Moon to Mars Objectives

[VSECOTSPE]

Yahbut:  Don't you think the acronyms are cool? TH-1L, TH-2L and so forth?

Ha.  Yeah, the document sets out an engineering taxonomy for a lunar program but does little to set substantive goals/objectives for Artemis.  I saw this before during my second stint at HQ in the Office of the Chief Technologist, what later became the Space Technology Mission Directorate.  That org set out to document their technology priorities but just produced an engineering taxonomy of every known space technology discipline with no clear or obvious prioritization.  The organization survived but never recovered from that mistake and is still underfunded and earmarked to the hilt to this day

Well, to mix metaphors, he fought the law and the law won...

I thought VSE was an excellent plan.   I would have tweaked it here and there, but any plan that large is bound to have various problems, all of which could have been solved, had VSE been implemented.  Instead, the PTB scrapped VSE, and the end result was the typical state of non-accomplishment that is so familiar.

I don’t want to feed the troll, but I thought I pretty clear upthread about how this Artemis objectives document needs to change if it’s going to drive Artemis and help the program survive.

As for the the VSE, to be clear, it was Griffin, not anonymous powers-that-be, who trashed it with Apollo-on-Steroids.  A couple years before the VSE, I had a couple meals with Griffin when he was at OSC to pick his brain from his time as AA for the prior exploration org under Bush I.  So I knew what was coming when Griffin was nominated Administrator and wanted no part of it.  Unlike Steidle, Griffin never asked me for a briefing on the VSE, and I doubt he even read it.   If I had still been an OMB civil servant, I might have had an opportunity or two to bring Apollo-on-Steroids to an early halt.  But I had been a NASA civil servant for over a year by that point and was no longer in a position where I could actually fight Griffin.  After the VSE rollout, I had moved into ESMD to manage COTS, prizes, and other novel programs.  When Griffin became Administrator, all I could do from there was make sure those programs got off to a solid start and then get out of Dodge.  COTS got a good start despite Griffin cutting the budget in half to feed Ares I/Orion.  Prizes not so much — Griffin’s astronaut-managers zeroed the outyear budget.  I came back to HQ in the technology org after Griffin was out.  But when it became clear that Bolden had no spine, the agency was just going to do the Congressional version of Apollo-on-Steroids, and even the new Chief Technologist was leaving after just a year, I got out of Dodge again and have not been back.

[JohnFornaro]

engineering taxonomy

Translation for newbs:  Moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.  In the world of Dilbert, it's the pointy haired boss creating a new management chart.

I thought I pretty clear upthread about how this Artemis objectives document needs to change...

You were very clear.  And thanks also for the précis.

[yg1968]

On Moon-to-Mars, if Nelson or someone else at NASA was serious about that, then this document (or another) would set clear, substantive goals with respect to lunar launch cadence and mission duration that are on the scale needed for Mars (at a minimum).  This document obviously does not.

The 2021 NASA Authorization bill has a couple of provisions that suggest 2 SLS/Orion missions per year if practicable. I have doubts as to how useful these provisions are since I don't think that a second SLS/Orion mission is practicable, from a budget perspective.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53827.msg2388089#msg2388089

In terms of mission duration, this document has some details (the Moon missions would be a maximum of 32 days):
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210022080/downloads/HEOMD-007%20HEO%20SCOPE%20-%2009-28-2021%20NTRS.pdf

But I think that the main reason that cadence and time on the Moon or Mars aren't in the objectives is because it depends on the budget.

[yg1968]

I just noticed that NASA already had exploration objectives in HEOMD-001 but they haven't been updated since 2017 (before Artemis was announced):
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/heomd-001-heomd-exploration-objectives-revision-a-cr-08032017.pdf

See also slides 23 and 24 of this presentation for more on HEOMD-001:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2-human_exploration_operations_committee_report.pdf

[yg1968]

There is a series of posts in the Artemis Updates and Discussions thread that relate to the goals of the Artemis program. I am linking it here since it is also relevant to this thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2419097#msg2419097

[yg1968]

At 18 minutes of this video, Jim Reuter of STMD explains that each set of goals has a lead:

-Science is led by NASA Science
-Lunar Infrastructure is led by STMD
-Transportation & Habitation is led by Exploration Systems Development
-Operations is led by Space Operations Mission Directorate

https://vimeo.com/event/2474343

[yg1968]

Pam Melroy talks about the 63 Moon to Mars objectives at 44 minutes of this video:

[yg1968]

At 52-53 minutes, Melroy said that sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system is the end goal (not the Moon or Mars). She also added that the framework is for 2 or more decades. At 55-56 minutes, Melroy said that if we want to maximize the science, we will have to stay. She compares it to the ISS where 24/7 presence is necessary. She adds that we need the infrastructure for long duration in space.

[yg1968]

Some of the examples of the changes that were made to the initial objectives.

[yg1968]

Looking ahead at 1hr of the video (see also the attached slide):

[yg1968]

We came in peace. We return for all humanity.

[yg1968]

At 56-57 minutes of the video linked below, Jim Reuter of STMD said the following concerning the objectives of the Artemis/Moon to Mars program:

The thing that people have been asking, as Artemis is growing, is: are you going to the Moon to go to Mars or are you going to the Moon to develop a sustainable [lunar] economy? We say that's not the right question, the answer is yes, we are doing both, we want to enable that community and on the way that will help enable us to get to Mars.

youtube.com/watch?v=JwQoi-TNKTo

[yg1968]

GNF MOON TO MARS OBJECTIVES - IAC 2022 - Tuesday 20 September

[yg1968]

At the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle.

At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence.

At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.

[yg1968]

NASA Is Returning to the Moon This Week. Why Do We Feel Conflicted?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/opinion/nasa-moon-artemis.html

[...] in the past getting to the moon was a race, with a mix of national pride, national security and science as the passenger. Now it seems perhaps more economically driven.

I agree that creating a lunar economy is what justifies going back to the Moon and it is what differentiates Artemis from Apollo.

[Hog]

At the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle.

At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence.

At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.

Emphasis mine
Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science. 

[Robotbeat]

At the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle.

At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence.

At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.

Emphasis mine
Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science.

Why? Artemis 3 doesn’t need those, and science doesn’t either since the lander(s) launch separate. Artemis 3 can have science objectives.

[AmigaClone]

At the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle.

At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence.

At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.

Emphasis mine
Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science.

Why? Artemis 3 doesn’t need those, and science doesn’t either since the lander(s) launch separate. Artemis 3 can have science objectives.

The Artemis III crew could actually perform more science on that mission than the entire Apollo Lunar Landing program. Load up all the equipment needed for the science experiments on the HLS prior to launch.

[DanClemmensen]

At the 10m of the video, Melroy says that we weren't starting with a clean sheet of paper, so we knew that we needed to start with our aspirations, look where we are and meet in the middle.

At 19m, Melroy says that for each planetary body, there is 2 goals: practice for for the next step but we also want to have some presence.

At 28-29 minutes, Melroy said that you will see more science objectives integrated into Artemis III and then really kicking in after that.

Emphasis mine
Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science.

Why? Artemis 3 doesn’t need those, and science doesn’t either since the lander(s) launch separate. Artemis 3 can have science objectives.

The Artemis III crew could actually perform more science on that mission than the entire Apollo Lunar Landing program. Load up all the equipment needed for the science experiments on the HLS prior to launch.

Two astronauts can only work a certain number of hours a day, so it will be hard to do as much science as all six Apollo lunar landings. Yes, they can have more total scientific downmass, and yes, the HLS is a more comfortable environment, but it's not clear that it's enough to make up the difference in time.

[VSECOTSPE]

Let's just get EUS up and online on its new Mobile Launcher(ML) before we worry too much about science.

No offense, but that’s backwards.  Science requirements should have been one of the drivers of the program from the get-go.  Tacking them on as an afterthought is piss-poor program formulation.

That said, Artemis III is unlikely to go off on the schedule and/or with the program elements currently planned, so there is a certain angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin quality to the discussion now.