NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[JayWee]

The 2022 Artemis/Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review should be completed at the latest in January (perhaps in December).

See the attached slide and below:

In other words - this concept won't be informed by the Appendix P proposals?

I noticed Free's comment that "it comes down to architecture, architecture first, architecture is important". And then remembered the discussion regarding the need for goals which went on for pages upon pages here...

[yg1968]

The 2022 Artemis/Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review should be completed at the latest in January (perhaps in December).

See the attached slide and below:

In other words - this concept won't be informed by the Appendix P proposals?

Melroy mentioned that the Architecture Concept Review will be updated on a yearly basis in order to inform each year's NASA Budget request.

[yg1968]

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact. The Integrated lander (crewed HLS) is supposed to carry either 2 or 4 crew. The cargo lander (HDL) is supposed to be able to carry between 12mt and 15mt of cargo. The cargo requirements are based on what is expected to be required for the surface habitat and the pressurized rover (and perhaps for a nuclear power system). Free also spoke of camper-like habitats, it will be interesting to get more details on those. I am not sure that NASA has other cargo needs in the next few years. Given the fact that the architecture will be updated on a yearly basis, this might change but given the budget pressures, I doubt that the cargo needs will increase by much. To the extent that NASA only has 4 astronauts on the Moon at the same time, its habitat needs aren't very extensive.

[DigitalMan]

I think it should be reasonable to cut NASA some slack to wait at least until the next NASA astronauts have set foot on the moon before major planning changes.

Government probably isn't going to be very excited about taking on more risk than they view as necessary for space exploration.

[VSECOTSPE]

The Apollo LM Ascent Engine wasn't burdened by the convoluted plumbing associated with the cryogenic propellant engines on Starship. Nor was it exposed to any rocks blasted around during landing, or any rocks at all. The LM used hypergolic fuels so the engines were 'simple' and there was actually a backup process for ignition if the Ascent Engine failed to light up when the button was pressed. The Ascent Engine was also tested a huge number of times, including during the Apollo 5 unmanned test flight.

The Soviet LK *did* reuse the Descent Engine for launch, but had a protective shroud over it at the point of landing. And, on the LK, there was a backup engine!

All of these differences suggest that the Lunar Starship demo flight *should* include a launch from the surface, either to orbit or back to a second landing on the surface.

It's different with the Starship
(1) the descent engines ARE the ascent engines and, even though they're higher up, are exposed to any flying debris resulting from the landing.
(2) the propellants are NOT hypergolic and igniting the engines requires the successful completion of a whole series of ignition sequence events. If any one of them fails to complete there is no ignition.

THAT's why I say that NASA is bat-crap crazy to not require a clear demonstration that Starship actually can reignite the engines after they have been off for however long, bring to full power and return to lunar orbit, BEFORE, they put crew onboard to potentially be stranded on the surface.

My foremost concern is the thermal environment.  Cold (or hot) soaking engines and plumbing at temperatures and durations they don’t normally sit in is asking for jammed valves and the like.  Whatever Lunar Starship’s countermeasures are for that, I’d want to make sure that they work and the engines relight and operate nominally before committing crew.  Maybe SpaceX has one, but I don’t know of any facility that could perform that test on Earth.  Even if there is such a facility, I’d still strongly prefer an integrated test in the actual lunar thermal environment(s).

[VSECOTSPE]

A demo uncrewed mission wasn't a requirement for CCtCap either. All providers proposed one and NASA verbally said that it would prefer one but it wasn't actually a requirement.

Procurements, especially from another program, are not an excuse to avoid good engineering and testing.

Incidentally, Lisa Watson-Morgan said that, for the uncrewed demo, they are still in discussions with SpaceX as to what happens after the landing is demonstrated. It would be possible for NASA to add an ascent requirement after the fact but they would likely have to pay more.

Absent better insight and info, that would be money well spent.

[VSECOTSPE]

Jim Free says science is his biggest partner on Artemis and they've just allocated 450 kg to the surface for science on the first lander.

Science should be his biggest customer, not just partner.  But if it sticks, a good move in the right direction on Artemis resources for science payloads.

I noticed Free's comment that "it comes down to architecture, architecture first, architecture is important". And then remembered the discussion regarding the need for goals which went on for pages upon pages here...

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

[DanClemmensen]

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

Artemis has a single, overriding, unambiguous and well-articulated goal, and the goal does indeed drive the architecture. The goal is to provide ongoing justification for the funding of SLS/Orion. All other goals are secondary and will be evaluated in terms of how they support the primary goal. The problem for those in the industry who want to work toward a viable and sustainable lunar presence is how to present suitable secondary goals in the hopes that they can eventually replace SLS/Orion. This is all very disheartening to those of us on the sidelines who would like to see the money spent effectively.

[yg1968]

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

Artemis has a single, overriding, unambiguous and well-articulated goal, and the goal does indeed drive the architecture. The goal is to provide ongoing justification for the funding of SLS/Orion. All other goals are secondary and will be evaluated in terms of how they support the primary goal. The problem for those in the industry who want to work toward a viable and sustainable lunar presence is how to present suitable secondary goals in the hopes that they can eventually replace SLS/Orion. This is all very disheartening to those of us on the sidelines who would like to see the money spent effectively.

That's not true. The Artemis program inherited SLS and Orion. Neither Bridenstine, nor VP Pence really liked SLS and were even willing to consider alternatives.

[DanClemmensen]

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

Artemis has a single, overriding, unambiguous and well-articulated goal, and the goal does indeed drive the architecture. The goal is to provide ongoing justification for the funding of SLS/Orion. All other goals are secondary and will be evaluated in terms of how they support the primary goal. The problem for those in the industry who want to work toward a viable and sustainable lunar presence is how to present suitable secondary goals in the hopes that they can eventually replace SLS/Orion. This is all very disheartening to those of us on the sidelines who would like to see the money spent effectively.

That's not true. The Artemis program inherited SLS and Orion. Neither Bridenstine, nor VP Pence really liked SLS and were even willing to consider alternatives.

Sorry, I was unclear. I did not specify who had this overriding goal. It was not any of the people you mentioned.

[yg1968]

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

Artemis has a single, overriding, unambiguous and well-articulated goal, and the goal does indeed drive the architecture. The goal is to provide ongoing justification for the funding of SLS/Orion. All other goals are secondary and will be evaluated in terms of how they support the primary goal. The problem for those in the industry who want to work toward a viable and sustainable lunar presence is how to present suitable secondary goals in the hopes that they can eventually replace SLS/Orion. This is all very disheartening to those of us on the sidelines who would like to see the money spent effectively.

That's not true. The Artemis program inherited SLS and Orion. Neither Bridenstine, nor VP Pence really liked SLS and were even willing to consider alternatives.

Sorry, I was unclear. I did not specify who had this overriding goal. It was not any of the people you mentioned.

I guess that you can argue that is the goal of certain members of Congress but it isn't the goal of NASA. The goal of NASA was explained yesterday by Melroy and it is the "sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system" (see the link below). For reasons that I have explained before, I believe that goal is sound. You can argue that SLS and Orion do not further that goal but I don't think that you can argue that the goal is the problem. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57221.msg2422857#msg2422857

[Proponent]

Neither Bridenstine, nor VP Pence really liked SLS and were even willing to consider alternatives.

I'm finding it difficult to imagine a Republican politician planning a 2024 presidential bid wanting to pick a fight with Sen. Shelby, among others.  What is the evidence that Pence was willing to consider alternatives to SLS?

[yg1968]

Neither Bridenstine, nor VP Pence really liked SLS and were even willing to consider alternatives.

I'm finding it difficult to imagine a Republican politician planning a 2024 presidential bid wanting to pick a fight with Sen. Shelby, among others.  What is the evidence that Pence was willing to consider alternatives to SLS?

See below where VP Pence specifically mentioned commercial alternatives to SLS:

‘By Any Means Necessary’

Pence acknowledged that SLS, NASA’s heavy-lift rocket currently under construction, is vital for a return to the Moon. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine recently admitted that SLS’s schedule has slipped, and that its first planned missions, slated for next year, may instead be launched by commercial rockets.

Pence said that the SLS plans should be accelerated to meet the 2024 lunar objective, “by any means necessary.” But he also laid out the possibility of changing contractors, should current ones not be able to meet demands. It’s a veiled threat to Boeing, which is currently contracted to build SLS, and is being held responsible for the schedule delays. Pence also stated that, “If commercial rockets are the only way to get Americans to the Moon in the next five years, then commercial it will be.”

https://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/03/pence-america-will-put-astronauts-back-on-the-moon-in-five-years

This quote is from VP Pence's March 2019 speech:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-fifth-meeting-national-space-council-huntsville-al/

See also Eric Berger's article on the confrontation on SLS between Shelby and Bridenstine where VP Pence supported Bridenstine:

"I think we as an agency need to stick to our commitment," he told a handful of senators in the committee meeting. "If we tell you, and others, that we’re going to launch in June of 2020 around the Moon, I think we should launch around the Moon in June of 2020." Then, referencing the commercial space industry, he added, "We have amazing capability that exists right now that we can use off-the-shelf in order to accomplish this objective."

This may not sound too dramatic, but in the realm of space policy and congressional hearings, this was heresy. Congress had created the Space Launch System rocket in 2011 and forced it upon an unwilling White House. Now, they were being told the space agency did not actually need the large rocket to fly the very missions it was created for. Days later, Bridenstine took this heresy further when he suggested SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket could boost humans to the Moon.

Shelby was livid. In his southern drawl, he told Bridenstine he should resign.

NASA administrators are appointed by the White House, and Bridenstine ultimately received backing from Vice President Mike Pence in this showdown with Shelby.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/so-long-senator-shelby-key-architect-of-sls-rocket-wont-seek-reelection/

[rsnellenberger]

Given that the current HLS design is predicated on using thrusters (located ~25m above the rocket's base) within 100m of the surface, there's certainly no evidence for claims that regolith impingement would be a significant issue.

What does this mean "no evidence for claims". Its never been done before, if thats what you mean. While there are no videos showing this, there are lots of studies that show that we should be concerned.

A better way to look at it would be "is there evidence to show its NOT an issue". Because if it causes problems, that could be big trouble. Also remember that the moon isn't mars (or earth). Regolith will be pushed up with a much higher velocity, and will travel much further because there is no atmosphere to slow it down (and only 1/6 Gee of gravity).

It means that the "experiment" of landing a vehicle on the Moon under propulsion followed by a close visual inspection was performed six seven* times during the Apollo era, and there was no evidence at all that lunar regolith did any damage to the lander.

Does that mean that there is zero risk? Of course not. But it does (IMHO) inform the decision by NASA in developing the requirements that the risk of this happening is lower than the composite risks of getting the first HLS ship safely on the surface, hence leaving it off the contractual requirements for the initial flight.

Furthermore, those contractual requirements do not prevent SpaceX, having landed HLS successfully, from performing exactly the tests that you're demanding. I'd be entirely unsurprised if SpaceX doesn't follow a period of time on the surface (to check out things like boiloff rates, etc) with thruster hops or even a sub-orbital/orbital launch.

*Apollo 12 inspected both their LM and the Surveyor

[VSECOTSPE]

I'm finding it difficult to imagine a Republican politician planning a 2024 presidential bid wanting to pick a fight with Sen. Shelby, among others.  What is the evidence that Pence was willing to consider alternatives to SLS?

yg1968 is generally right.  Pence was open to getting rid of underperforming contractors and stated so publicly when the Trump Administration rolled out the accelerated lunar return goal of 2024.  And in a NASA all-hands meeting, Bridenstine publicly considered Orion on a Falcon-Centaur for what became the Artemis I test flight. 

In the end, though, Bridenstine backed down after Shelby made his threats, probably because Pence had gone silent or was privately unwilling to challenge Shelby.  Pence pulling back may have been on the advice of Scott Pace, who was running the National Space Council at the time, but I have no evidence for that beyond discussions with old colleagues.

[deadman1204]

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

Artemis has a single, overriding, unambiguous and well-articulated goal, and the goal does indeed drive the architecture. The goal is to provide ongoing justification for the funding of SLS/Orion. All other goals are secondary and will be evaluated in terms of how they support the primary goal. The problem for those in the industry who want to work toward a viable and sustainable lunar presence is how to present suitable secondary goals in the hopes that they can eventually replace SLS/Orion. This is all very disheartening to those of us on the sidelines who would like to see the money spent effectively.

This 100%

Many of the artimis issues stem from the fact that its primary purpose is to use SLS/Orion.
The artimis program itself is the justification, not the goal.

Who's goal it is - well thats congress. NASA wants to do a million things that congress won't fund, so at the end of the day it doesn't matter what NASA wants, but what congress wants. Which is to fund SLS/Orion in perpetuity.

[clongton]

Who's goal it is - well that's congress. NASA wants to do a million things that congress won't fund, so at the end of the day it doesn't matter what NASA wants, but what congress wants. Which is to fund SLS/Orion in perpetuity.

Let's not lose sight of what is actually happening here. Congress could care less about big rockets, human spaceflight or going to the moon or Mars. NASA cares, we care, as do many others in this country and around the world, but Congress couldn't give two twinkles about any of that. The real goal is to keep as many voters as possible in specific voting districts employed as long as possible in high paying, government funded jobs. To that end Congress creates congressionally-funded, long term programs that keep tens of thousands of voters employed in high paying jobs. SLS/Orion is one such program. SLS/Orion is nothing more than a means to that end.

[VSECOTSPE]

Let's not lose sight of what is actually happening here. Congress could care less about big rockets, human spaceflight or going to the moon or Mars. NASA cares, we care, as do many others in this country and around the world, but Congress couldn't give two twinkles about any of that. The real goal is to keep as many voters as possible in specific voting districts employed as long as possible in high paying, government funded jobs. To that end Congress creates congressionally-funded, long term programs that keep tens of thousands of voters employed in high paying jobs. SLS/Orion is one such program. SLS/Orion is nothing more than a means to that end.

To put a finer point on it, the SLS workforce alone approaches 30K.  Even within the Artemis Program, there are much more useful things that workforce could be doing.

Fine, keep the workforce employed.  But do it intelligently.

[deadman1204]

Let's not lose sight of what is actually happening here. Congress could care less about big rockets, human spaceflight or going to the moon or Mars. NASA cares, we care, as do many others in this country and around the world, but Congress couldn't give two twinkles about any of that. The real goal is to keep as many voters as possible in specific voting districts employed as long as possible in high paying, government funded jobs. To that end Congress creates congressionally-funded, long term programs that keep tens of thousands of voters employed in high paying jobs. SLS/Orion is one such program. SLS/Orion is nothing more than a means to that end.

To put a finer point on it, the SLS workforce alone approaches 30K.  Even within the Artemis Program, there are much more useful things that workforce could be doing.

Fine, keep the workforce employed.  But do it intelligently.

I'd love to let the private sector USE these people, instead of keeping them bound up in worthless jobs programs. Funny how its only a "jobs program" when someone politically disagrees with it.

[DanClemmensen]

Architecture is important, but it’s not “first”.  Form follows function.  Goals first.

I should add that I am not convinced that this annual architecture review will have much of an impact.

It’s hard to see how the vague, amorphorous goals that Melroy put out could drive any architecture decisions or changes.

Artemis has a single, overriding, unambiguous and well-articulated goal, and the goal does indeed drive the architecture. The goal is to provide ongoing justification for the funding of SLS/Orion. All other goals are secondary and will be evaluated in terms of how they support the primary goal. The problem for those in the industry who want to work toward a viable and sustainable lunar presence is how to present suitable secondary goals in the hopes that they can eventually replace SLS/Orion. This is all very disheartening to those of us on the sidelines who would like to see the money spent effectively.

That's not true. The Artemis program inherited SLS and Orion. Neither Bridenstine, nor VP Pence really liked SLS and were even willing to consider alternatives.

Sorry, I was unclear. I did not specify who had this overriding goal. It was not any of the people you mentioned.

I guess that you can argue that is the goal of certain members of Congress but it isn't the goal of NASA. The goal of NASA was explained yesterday by Melroy and it is the "sustained human presence and exploration throughout the solar system" (see the link below). For reasons that I have explained before, I believe that goal is sound. You can argue that SLS and Orion do not further that goal but I don't think that you can argue that the goal is the problem. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57221.msg2422857#msg2422857

You are ignoring the golden rule: "the one with the gold, rules". NASA cannot propose an Artemis architecture that is not centered on SLS/Orion until something changes at the congressional level. This is the mandated core of the Artemis architecture. The program is built around the numbered missions, and each numbered mission is centered on an SLS/Orion launch. Melroy's statement of a different (and laudable) goal does not change the underlying architecture of Artemis in this decade.