NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[clongton]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
Imagine, if you will, being at JFK Intl airport. You have tickets on Delta for a flight to Heathrow in the UK. Your plane has been at the terminal for some time, awaiting the arrival of Delta 2397 from LAX. Finally it arrives and pulls into the gate next to yours. Immediately, a crew of technicians goes aboard 2397 and begins removing a couple of the instrument clusters in the cockpit, and relocating them to the cockpit of the aircraft you will be in for your flight to the UK. Once the cannibalization of 2397 is complete you hear the boarding call for your plane.
It's exactly the same thing as cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another one operational. It does not exactly fill me with confidence for the viability of the aircraft I am about to commit my life to.
I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

[yg1968]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
Imagine, if you will, being at JFK Intl airport. You have tickets on Delta for a flight to Heathrow in the UK. Your plane has been at the terminal for some time, awaiting the arrival of Delta 2397 from LAX. Finally it arrives and pulls into the gate next to yours. Immediately, a crew of technicians goes aboard 2397 and begins removing a couple of the instrument clusters in the cockpit, and relocating them to the cockpit of the aircraft you will be in for your flight to the UK. Once the cannibalization of 2397 is complete you hear the boarding call for your plane.
It's exactly the same thing as cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another one operational. It does not exactly fill me with confidence for the viability of the aircraft I am about to commit my life to.
I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

I think that this will only be done for the Artemis II mission. The other missions won't do that as far as I know. Initially, the gap between Artemis I and II was supposed to be 18 months, later the IG said 20 months, now the GAO says 27 months. I am not sure why that gap keeps increasing.

[VSECOTSPE]

I think that Free and others mentioned that this was being done in order to better understand the hardware, not because Orion is hardware-poor.

I didn’t see a quote from Free in either of those articles, but if he did say that, the fundamental, underlying issue is still the poverty of flight hardware in the program.  Orion is not designed for accessibility.  Computer hardware does not come out easily.  Otherwise the program would have replaced the malfunctioning PDU on Artemis I from a couple years ago, which is mentioned in the second article, instead of leaving it in place.  So the program will painfully uninstall, disassemble, reassemble, reinstall, and qualify computer hardware between Orion flights because they lack the hardware and have to, not because it’s easy, accessible, and they want to.   Besides, when Free et al. want to understand how Orion’s computer hardware works, they do that through test spares, not by taking hardware from a uncrewed test flight apart and then putting it back together for a crewed test flight on a different vehicle.

[yg1968]

I think that Free and others mentioned that this was being done in order to better understand the hardware, not because Orion is hardware-poor.

I didn’t see a quote from Free in either of those articles, but if he did say that, the fundamental, underlying issue is still the poverty of flight hardware in the program. 

That's going from my memory but that was a while ago, so it might not be exactly what he said.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I wonder who designated an IMU as a non-core piece of hardware. Without it you do not fly!

Way back when all of this hardware was being designed the parts where difficult to get and had long lead times. The parts were also expensive. Now some of these parts are progressing into be non-obtainable since those parts are no longer manufactured. Almost making each Orion different unless they purchase all the parts needed for quite a few Orion as in the next 7 or 8 up front. Which they have not done. Only Orion #3 has a full set of parts purchased.

A basic question are they thinking to have just 2 full up Orion vehicles the one used on Artemis II and the one used on Artemis III to be recycled, repaired, and reused?

Also the designation of what is core and non-core sounds more like that of avionics that are removable without fully disassembling Artemis I Orion into its tiniest pieces. Plus the timeline of once the parts are removed form Artemis I Orion the remaining build tasks and testing of the Orion takes up to 2 years. Such that the next Orion is sitting awaiting half assembled with up to 2 years of assembly ahead until Artemis I Orion returns with hopefully usable needed parts.

Another example of cart before the horse program goals: decisions on manufacture and manufacture shortcuts before even any mission needs identified besides extremely nebulous unrealistic ops.

[JayWee]

Given the talk about Artemis I delays, rollback and launch windows, I have a question:
How constrained are going to be the launch windows for Artemis III+ given that Orion will have to dock with HLS and Gateway later?

...
There will be launch window restrictions for NRHO rendezvous with Gateway / HLS. Since that's all the way out in 2025-ish and the Gateway has not yet launched, I doubt they have done all the calculations for the launch windows. I assume that NASA would have a good idea of what it would look like though. My guess is that since the duration of one orbit is about 1 week, there'd be at least 1 launch window every week. Technically you can rendezvous with an orbit at any point in the orbit, but I bet NASA has a preferred rendezvous point.
...

Thanks - that's what I was really interested in - whether there's some additional constraint on the launch window by Gateway/HLS docking requirement. Something akin to phasing for for launch to the ISS.
Ie, something like "Orion to the moon constrains us to 3 hours per day for this week, but docking to Gateway takes it down to 5 minutes daily" sort of thing.

[lrk]

IIRC switching to EUS will add more launch window flexibility - since the initial parking orbit will be a nearly circular LEO, the length of the initial coast period can vary throughout the launch window, keeping the TLI burn at roughly the same time.  With ICPS, the core stage inserts the vehicle into an elliptical orbit, where the apogee must be aligned with the moon.  There is some limited flexibility given by varying the inclination of the parking orbit, but EUS will allow for longer windows.

According to the current plan Artemis 3 is the only ICPS mission going to NRHO, so this won't be an issue long term.  I'm not sure how many windows they will have per week, though - I suspect there is some flexibility in the trajectory that lets them vary the position of the NRHO insertion burn, but there must still be some days each week when they can't launch. 

[Bob Shaw]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
...

I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

It actually happened with Shuttle a lot - and even Apollo re-used some CM parts.

[Coastal Ron]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
...
I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

It actually happened with Shuttle a lot - and even Apollo re-used some CM parts.

At least the Shuttle vehicle was reusable (though in practice it was really considered "refurbish-able").

And if this was really something that was supposed to lower costs, then they would have built something like three sets of rotating equipment, with one on the unit flying, the next in the next up unit to fly, and the third being either held back as spares, or being part of a three ship rotation.

In such a setup the next flight unit would not have to wait for prior flight unit to return from its mission before finishing assembly and test. Not sure why they didn't use this approach for Orion... 

[JayWee]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
...

I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

It actually happened with Shuttle a lot - and even Apollo re-used some CM parts.

But... did it take 18 months to swap from one to the other? I guess we wouldn't mind that much if it was simple pull, walk over, push. But eighteen months? That's simply ridiculous. Think how much it costs in wages for all the personell who stand around and do nothing because of it.

[freddo411]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
...
I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

It actually happened with Shuttle a lot - and even Apollo re-used some CM parts.

At least the Shuttle vehicle was reusable (though in practice it was really considered "refurbish-able").

And if this was really something that was supposed to lower costs, then they would have built something like three sets of rotating equipment, with one on the unit flying, the next in the next up unit to fly, and the third being either held back as spares, or being part of a three ship rotation.

In such a setup the next flight unit would not have to wait for prior flight unit to return from its mission before finishing assembly and test. Not sure why they didn't use this approach for Orion... 

Good point here.   Are there really no spare parts available for Orion?   Could this be an "iron bar" if some part is simply broken?   Would there be no replacement available?

Another related point is that it seems to take ridiculous amounts of time to change out broken parts.   We've seen this for one of the redundant PDUs on Orion, which broke last year, and was not replaced because it would take "4 to 12 months" to replace.   The batteries on the FTS system are another example.   This appears to be a pattern, not a feature of a few hard to fix items.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Cannibalizing one spacecraft in order to make another spacecraft functional. Terrible.
...
I literally do not care what the reason is for the decision to authorize cannibalization instead of just completely outfitting EVERY spacecraft - completely. It is *NOT* the way to run a HSF program.

It actually happened with Shuttle a lot - and even Apollo re-used some CM parts.

At least the Shuttle vehicle was reusable (though in practice it was really considered "refurbish-able").

And if this was really something that was supposed to lower costs, then they would have built something like three sets of rotating equipment, with one on the unit flying, the next in the next up unit to fly, and the third being either held back as spares, or being part of a three ship rotation.

In such a setup the next flight unit would not have to wait for prior flight unit to return from its mission before finishing assembly and test. Not sure why they didn't use this approach for Orion... 

Good point here.   Are there really no spare parts available for Orion?   Could this be an "iron bar" if some part is simply broken?   Would there be no replacement available?

Another related point is that it seems to take ridiculous amounts of time to change out broken parts.   We've seen this for one of the redundant PDUs on Orion, which broke last year, and was not replaced because it would take "4 to 12 months" to replace.   The batteries on the FTS system are another example.   This appears to be a pattern, not a feature of a few hard to fix items.

Unfortunately if they had spares then Artemis II would show a probable Q2 2024 date by the GAO.

What a messed up program schedule. The parts for Artemis III are likely to be available only after when the Artemis I Orion parts would be being installed into the Artemis II Orion even with all the Artemis I slips of nearly a year.

Think about this: If Artemis I had launched in Feb 2022 and had a successful mission Artemis II even with 27 month separation would be ready for launch May 2024. Which would put a likely launch of Artemis III if all those parts ordered showed up on time a launch of likely Q3/Q4 2025. Which is what I think the parts order schedule where the parts are delivered around Q4 2023/Q1 2024.

Which probably means that if the Artemis III parts have to be used for Artemis II because Artemis I Orion was not recovered. It would only possibly delay Artemis II launch by just 9 months.

This particular conversation is starting to make me depressed about the future of Artemis.

[yg1968]

Speaking of long-term plans for the Moon, here is what NASA has to say about it in a HLS update article that will be presented at this year's IAC meeting:

NASA is committed to establishing a sustained lunar presence, and through Option A and working closely with SpaceX, the HLS program will facilitate the rapid development and demonstration of the human landing system that will deliver the first woman, and in a later mission, the first person of color, to the Moon. The HLS capability demonstrated during the Artemis III mission will evolve into a safe and affordable long-term approach to accessing the lunar surface and to being one of many customers purchasing lunar transportation services. Through Artemis, NASA and its international and commercial partners will establish a cadence of trips to the Moon where American astronauts will conduct science investigations, technology demonstrations, and establish a long-term presence to prepare for humanity’s next giant leap – sending astronauts on a roundtrip to Mars. The HLS program continues its hard work toward achieving major agency milestones as NASA embarks on its mission to explore deep space and beyond this decade and into the future.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220013431/downloads/HLS%20IAC_Final.pdf

[yg1968]

Harris assigned three tasks to Council members regarding human spaceflight [including]:

-NASA is to finalize a plan for an initial lunar surface architecture within 150 days including consideration for commercial and international partnerships;

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/space-council-discusses-stem-human-spaceflight-and-commercial-space-regulation/

[Endeavour_01]

Initially, the gap between Artemis I and II was supposed to be 18 months, later the IG said 20 months, now the GAO says 27 months. I am not sure why that gap keeps increasing.

I wonder if the "20 month" timeframe was just to get everything from the Artemis I Orion installed in the Artemis II Orion verses the time between launches. In other words perhaps the extra 7 months is for closeout and stacking operations to actually get the Artemis II Orion to the pad.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

A basic question are they thinking to have just 2 full up Orion vehicles the one used on Artemis II and the one used on Artemis III to be recycled, repaired, and reused?

*snip*

No, the current plan is to not re-use the Orions from Artemis 1 and 2 at all, other than the interior hardware, avionics, etc. IOW, the pressure vessel and exterior systems won't be reused. My understanding is that significant improvements were made to the pressure vessel and other structures and systems to reduce weight thanks to lessons learned during assembly and build on the first two Orions.

The current plan is to build a new Orion for Artemis 3, 4, and 5, with the Orion from Artemis 3 to be more or less entirely reused for A6, the Orion from A4 will be reused for A7, and the Orion from A5 will be reused for A8. There may be further reuses after that, based on evaluations of how they look after being flown twice, but this is now ~10 years in the future we are talking about.

[Surfdaddy]

If you wanted a "cost-effective" and "sustainable" lunar program, this isn't it. It's a failure against those goals before even the first launch.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

*snip*

A basic question are they thinking to have just 2 full up Orion vehicles the one used on Artemis II and the one used on Artemis III to be recycled, repaired, and reused?

*snip*

No, the current plan is to not re-use the Orions from Artemis 1 and 2 at all, other than the interior hardware, avionics, etc. IOW, the pressure vessel and exterior systems won't be reused. My understanding is that significant improvements were made to the pressure vessel and other structures and systems to reduce weight thanks to lessons learned during assembly and build on the first two Orions.

The current plan is to build a new Orion for Artemis 3, 4, and 5, with the Orion from Artemis 3 to be more or less entirely reused for A6, the Orion from A4 will be reused for A7, and the Orion from A5 will be reused for A8. There may be further reuses after that, based on evaluations of how they look after being flown twice, but this is now ~10 years in the future we are talking about.

This sort of identifies an Orion V1 that is scheduled for use on Artemis I and II. And a Orion V2 used all subsequent Artemis mission starting with Artemis III.

If Artemis I keeps shifting more to the right before actually launching it may be just better to junk the second Orion V1 and start using the Orion V2 on Artemis II. Especially if the SRBs for Artemis I has to be destacked. By using the Orion V2 you might actually move schedule for Artemis II at significantly less than 27 months since Artemis I because Artemis II is no longer strongly coupled to Artemis I launch date. It would bring some modicum of stability to the Artemis program schedules.

[DanClemmensen]

*snip*

A basic question are they thinking to have just 2 full up Orion vehicles the one used on Artemis II and the one used on Artemis III to be recycled, repaired, and reused?

*snip*

No, the current plan is to not re-use the Orions from Artemis 1 and 2 at all, other than the interior hardware, avionics, etc. IOW, the pressure vessel and exterior systems won't be reused. My understanding is that significant improvements were made to the pressure vessel and other structures and systems to reduce weight thanks to lessons learned during assembly and build on the first two Orions.

The current plan is to build a new Orion for Artemis 3, 4, and 5, with the Orion from Artemis 3 to be more or less entirely reused for A6, the Orion from A4 will be reused for A7, and the Orion from A5 will be reused for A8. There may be further reuses after that, based on evaluations of how they look after being flown twice, but this is now ~10 years in the future we are talking about.

This sort of identifies an Orion V1 that is scheduled for use on Artemis I and II. And a Orion V2 used all subsequent Artemis mission starting with Artemis III.

If Artemis I keeps shifting more to the right before actually launching it may be just better to junk the second Orion V1 and start using the Orion V2 on Artemis II. Especially if the SRBs for Artemis I has to be destacked. By using the Orion V2 you might actually move schedule for Artemis II at significantly less than 27 months since Artemis I because Artemis II is no longer strongly coupled to Artemis I launch date. It would bring some modicum of stability to the Artemis program schedules.

Furthermore, it's somewhat more legitimate to use the same version of the vehicle for the crewed flight test (Artemis II) and the first operational mission (Artemis III).

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

A basic question are they thinking to have just 2 full up Orion vehicles the one used on Artemis II and the one used on Artemis III to be recycled, repaired, and reused?

*snip*

No, the current plan is to not re-use the Orions from Artemis 1 and 2 at all, other than the interior hardware, avionics, etc. IOW, the pressure vessel and exterior systems won't be reused. My understanding is that significant improvements were made to the pressure vessel and other structures and systems to reduce weight thanks to lessons learned during assembly and build on the first two Orions.

The current plan is to build a new Orion for Artemis 3, 4, and 5, with the Orion from Artemis 3 to be more or less entirely reused for A6, the Orion from A4 will be reused for A7, and the Orion from A5 will be reused for A8. There may be further reuses after that, based on evaluations of how they look after being flown twice, but this is now ~10 years in the future we are talking about.

This sort of identifies an Orion V1 that is scheduled for use on Artemis I and II. And a Orion V2 used all subsequent Artemis mission starting with Artemis III.

If Artemis I keeps shifting more to the right before actually launching it may be just better to junk the second Orion V1 and start using the Orion V2 on Artemis II. Especially if the SRBs for Artemis I has to be destacked. By using the Orion V2 you might actually move schedule for Artemis II at significantly less than 27 months since Artemis I because Artemis II is no longer strongly coupled to Artemis I launch date. It would bring some modicum of stability to the Artemis program schedules.

The big problem there is that the Orion for Artemis 3 is much further behind in the build schedule than the Orion for Artemis 2 is. As of late February, A3 Orion was more or less a bare pressure vessel with some wiring harnesses installed, whereas A2 Orion has had most of the exterior subsystems installed and has powered some of them up for testing already.

 Topic: EM-2/Artemis 2 Orion Construction and Processing Updates
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43770.msg2376358#msg2376358

Topic: EM-3/Artemis 3 Orion Construction and Processing Updates
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48698.msg2344613#msg2344613

Another problem is that the Orion for A2 doesn't have a docking system installed, something that is needed for Artemis 3 but not for Artemis 2. It would be a waste of a docking system to use the Orion for A3 on A2.