NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[yg1968]

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.

My own view is that the OST doesn't prevent luxury condos or habitats on the Moon. You are allowed to use the Moon under article 1 of the OST but you just wouldn't own the land underneath the condo/habitat.

[VSECOTSPE]

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.

The Clinton Administration’s (the George Abbey) justification for continuing (instead of cancelling) ISS was post-Cold War foreign policy — find something civil and peaceful for former Soviet aerospace engineers to keep busy with so they don’t go build missiles for Iran, North Korea, etc.  It was a fig leaf rationale — the policy never had any hope of achieving the policy goal.  Most of whatever was to happen in Russia’s aerospace sector would be far beyond the ISS program’s reach.  In the end, Russia ate its own aerospace sector in the decades that followed, and all ISS did was prop up a piece of it with Soyuz payments.  As we write, Russia is now importing weapons from Iran and North Korea to sustain its war in Ukraine.

Setting aside the foreign policy justification that kept ISS alive at the outset of the Clinton era, the rationale for ISS has been a loose confederation of goals related to science, enabling humans to Mars, and economic development.  It’s hard to see how ISS has contributed substantially to any of them, certainly not in proportion to its $100B+ cost.  A Tito trip or two or three, some cubesat deployments, and some microgravity research with no significant breakthroughs does not justify that spending.

Without a lot more and better policy and program work, Artemis is headed down the same path.

I disagree that it isn't a rationale. Extending human presence isn't a means to an end, it is the end.

I’m sorry, but “extending human presence” — being there — has never been the justification for the costs and risks of any human exploration endeavor.  Siberians did not become Indigenous American to be there.  They were following animal herds and other food sources.  Polynesians didn’t island hop to be there.  They were driven by sociopolitical forces and change within their civilization(s).  Leif Erikson didn’t spend a winter or two in Newfoundland to be there.  His crew was seeking timber and other resources.  The Spanish crown did not fund Columbus to be there.  They wanted a better route to the East Indies.  The USG did not spend 4% of its GDP on Apollo during parts of the 1960s to be there.  The USG sought a demonstrable win in space against the Soviet Union after Sputnik and Gagarin.

Because to the outside observer, planting a flag on the Moon seemed to be the purpose of Apollo, we space cadets still think just “going there” or “being there” is enough justification for spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollar, sucking up a significant fraction of the nation’s technical talent, and risking human lives.   It’s not.  It never has been.  It’s always been competition with the Soviets (Apollo) or keeping post-Soviet aerospace engineers occupied (ISS) or any number of lesser research, technical, and economic goals, however well or poorly defined and articulated.  We’re kidding ourselves and perpetuating a misleading myth to pretend otherwise.

If you don’t believe me, read the seminal policy histories on these programs.  John Logsdon and _The Decision To Go To The Moon_.  Howard McCurdy and _The Space Station Decision: Incremental Politics and Technological Choice_.  Etc.

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).

They’re not different.  They’re just more examples of how “being there” is not the end, it’s just the means.  The USG doesn’t pay for people in Antarctica or whatever deep ocean rift just to “be there”.  It pays for them to get research done and produce scientific results.  Getting and being there is the means.  What they do there is the end.  Programs are rationalized and justified and paid for based on the ends the sponsor is seeking, not on the means the programs are using.

[yg1968]

I’m sorry, but “extending human presence” — being there — has never been the justification for the costs and risks of any human exploration endeavor.  Siberians did not become Indigenous American to be there.  They were following animal herds and other food sources. 

I still don't agree. You examples aren't comparable to human space exploration. The extension of human presence goal is essentially a broader version of the settlement goal. Part of the goal for settlement is an insurance policy against something happening to Earth. Extending human presence in space is also important as it creates technology that allows humans to live in harsh environments. Eventually, in millions of years when the sun dies out, humans will need to live in these harsher conditions in order to survive. Obviously, space isn't a better place to live than Earth but eventually humans will need to be able to live in this harsher environment.

Science can partly justify human space exploration but I think that is only part of the justification because science by itself isn't enough to justify spending billions on it. Diplomacy is another reason as you pointed out but the long term survival of the human species is likely the most important long-term justification for human space exploration.

Thanks for the book suggestions, they seem interesting. I like Logsdon's books.

[clongton]

I disagree that it isn't a rationale. Extending human presence isn't a means to an end, it is the end.

I respectfully disagree. I used to be among those who believed what you just said but experience has taught me that "extending human presence" is just the beginning of the sentence; it's not the entire sentence. It's a prefix. The sentence being incomplete, it cannot be the end (as opposed to the means), but only the beginning. The sentence must be completed before it has any real meaning which will justify the means/end discussion. "Extending human presence" <to what end> is a better way to put it. Extending human presence can never be more than a prefix to explaining why we would want to do that. Without that explanation it cannot be the end. It can only be the means to the end that completes the sentence. It's the end of the sentence, the end goal, that justifies the expenses incurred in extending human presence. Without that goal, that end, the expense and the effort to extend that presence cannot be justified; at least not in our western civilization which is predicated on profit and loss calculations. What are we going to do when we get there? How are we going to recover the cost to get there? What is the potential profit to us that justifies the expense? Without a clearly defined end goal and a potentially reasonable ROI to justify the expense, it's not something that the owners of the purse strings will get behind. And THAT has to be the first consideration when asking the question. That's why it is only the ultimate goal, the "end" so to speak, that can justify the expense of the "extending human presence" means.

Having said all that, I am 100% behind that "means". But then I have, for myself, completed that sentence. I know what I think the end goals should be that justifies the expense to get there. But going into that would be WAY off topic here. Perhaps in a different thread we could discuss that.

[yg1968]

I disagree that it isn't a rationale. Extending human presence isn't a means to an end, it is the end.

I respectfully disagree. I used to be among those who believed what you just said but experience has taught me that "extending human presence" is just the beginning of the sentence; it's not the entire sentence. It's a prefix. The sentence being incomplete, it cannot be the end (as opposed to the means), but only the beginning. The sentence must be completed before it has any real meaning which will justify the means/end discussion. "Extending human presence" <to what end> is a better way to put it. Extending human presence can never be more than a prefix to explaining why we would want to do that. Without that explanation it cannot be the end. It can only be the means to the end that completes the sentence. It's the end of the sentence, the end goal, that justifies the expenses incurred in extending human presence. Without that goal, that end, the expense and the effort to extend that presence cannot be justified; at least not in our western civilization which is predicated on profit and loss calculations. What are we going to do when we get there? How are we going to recover the cost to get there? What is the potential profit to us that justifies the expense? Without a clearly defined end goal and a potentially reasonable ROI to justify the expense, it's not something that the owners of the purse strings will get behind. And THAT has to be the first consideration when asking the question. That's why it is only the ultimate goal, the "end" so to speak, that can justify the expense of the "extending human presence" means.

Having said all that, I am 100% behind that "means". But then I have, for myself, completed that sentence. I know what I think the end goals should be that justifies the expense to get there. But going into that would be WAY off topic here. Perhaps in a different thread we could discuss that.

If you want to complete the sentence, you could say "extend the presence of humans in space in order to ensure the long-term survival of the human species". But the second part of that sentence is more of a justification than a goal.

Another way of completing the sentence would be to say "to extend the presence of humans to do science and to enable a LEO/lunar/Mars economy, to further diplomacy between countries, etc." But the main reason is really to show that humans can survive on a long term basis in space.

Out of curiosity, how would you complete that sentence?

The Moon to Mars objectives thread would be a good thread for this topic:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57221.0

[Coastal Ron]

If you want to complete the sentence, you could say "extend the presence of humans in space in order to ensure the long-term survival of the human species". But the second part of that sentence is more of a justification than a goal.

At least by finishing the sentence you have an ROI you can measure, instead of some open-ended task that will never realistically be completed.

And I need to point out that the only reason that the Artemis program has a realistic pathway to landing on the Moon this decade is because Elon Musk created his goal of making humans multi-planetary (starting with Mars) so that we could survive the loss of Earth, and the Artemis program has the Mars-oriented Starship program to thank for providing the transportation to the lunar surface.

Another way of completing the sentence would be to say "to extend the presence of humans to do science and to enable a lunar economy, to further diplomacy between countries, etc."

You keep using the word "economy", but while that may be part of the PR statement from NASA about Artemis, there is nothing about the Artemis program that would allow for an economy to be created while spending $1B+ per person in space. That is 100% the government subsidizing the activity in space.

And while SpaceX is focused on lowering the cost to access space, and Artemis HAS TO rely on SpaceX to get to the surface of the Moon this decade, that is not an "economy". That is just moving money around on Earth, even though the work being performed is in space somewhere.

In order to have an economy in space you have to have an exchange of money that happens in space, and stays in space. The Artemis program is NOT going to create that, which is why I think you should stop repeating NASA PR about this.

[yg1968]

In order to have an economy in space you have to have an exchange of money that happens in space, and stays in space. The Artemis program is NOT going to create that, which is why I think you should stop repeating NASA PR about this.

You don't need to exchange money on the Moon to have a lunar economy. scam currency has show that the exchange of currency doesn't determine where most of the economic activities are. Having economic activities such as lodging services and spacesuit services on the Moon is part of enabling lunar economic activities. Using the Wikipedia definition that you previously cited, the location where the services and good are consumed is part of the economy (e.g., the lodging and spacesuit services are consumed on the Moon). Eventually, the Moon could also become an area of production, distribution and trade but that will take time.

An economy is an area of the production, distribution and trade, as well as consumption of goods and services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy

[clongton]

Another way of completing the sentence would be to say
1. "to extend the presence of humans to do science and
2. to enable a LEO/lunar/Mars economy,
3. to further diplomacy between countries, etc."
4. But the main reason is really to show that humans can survive on a long term basis in space.

5. Out of curiosity, how would you complete that sentence?

The Moon to Mars objectives thread would be a good thread for this topic:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57221.0

1. To do what science? What would be the practical application of the results of that science? How would that science benefit the stakeholders? What is the likely ROI for doing that science?
2. What would that economy look like? What would that economy produce? Who would be the consumers of that economy? Would those consumers be willing/able to pay for the goods and services created by that economy? Will the investors who funded the creation of that economy materially benefit from that investment sufficiently to justify their investment?
3. This would not be sufficient justification for the expense. See VSECOTSPE's explanation above. It's pretty bulletproof.
4. Lofty goal but returns absolutely nothing as a ROI.
5. "To accomplish the goals as defined in the policy document <ABCD1234>".
The goals and aspirations would be clearly defined in that (series of) document(s), including cost breakdowns, funding sources, master and subordinate schedules, timelines, a series of go/no-go assessment points, stakeholders, anticipated ROI targets, etc., etc. One of the primary goals of that policy would be to determine at what point the resulting sub goals contained therein would become completely self sustaining leading to the entire project becoming self sustaining. Any effort at "extending the human presence into space" MUST eventually become completely self sustaining at some point. The people of this nation, of this world, cannot be on the funding hook forever. At some point the child must grow up, move out and become an independent person. This is the kind of thought process that must go into completing that sentence.

A good example of what this could look like is the Louis and Clark expedition to explore the Louisiana Purchase. While I am not a fan of Wikipedia, its article of this expedition lays out what the goals were as well as how it was to be funded. It had very specific and clearly defined goals. The expedition did make notable contributions to science, but scientific research was not the main goal of the mission.

Artemis does not even come close to even conceiving the beginning of this kind of assessment. NASA has absolutely NO IDEA what it's doing or trying to accomplish with this current effort. No idea at all. They can't see past their glory days of times past, the next election cycle or the national jobs report.

[yg1968]

5. [...] One of the primary goals of that policy would be to determine at what point the resulting sub goals contained therein would become completely self sustaining leading to the entire project becoming self sustaining. Any effort at "extending the human presence into space" MUST eventually become completely self sustaining at some point. The people of this nation, of this world, cannot be on the funding hook forever. At some point the child must grow up, move out and become an independent person.

I agree with that objective. HLS-Starship and commercial spacesuits and eventually commercial habitats do need to be self-sustaining without NASA being the only customer or even the majority of the providers' revenues but I think that is part of building a lunar economy goal. The HLS BAA and the spacesuits RFP contain provisions that say that NASA wants to be one of many customers. I agree that SLS and Orion will never be self-sustaining but I have some hope for HLS, commercial spacesuits and commercial lunar surface habitats eventually becoming self-sustaining. This optimism is largely based on what is currently happening in LEO with the Axiom and SpaceX private astronaut missions. I expect the same will eventually occur on the Moon.

2. What would that economy look like? What would that economy produce? Who would be the consumers of that economy? Would those consumers be willing/able to pay for the goods and services created by that economy? Will the investors who funded the creation of that economy materially benefit from that investment sufficiently to justify their investment?

In the short term, the lunar economic activities would be lunar crewed transportation through HLS, commercial lunar habitats and spacesuit services. I agree that these need to be self-sustaining in the long term.

4. Lofty goal but returns absolutely nothing as a ROI.

Showing that humans can live in space on a long term basis is a long-term insurance policy for the human species.

[VSECOTSPE]

Part of the goal for settlement is an insurance policy against something happening to Earth. Extending human presence in space is also important as it creates technology that allows humans to live in harsh environments. Eventually, in millions of years when the sun dies out, humans will need to live in these harsher conditions in order to survive.

There’s your end.  That’s your rationale.  Your means is “extend human presence”.  But your end is survival of the species.  That’s what you’re really after.  That’s your justification for a human space exploration program.

[yg1968]

Part of the goal for settlement is an insurance policy against something happening to Earth. Extending human presence in space is also important as it creates technology that allows humans to live in harsh environments. Eventually, in millions of years when the sun dies out, humans will need to live in these harsher conditions in order to survive.

There’s your end.  That’s your rationale.  Your means is “extend human presence”.  But your end is survival of the species.  That’s what you’re really after.  That’s your justification for a human space exploration program.

Not that it matters but an end is essentially a goal. Extending human presence in space is a goal in of itself (the justification for that goal is preserving the human species, diplomacy and building a LEO/lunar or Mars economy). I suppose that survival of the species can also be a goal but then you get into the debate as to whether preserving the environment is a better way of achieving that goal. Ideally, NASA wants to avoid that debate, so extending human presence in space makes for a better goal than survival of the species.

[Surfdaddy]

To me, an "economy" is the continued exchange of monies to support lunar travel, without government subsidization. I have trouble seeing any lunar economy at the current cost structures. I could see a future where the costs drop and say, SpaceX offers lunar trips of a few days for tourism, where super rich tourists pay for this, and it's profitable for SpaceX. Perhaps shooting some movies on the moon, too - if the transport costs come way down. I don't see mining or manufacturing being cost effective or competitive at all.

[sdsds]

I'm curious about the JOFOC for the EPOC award to Deep Space Transport LLC.

NASA has posted [...]

If I'm reading it correctly, the period of performance for the missions through Artemis IX ends in December 2032. I can see them getting through Artemis VII by then, but VIII and IX seem ... unlikely. Does anyone else have this concern?

And, should there be (is there already) a thread specifically for Deep Space Transport LLC?

I - 2023
II - 2025
III - 2027
IV - 2029
--
V - 2030
VI - 2031
VII - 2032

[yg1968]

To me, an "economy" is the continued exchange of monies to support lunar travel, without government subsidization. I have trouble seeing any lunar economy at the current cost structures. I could see a future where the costs drop and say, SpaceX offers lunar trips of a few days for tourism, where super rich tourists pay for this, and it's profitable for SpaceX. Perhaps shooting some movies on the moon, too - if the transport costs come way down. I don't see mining or manufacturing being cost effective or competitive at all.

I think that in-situ resource utilization (say extraction of water ice) would be for the people living on the Moon or for the lunar transportation systems. Governments are part of the economy and can be a purchaser of services but they shouldn't be the only customer. In terms of subsidies, NASA paid for the part of the development of commercial crew and HLS but you can argue that the government is paying for a capability that it needs. However, I think that NASA should not pay for all of the development of this capability.

[yg1968]

I'm curious about the JOFOC for the EPOC award to Deep Space Transport LLC.

NASA has posted [...]

If I'm reading it correctly, the period of performance for the missions through Artemis IX ends in December 2032. I can see them getting through Artemis VII by then, but VIII and IX seem ... unlikely. Does anyone else have this concern?

And, should there be (is there already) a thread specifically for Deep Space Transport LLC?

I - 2023
II - 2025
III - 2027
IV - 2029
--
V - 2030
VI - 2031
VII - 2032

I think that anticipated is the key word here. Missing these dates doesn't seem to be an issue.

The anticipated period of contract performance for the transition planning effort is three to six months after contract award. The anticipated contract period of performance for the EPOC transition period and the first five launches (Artemis V through Artemis IX) is December 2023 through December 2032. An option period for an additional five launches (Artemis X through XIV) extends through December 2037.

[VSECOTSPE]

Not that it matters but an end is essentially a goal.

Yes.

Extending human presence in space is a goal in of itself

No, it’s not.  It’s just one (among many) means. 

(the justification for that goal is preserving the human species, diplomacy and building a LEO/lunar or Mars economy). I suppose that survival of the species can also be a goal

Those are your goals.  Those are your ends.  Those are your justifications/rationales.

Ideally, NASA wants to avoid that debate, so extending human presence in space makes for a better goal than survival of the species.

Survival of the species via space settlement has never been part of NASA’s charge in its enabling legislation, national policy, or any other charter.  Outside the moonlighting low-level oddball, no one at NASA debates the topic because there’s no debate to be had.  It’s just not NASA’s responsibility or in NASA’s job jar.

It’s okay if you think it should be.  I’m just stating what is.

[yg1968]

Not that it matters but an end is essentially a goal.

Yes.

Extending human presence in space is a goal in of itself

No, it’s not.  It’s just one (among many) means.

Here is the definition of a goal:

goal: the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.

Extending human presence in space qualifies as a goal as it is the desired result.

Here is the definition of a means:

means: an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.

The Moon to Mars program is a means to build a human presence on the Moon. It will only be continuous if the program is successful in creating a lunar economy which admittingly is far from certain at this point.

Those are your goals.  Those are your ends.  Those are your justifications/rationales.

Creating a continuous human presence on the Moon is part of the Moon to Mars objectives (see the passages in bold below).

Lunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.

Transportation and Habitation Goal (TH-3): Develop system(s) to allow crew to explore, operate, and live on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit with scalability to continuous presence; conducting scientific and industrial utilization as well as Mars analog activities.

CONTINUOUS PRESENCE: Steady cadence of human/robotic missions in subject orbit/surface with the desired endpoint of 365/24/7 operations.

Creating a continuous human presence in LEO is part of the objectives of the commercial LEO Destinations program (see the passages in bold below).

The continuous operation of a research and technology demonstration platform in space is critical to achieving NASA’s and the Nation’s goals in science, technology, and human space flight. NASA’s investments will ensure access to a human-rated platform in LEO to continue U.S. human presence and expand the American foothold in space.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2366132#msg2366132

I agree that creating human settlements on the Moon isn't a NASA goal but creating a lunar economy is a goal that could eventually lead to settlements, it is large enough of a goal for that.

Recurring tenets-9 (common themes across objectives): Commerce and Space Development: foster the expansion of the economic sphere beyond Earth orbit to support U.S. industry and innovation.

Lunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/m2m-objectives-exec-summary.pdf

[VSECOTSPE]

Creating a continuous human presence on the Moon is part of the Moon to Mars objectives (see the passages in bold below).

Lunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.

Your bolded text is the means.  The text after your bolded text is the ends, objectives, goals, justification, and/or rationale.  The program does not aim to establish a continuous presence for the sake of a continuous presence.  The program aims to establish a continuous presence for the sake of “economy”, “science objectives”, and
“testing for Mars”.

The continuous operation of a research and technology demonstration platform in space is critical to achieving NASA’s and the Nation’s goals in science, technology, and human space flight. NASA’s investments will ensure access to a human-rated platform in LEO to continue U.S. human presence and expand the American foothold in space.

This text even tells you that “continuous operation” is the not the goal because “continuous operation” is “critical to achieving… goals in science, technology, and human space flight.”

Lunar Infrastructure (LI) Goal: Create an interoperable global lunar utilization infrastructure where U.S. industry and international partners can maintain continuous robotic and human presence on the lunar surface for a robust lunar economy without NASA as the sole user, while accomplishing science objectives and testing for Mars.

Same thing here.  The text makes clear that a “continuous robotic and human presence” is just the means to achieve the ends of “economy”, “science objectives”, and “testing for Mars”.

To be clear, I’m not being pendantic about this means versus ends stuff to be a pain in the arse.  It’s been a problem in the human space flight program ever since Apollo.  Engineers get caught up in the means, lose sight of the ends, and we wind up with overly complex and expensive and fragile programs that do little to advance the ball down the field, whether your ends are science, economic development, demonstration for Mars, settlement, or all the above.

[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.

My own view is that the OST doesn't prevent luxury condos or habitats on the Moon. You are allowed to use the Moon under article 1 of the OST but you just wouldn't own the land underneath the condo/habitat.

Thanks for pointing that out.  We already do have a sort of precedent: the condominium.

[JohnFornaro]

find something civil and peaceful for former Soviet aerospace engineers to keep busy with so they don’t go build missiles...

This is an example of what I've been calling a "fake because".  Others also use the term.  At the time, it sounded logical to me, but I had and most Americans had overlooked that the Russian universities were cranking out accomplished students as fast as they could.  Where to put 'em?  Working on ISS stuff or related mil stuff.

“extending human presence” — being there — has never been the justification for the costs and risks of any human exploration endeavor

Now you've inadvertently confused "extending", "justification", and "rationale".

But yeah.  To the best of our knowledge, the historical reasons for that extension of presence are along the lines of your examples.  But just as we no longer walk on all fours, we can develop new rationales for our behavior, informally known as "dreams", and have now developed the means to instantiate these dreams.  The challenge of the first amendment acknowledges the founding conspirators' inability to predict the future, leaving them to guarantee the generation of new ideas and the realization of those dreams.  "If you don’t believe me, read..." Jefferson Himself, by Bernie Mayo, an old friend of mine.

My point still holds; that the "historical reasons" for extension of human presence back in the day, were more like an instantiation of evolution.  Now we are capable of, in principle, the intelligent design of evolution. As Krafft Ehricke wrote: "If God had meant us to explore space, he would have given us a moon".