NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[yg1968]

Here is the conclusion to the JOFOC (DST means Deep Space Transport, a joint venture between Boeing & NG):

The RFI released in October 2021 highlighted NASA’s commitment to America’s investment in SLS as a National Asset when it specified that NASA was not soliciting information on alternatives to SLS major hardware elements or alternate architectures other than those already planned by NASA. Any source capable of fulfilling NASA’s requirement must be able to assume not only the provision of new hardware, but also the integration of existing SLS hardware and design. NASA’s analysis of RFI responses revealed that DST is the only source capable of fulfilling the unique and highly specialized EPOC requirements. NASA will continue to examine the market for alternative solutions or new sources before executing any subsequent acquisitions or exercising any options for the same requirements. Establishment of EPOC launch services is anticipated to be a predecessor to future commercialization of such services. As commercialization of space capabilities and products continues to develop, it is anticipated EPOC will contribute to commercialization of the heavy lift launch market and thus commercial industry expansion will create robust competition in the future.

[DanClemmensen]

We don't disagree as much as you think we do. I just acknowledge that SLS is a political reality. I would prefer a commercial HLV but I don't expect that it will happen any time soon. The best case scenario from a political point of view would be to have a commercial HLV in addition to SLS in order to be able to have 2 crewed lunar missions per year (but even that will be hard to sell to Congress). I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

It's not clear that SLS will ever achieve a 1-a-year cadence. It's also not clear (at least to me) why an alternate HLV would be restricted to once a year, assuming it could get through Congress at all.

[Coastal Ron]

...I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

The rationale Elon Musk has for colonizing Mars makes some sense, though it really relies on humans rationalizing our fear of extinction.

As for the Artemis program, the rationale for having a permanent presence on the Moon simply doesn't exist. Other than "science", which really can be done with robotic systems instead of humans, there are no economic reasons for having a permanent presence on the Moon, nor are there any political reasons (i.e. a "Space Race").

The Apollo program went to the Moon as part of winning the Cold War, and once we landed and safely returned the first humans to set foot on the Moon, that race was won. And no compelling reason to return to the Moon has been created since, other than "the first woman and first person of color", which are political goals, not scientific ones.

The U.S. Taxpayer is primarily funding the Artemis program, and it is important to value the money they are contributing, because there are LOTS of other uses for that same money here on Earth. So let's keep the rationale for the Artemis program as realistic and honest as possible...

My $0.02

[Athelstane]

...I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

[snip]

As for the Artemis program, the rationale for having a permanent presence on the Moon simply doesn't exist. Other than "science", which really can be done with robotic systems instead of humans, there are no economic reasons for having a permanent presence on the Moon, nor are there any political reasons (i.e. a "Space Race").

I agree with the first sentence. As Robert Zubrin would say (and has said), Artemis is not a mission driven program, but a jobs-driven program. There has been some intriguing tinkering at the margins by Robert Zurbuchen, Kathy Leuders, and (yes) Jim Bridenstine, but not enough to change its basic orientation yet.

As for the second, I think there *is* a possibility of a science driven HSF program on the Moon, just as there is for a human presence in the U.S. Antarctic Program: it just requires premises that are not in place yet. Yes, you can do a lot of science with robots, just not as efficiently as with humans (or, more ideally, a human and robots program). But we send robots to these places because we can actually *afford* them. I am not quite ready to demand a cost as low as the U.S. Antarctic Program (which scuttles along on less than $400 million annual budget), but it gives a fair idea that the cost of putting human scientists and technicians in place, and sustaining them, simply needs to get a whole lot lower and more reliable than anything NASA has managed to achieve, or will achieve with Artemis in its present form. A successful Starship program would be a giant step in that direction, but it is not the only prerequisite step. For one thing, VSECOTSPE's insistence that a well articulated science mission has to be thought out and fully inform the actual program, as is typically the case with SMD missions.

Otherwise, maybe Andy Weir is right, and we'll only see humans on the Moon when some entrepreneurs figure out a way to do tourism there profitably.

[Zed_Noir]

We don't disagree as much as you think we do. I just acknowledge that SLS is a political reality. I would prefer a commercial HLV but I don't expect that it will happen any time soon. The best case scenario from a political point of view would be to have a commercial HLV in addition to SLS in order to be able to have 2 crewed lunar missions per year (but even that will be hard to sell to Congress). I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

It's not clear that SLS will ever achieve a 1-a-year cadence. It's also not clear (at least to me) why an alternate HLV would be restricted to once a year, assuming it could get through Congress at all.

It will be up to folks at Hawthorne to find other paying customers to utilized infrastructure for sending Artemis III (the HLS lander to be precise) on its way to the Moon.

Likely a variant of the Moonship (HLS Lander) as a cis-Lunar logistics ferries going between LEO and Lunar orbit will be fielded if there is enough non NASA customer demand.

The cis-Lunar logistics ferry should enable multiple Artemis missions annually. Regardless of the launch cadence of the SLS.

[yg1968]

We don't disagree as much as you think we do. I just acknowledge that SLS is a political reality. I would prefer a commercial HLV but I don't expect that it will happen any time soon. The best case scenario from a political point of view would be to have a commercial HLV in addition to SLS in order to be able to have 2 crewed lunar missions per year (but even that will be hard to sell to Congress). I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

It's not clear that SLS will ever achieve a 1-a-year cadence. It's also not clear (at least to me) why an alternate HLV would be restricted to once a year, assuming it could get through Congress at all.

The assumption is that you could eventually do two 6 month missions per year: one with SLS and the other with a commercial HLV provider. I doubt that Congress would fund more than 2 lunar missions per year. Commercial crew only has two missions per year. Getting to 2 crewed lunar missions per year would be a huge achievement.

[yg1968]

...I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

The rationale Elon Musk has for colonizing Mars makes some sense, though it really relies on humans rationalizing our fear of extinction.

As for the Artemis program, the rationale for having a permanent presence on the Moon simply doesn't exist. Other than "science", which really can be done with robotic systems instead of humans, there are no economic reasons for having a permanent presence on the Moon, nor are there any political reasons (i.e. a "Space Race").

The Apollo program went to the Moon as part of winning the Cold War, and once we landed and safely returned the first humans to set foot on the Moon, that race was won. And no compelling reason to return to the Moon has been created since, other than "the first woman and first person of color", which are political goals, not scientific ones.

The U.S. Taxpayer is primarily funding the Artemis program, and it is important to value the money they are contributing, because there are LOTS of other uses for that same money here on Earth. So let's keep the rationale for the Artemis program as realistic and honest as possible...

My $0.02

The rationale for a permanent human lunar presence is the same as any human space exploration to extend human presence to space. Settlements comes much later, continuous human lunar presence is the first step.

[yg1968]

...I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

[snip]

As for the Artemis program, the rationale for having a permanent presence on the Moon simply doesn't exist. Other than "science", which really can be done with robotic systems instead of humans, there are no economic reasons for having a permanent presence on the Moon, nor are there any political reasons (i.e. a "Space Race").

I agree with the first sentence. As Robert Zubrin would say (and has said), Artemis is not a mission driven program, but a jobs-driven program. There has been some intriguing tinkering at the margins by Robert Zurbuchen, Kathy Leuders, and (yes) Jim Bridenstine, but not enough to change its basic orientation yet.

As for the second, I think there *is* a possibility of a science driven HSF program on the Moon, just as there is for a human presence in the U.S. Antarctic Program: it just requires premises that are not in place yet. Yes, you can do a lot of science with robots, just not as efficiently as with humans (or, more ideally, a human and robots program). But we send robots to these places because we can actually *afford* them. I am not quite ready to demand a cost as low as the U.S. Antarctic Program (which scuttles along on less than $400 million annual budget), but it gives a fair idea that the cost of putting human scientists and technicians in place, and sustaining them, simply needs to get a whole lot lower and more reliable than anything NASA has managed to achieve, or will achieve with Artemis in its present form. A successful Starship program would be a giant step in that direction, but it is not the only prerequisite step. For one thing, VSECOTSPE's insistence that a well articulated science mission has to be thought out and fully inform the actual program, as is typically the case with SMD missions.

Otherwise, maybe Andy Weir is right, and we'll only see humans on the Moon when some entrepreneurs figure out a way to do tourism there profitably.

Although the science objectives matter, I would argue that extending human presence on the Moon and creating a lunar economy are more important.

[Athelstane]

...I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

[snip]

As for the Artemis program, the rationale for having a permanent presence on the Moon simply doesn't exist. Other than "science", which really can be done with robotic systems instead of humans, there are no economic reasons for having a permanent presence on the Moon, nor are there any political reasons (i.e. a "Space Race").

I agree with the first sentence. As Robert Zubrin would say (and has said), Artemis is not a mission driven program, but a jobs-driven program. There has been some intriguing tinkering at the margins by Robert Zurbuchen, Kathy Leuders, and (yes) Jim Bridenstine, but not enough to change its basic orientation yet.

As for the second, I think there *is* a possibility of a science driven HSF program on the Moon, just as there is for a human presence in the U.S. Antarctic Program: it just requires premises that are not in place yet. Yes, you can do a lot of science with robots, just not as efficiently as with humans (or, more ideally, a human and robots program). But we send robots to these places because we can actually *afford* them. I am not quite ready to demand a cost as low as the U.S. Antarctic Program (which scuttles along on less than $400 million annual budget), but it gives a fair idea that the cost of putting human scientists and technicians in place, and sustaining them, simply needs to get a whole lot lower and more reliable than anything NASA has managed to achieve, or will achieve with Artemis in its present form. A successful Starship program would be a giant step in that direction, but it is not the only prerequisite step. For one thing, VSECOTSPE's insistence that a well articulated science mission has to be thought out and fully inform the actual program, as is typically the case with SMD missions.

Otherwise, maybe Andy Weir is right, and we'll only see humans on the Moon when some entrepreneurs figure out a way to do tourism there profitably.

Although the science objectives matter, I would argue that extending human presence on the Moon and creating a lunar economy are more important.

Well, a single 30-day sortie by 4 astronauts every 12-18 months - which is basically what Artemis planning envisions by the early 2030's - hardly counts as extending human presence on the Moon. It's impossible to see how it even leads to this happening by any commercial entit(ies), unless some deep pocketed and determined (as in, Musk-level determined) billionaire or consortium decides it really wants to.

Maybe if there were a permanently crewed base on the Moon, we could start talking about that. But that's not what NASA is planning to do, at present. Indeed, current leadership seems more worried about "getting bogged down" on the Moon.

[Coastal Ron]

Although the science objectives matter, I would argue that extending human presence on the Moon and creating a lunar economy are more important.

The Artemis program has political objectives (first woman, first person of color) and science objectives.

However an agency of the U.S. Government that has no regulatory authority can't created an "economy", which is generally recognized as "an area of the production, distribution and trade, as well as consumption of goods and services."

And while it is true that the Artemis program is consuming a lot of money, there is nothing on the Moon that is of value other than trinkets and momentos. So nothing to set up a supply & demand economy for (and don't say "Water!", since that is a self-licking ice cream cone).

Science and politics, that is all that can come out of the Artemis program. Especially at the rate of $1B+ per person to get to the Moon, which makes it unaffordable for any private or corporate follow-on.

[yg1968]

Although the science objectives matter, I would argue that extending human presence on the Moon and creating a lunar economy are more important.

The Artemis program has political objectives (first woman, first person of color) and science objectives.

However an agency of the U.S. Government that has no regulatory authority can't created an "economy", which is generally recognized as "an area of the production, distribution and trade, as well as consumption of goods and services."

And while it is true that the Artemis program is consuming a lot of money, there is nothing on the Moon that is of value other than trinkets and momentos. So nothing to set up a supply & demand economy for (and don't say "Water!", since that is a self-licking ice cream cone).

Science and politics, that is all that can come out of the Artemis program. Especially at the rate of $1B+ per person to get to the Moon, which makes it unaffordable for any private or corporate follow-on.

Helping to create a lunar economy can be done through public-private partnerships just as is the case in LEO. Enabling private astronauts missions to the Moon is part of that. I expect SpaceX to eventually offer private lunar missions with its HLS-Starship and crewed Starship. The HLS program enables that by partly funding the development of the HLS-Starship. The same things that are being proposed for the commercial LEO-destinations program could also work for the Moon. In this context, the lunar economy will start with transportation to and from the Moon, lodging on the Moon and spacesuits services. Filming movies on the Moon might also be possible. 

[yg1968]

...I hope that once that we return to the Moon with Artemis III, we realize that we never should have left the Moon and decide to stay this time.

[snip]

As for the Artemis program, the rationale for having a permanent presence on the Moon simply doesn't exist. Other than "science", which really can be done with robotic systems instead of humans, there are no economic reasons for having a permanent presence on the Moon, nor are there any political reasons (i.e. a "Space Race").

I agree with the first sentence. As Robert Zubrin would say (and has said), Artemis is not a mission driven program, but a jobs-driven program. There has been some intriguing tinkering at the margins by Robert Zurbuchen, Kathy Leuders, and (yes) Jim Bridenstine, but not enough to change its basic orientation yet.

As for the second, I think there *is* a possibility of a science driven HSF program on the Moon, just as there is for a human presence in the U.S. Antarctic Program: it just requires premises that are not in place yet. Yes, you can do a lot of science with robots, just not as efficiently as with humans (or, more ideally, a human and robots program). But we send robots to these places because we can actually *afford* them. I am not quite ready to demand a cost as low as the U.S. Antarctic Program (which scuttles along on less than $400 million annual budget), but it gives a fair idea that the cost of putting human scientists and technicians in place, and sustaining them, simply needs to get a whole lot lower and more reliable than anything NASA has managed to achieve, or will achieve with Artemis in its present form. A successful Starship program would be a giant step in that direction, but it is not the only prerequisite step. For one thing, VSECOTSPE's insistence that a well articulated science mission has to be thought out and fully inform the actual program, as is typically the case with SMD missions.

Otherwise, maybe Andy Weir is right, and we'll only see humans on the Moon when some entrepreneurs figure out a way to do tourism there profitably.

Although the science objectives matter, I would argue that extending human presence on the Moon and creating a lunar economy are more important.

Well, a single 30-day sortie by 4 astronauts every 12-18 months - which is basically what Artemis planning envisions by the early 2030's - hardly counts as extending human presence on the Moon. It's impossible to see how it even leads to this happening by any commercial entit(ies), unless some deep pocketed and determined (as in, Musk-level determined) billionaire or consortium decides it really wants to.

Maybe if there were a permanently crewed base on the Moon, we could start talking about that. But that's not what NASA is planning to do, at present. Indeed, current leadership seems more worried about "getting bogged down" on the Moon.

If what is happening in LEO is any indication, you have to figure that at least 50% of crewed lunar missions will eventually be private astronaut missions. NASA specifically stated in its HLS BAA that it wanted to be one of many customers. I expect that private astronaut lunar missions will only start to occur after Artemis III.

[VSECOTSPE]

For one thing, VSECOTSPE's insistence that a well articulated science mission has to be thought out and fully inform the actual program, as is typically the case with SMD missions.

Just to articulate my critique from the horse’s mouth, yes, if Artemis is justified on the basis of science, then the program must have concrete research objectives and a decision making organization/process that gives scientists ownership of those objectives and the ability to drive them into missions and operations.  Artemis has neither, and as far as I can tell, has made no progress towards either since this issue last came up on these forums. The way in which lunar science and biological/physical researchers have been sidelined from any substantive Artemis decisions and the utter lack of Artemis spacecraft and mission resources for research unless additional investment are made in some TBD future is just pathetic and turning the communities that should be the program’s biggest boosters into its worst enemies.

That said, science is not the only big potential rationale for Artemis.  Engineering, specifically demonstration, is another.  But here again, the feed forward from Artemis to a human Mars program is hazy at best and downright counterproductive at worst.  Just to pick on two of the most important issues...  It’s completely unclear how Artemis missions that may approach a month or so in duration qualify systems and operations for Mars mission segments that will last at least an order of magnitude longer.  And Artemis is spending the bulk of its resources qualifying an HLV and capsule that we know today lack the launch rate necessary to support human Mars mission aggregation and fueling by another order of magnitude according to NASA’s own Mars mission studies.  Even within NASA’s own human space flight organization — even within NASA’s own human space exploration organization — Artemis is ignoring the Mars customer just down the hall yet is still justifying billions and billions of dollars on the basis that somehow the collection of misfit toys and undefined missions that is Artemis will enable or accelerate humans to Mars.

Economic development (for lack of a better term) is the third big potential rationale for Artemis.  Here, at least with the landers and some other supporting elements, Artemis is arguably laying some partial infrastructure groundwork for private sector economic activity around/on the Moon.  But all the program has really done is more (HLS) or less (CLPS) copy the old COTS/CRS playbook from about 18 years ago.  Those were a good model for LEO, where there was a lot of existing customers, business, investment, hardware, and commonality that NASA could plug into and leverage.  That’s not true of an empty frontier like the Moon, where COTS/CRS is at an incomplete model.  (And I say that as the guy who started COTS.)  Artemis needs some kind of economic development authority or university/industry/government model to develop businesses other than transportation to/from lunar orbit.  The ISS model for this has been abysmal failures, so Artemis must look elsewhere to stimulate and diversify lunar economic activity.  Artemis hasn’t and if it doesn’t, the best that can be hoped for is that more bazillionaires sign up for Starship rides, which is hardly a good justification for billions and billions in taxpayer dollars.

Like I’ve written here before, the insular, ingrown, engineering sandbox culture in NASA human space flight does not create meaningful, useful, or effective programs.  Build it and they will come did not work for STS or for ISS, and it’s not working for Artemis.

The rational for a permanent human lunar presence is the same as any human space exploration to extend human presence to space.

That’s not a rationale.  That’s a means, not an end.  NSF extends human presence to Antarctica — not just to have a presence there but to do research.  NOAA extends human presence to ocean depths — not just to have a presence there but to do research and manage resources.  Adventure tourism companies extend human presence to the tops of the Himlayas — not just to have a presence there but to make a profit.  Petroleum companies extend human presence far offshore — not just to have a presence there but to drill for oil and make a profit.

This confusion of means with ends is a perpetual Apollo hangover problem for space cadets, including at NASA.  Going there and being there are not enough and frankly of secondary importance.  What you do there is what’s critical, and that’s what should be driving everything else.  Without concrete ends and the organization to drive them into the means, human space flight is just playing with really dangerous toys in a really expensive sandbox.

[Athelstane]

Although the science objectives matter, I would argue that extending human presence on the Moon and creating a lunar economy are more important.

And while it is true that the Artemis program is consuming a lot of money, there is nothing on the Moon that is of value other than trinkets and momentos. So nothing to set up a supply & demand economy for (and don't say "Water!", since that is a self-licking ice cream cone).

This is probably being pedantic, but there's a sense in which this statement is true to the extent that our knowledge goes, since we're pretty far from any kind of real mineral survey of the Moon.

Then again, even if we found a mother lode of pure Rhodium, it still wouldn't pay to bring it back (at least, not at what it would cost NASA to go get it). So, unless transport prices come down massively, or someone finds unobtanium or a derelict alien spaceship...

Science and politics, that is all that can come out of the Artemis program. Especially at the rate of $1B+ per person to get to the Moon, which makes it unaffordable for any private or corporate follow-on.

The sad thing is, depending on how you amortize Artemis costs, it's arguable that it might be more on the level of over $2-3 billion per NASA astronaut. "Enjoy the trip, Skip. It's costing the taxpayers the equivalent of two Constellation-class frigates each for you to spend a few weeks on the Moon. The frigates have an expected service life of 25 years, by the way."

[JohnFornaro]

The rational for a permanent human lunar presence is the same as any human space exploration to extend human presence to space. Settlements comes much later, continuous human lunar presence is the first step.

There's a very thin semantic line between "continuous human presence" and "settlement".

[JohnFornaro]

Indeed, current leadership seems more worried about "getting bogged down" on the Moon.

Whoever came up with this mind viral "rationale" is a Master Persuader.

https://medium.com/@robertgreene/4-strategies-for-becoming-a-master-persuader-f2ed66cea2cb

Infect people with the proper mood.

The "mood" in this case being an aversion to all things lunar, particularly if people are involved.  Profit before accomplishment is how I've been characterizing it.  Cue the naysayers.

[JohnFornaro]

Helping to create a lunar economy can be done through public-private partnerships just as is the case in LEO.

As is known, people are selling property in the metaverse and paying for the privilege with actual dollars.  There's no reason, other than the legal niceties of OST, to think that luxury lunar condos could not be sold to investors and speculators, predicated on the idea of NSoV.

[JohnFornaro]

Like I’ve written here before, the insular, ingrown, engineering sandbox culture in NASA human space flight does not create meaningful, useful, or effective programs.  Build it and they will come did not work for STS or for ISS, and it’s not working for Artemis.

Preach, brutha, but:  I would tweak the "build it and they will come" part.  In a way, "build it" worked for ISS, other than the Chinese.  US and Russia have kept their cooperation alive, in spite of the efforts of the war mongers to defeat ISS, which they may still achieve.  There have been a few tourist visits, and other countries have been invited for a visit or two.

In the meantime, China is going on and doing their own thing while the US squabbles about semantics.

The rational for a permanent human lunar presence is the same as any human space exploration to extend human presence to space.

That’s not a rationale.  That’s a means, not an end.

Well, technically, Artemis is a means.  Yves' rationale is a valid rationale, in my mind.  I'm not quite getting the distinction you make.

[JohnFornaro]

unless ... someone finds ... a derelict alien spaceship...

Sometimes I wonder which discovery by Perseverance would be the more notable; a stone axe or a calculator.

[yg1968]

That’s not a rationale.  That’s a means, not an end.  NSF extends human presence to Antarctica — not just to have a presence there but to do research.  NOAA extends human presence to ocean depths — not just to have a presence there but to do research and manage resources.  Adventure tourism companies extend human presence to the tops of the Himlayas — not just to have a presence there but to make a profit.  Petroleum companies extend human presence far offshore — not just to have a presence there but to drill for oil and make a profit.

This confusion of means with ends is a perpetual Apollo hangover problem for space cadets, including at NASA.  Going there and being there are not enough and frankly of secondary importance.  What you do there is what’s critical, and that’s what should be driving everything else.  Without concrete ends and the organization to drive them into the means, human space flight is just playing with really dangerous toys in a really expensive sandbox.

I disagree that it isn't a rationale. Extending human presence isn't a means to an end, it is the end. Extending human presence on the Moon will eventually mean having a continued presence on the Moon, living and working there and can also include settlements. Doing science is an important part of that presence but it isn't the end goal. Extending human presence also includes enabling private astronaut missions and more generally building a lunar economy.

Antartica or the high seas are different. Settling or extending human presence in Antartica or the high seas isn't a goal that we are trying to achieve (many would actually oppose such a goal).