 2:37 AM on Wed, Jul 24, 2019:
NASA is continuing to move forward as quickly as it can in regard to a Moon 2024 landing. The agency decided to end the competition for a small hab module and award it to @northropgrumman for a modified Cygnus vehicle. 

Doc: https://t.co/u5IpPES9lV
(https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251?s=03)

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251?s=09

Here are three main reasons for choosing NGIS. 

Existing Production Capability
NGIS is the only NextSTEP-2 contractor uniquely able to complete design, development and
production of the MHM within the time necessary to launch in late 2023 and get the module
on station in lunar orbit early 2024 using existing launch vehicles. NGIS has an existing,
active pressurized module manufacturing capability via their ongoing Cygnus module
construction subcontractor that has provided experience and lessons learned from
development of 13 Cygnus vehicles to date, refining management and technical interactions
and interchanges. This existing contractual relationship and its associated production
pedigree are critical to timely development progress and problem resolution, which are
substantive mitigations to schedule risk. This production relationship is unique to NGIS
among the NextSTEP-2 vendors, and can be highly leveraged to achieve successful DDT&E
and timely delivery of the MHM.


Critical Subsystem Maturity
The Cygnus module design can be adapted to provide the structural basis for the MHM. In
addition to the existing fundamental design, during the NextSTEP-2 activities NGIS and its
contractor for spaceflight module construction have been designing modifications for
inclusion of radial docking ports which would enable multiple visiting vehicles to attach to
the MHM simultaneously, thus enabling the lunar landing architecture to be implemented
initially with the MHM serving as the sole transfer node for the 2024 mission.
The Gateway module will also have to reject heat generated by its own powered systems.
Given that body mounted radiators are already in development specifically for the Cygnus
module, the development of the critical thermal control subsystem is substantially advanced.
Design modifications to enable BMRs to cover more surface area of an extended Cygnus
structure are readily viable and provide flexibility in the implementation of the Gateway
power and avionics architectures and also reduces schedule risk. These advanced docking
port and thermal development activities further position NGIS as the only NextSTEP-2
contractor with the capability to produce an integrated module to meet the December 2023
launch schedule.

 Existing LV Fairing Accommodation
In order to meet the 2024 deadline, NASA must use existing commercial launch vehicles to
transport a MHM to lunar orbit for integration into Gateway in time to support the Vice
President’s mandate. Through the existing manufacturing capability previously described,
NGIS has tooling and manufacturability for production of a module with a diameter that can
be uniquely accommodated by existing Commercial Launch Vehicle fairings, while still
supporting radial docking or externally-mounted hardware. While other common module
diameter sizes could potentially be fabricated with already built tooling, those larger
diameters would not accommodate radial docking ports as required.

Additionally, the smaller diameter of the NGIS module enables other externally mounted
capabilities, including batteries, communication antennae, and payloads to be incorporated
upon launch and available for the initial mission. These capabilities uniquely establish a
minimum risk development posture for supplying the initial docking and habitable transfer
capability necessary to support lunar operations in 2024.
Lastly, a new full and open competition would cause an additional delay of 12-18 months or
more in fulfilling the agency’s requirements.

[Lar]

This is NOT a space policy thread.

It's also not
- a place to debate SLS vs SpaceX yet again
- a place for counterfactual fantasies
- a place for people to be snarky after they were warned not to be
- a place for general politics

Locked.

Third try: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.new

Bring your A game. If that thread devolves, I'm going to lobby that we're done with this topic outside space policy.

[gongora]

Trimmed this thread.