NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[yg1968]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

It wouldn't save that much money, Gateway isn't that expensive.

Japan is also contributing to Gateway. Contributions to Gateway and to lunar surface exploration are separate from each other.

Gateway modules are not terribly expensive. Delivery of those modules using SLS is terribly expensive.

Yes. And Berger’s argument is that, by eliminating Gateway you can also eliminate Block 1B, thus constraining SLS at “terribly” and keeping it from escalating to “obscenely” expensive. Again, I’m repeating his argument.

Yes, I saw that argument but I am not convinced you would save that much at this point as NASA is too far into the EUS contract.

Based on the FY25 Budget, here is what is left to pay the Block 1 B upgrade.

Block 1B Capability Upgrade
FY25 $285.8M
FY26 $275.1M
FY27 $54.3M

See page 3 (of the PDF) of the FY25 Budget request:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fy-2025-full-budget-request-congressional-justification-update.pdf

[StraumliBlight]

NASA Announces Selections for Lunar Comms, Network Studies [Oct 1]

NASA has selected Intuitive Machines of Houston and Aalyria Technologies Inc. of Livermore, California, to perform capability studies with the goal of advancing space communications and exploration technologies. These studies will allow NASA to gain insights into industry capabilities and innovations to facilitate NASA partnerships with commercial communications and navigation providers.

The awards, under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (Next STEP-2) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Appendix Q, are firm fixed-price milestone-based contracts.

Intuitive Machines is awarded $647,600 — Study Area No. 1, Lunar User Terminals and Network Orchestration — to conduct state-of-the-art studies and demonstrations for a dual-purpose navigation and communication lunar surface user terminal. The terminal will support lunar surface exploration planning and ensure interoperability with future LunaNet compatible service providers working in partnership with NASA, ESA (European Space Agency), and other space agencies.

Aalyria Technologies is awarded $393,004 — Study Area No. 2, Network Orchestration and Management System (NOMS) — to provide NASA with insights on advanced Network Orchestration and Management Systems that effectively address NASA’s need to integrate into multiple commercial and government communication service providers supporting the Near Space Network.

NASA’s Near Space Network is managed by the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, under the direction of the agency’s SCaN (Space Communications and Navigation) program office within the Space Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The Near Space Network provides NASA missions with robust communications services through an interoperable architecture composed of a mixture of existing NASA and commercial services.

“These awards are part of NASA’s continuing effort to build commercial partnerships to help support increasingly sophisticated and high-demand space missions,” said Greg Heckler, new capability lead for the SCaN Program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Seamless interoperability across networks, from here on Earth to cislunar space, is an essential element of SCaN’s emerging ‘one network’ approach. These awards will move us one step closer to realizing that future.”

The innovative studies delivered by industry through the Next Space Technologies for Exploration (NextSTEP) – 2 Omnibus Broad Agency Announcement vehicle bolster the agency’s goal to create a reliable, robust, and cost-effective set of commercial services in which NASA is one of many customers.

[DanClemmensen]

And the Gateway is "almost" international...why cancel?

To concentrate limited funding. Berger makes the argument for redirecting international industrial contributions to the lunar surface... could still be habitable pressure vessels, just not in orbit.

It isn't a bad idea. Japan are on this path already.

It wouldn't save that much money, Gateway isn't that expensive.

Japan is also contributing to Gateway. Contributions to Gateway and to lunar surface exploration are separate from each other.

Gateway modules are not terribly expensive. Delivery of those modules using SLS is terribly expensive.

Yes. And Berger’s argument is that, by eliminating Gateway you can also eliminate Block 1B, thus constraining SLS at “terribly” and keeping it from escalating to “obscenely” expensive. Again, I’m repeating his argument.

Yes, I saw that argument but I am not convinced you would save that much at this point as NASA is too far into the EUS contract.

Based on the FY25 Budget, here is what is left to pay the Block 1 B upgrade.

Block 1B Capability Upgrade
FY25 $285.8M
FY26 $275.1M
FY $54.3M

See page 3 (of the PDF) of the FY25 Budget request:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fy-2025-full-budget-request-congressional-justification-update.pdf

I believe this is referred to as "throwing good money after bad."
In your opinion, do these numbers accurately reflect the total actual outlays we will see in these years?
How should we count possible savings from recovery of unspent allocations, e.g., for ML-2?

[yg1968]

I believe this is referred to as "throwing good money after bad."
In your opinion, do these numbers accurately reflect the total actual outlays we will see in these years?
How should we count possible savings from recovery of unspent allocations, e.g., for ML-2?

It will probably end up slipping and costing more than that, I know.

In terms of termination fees, I imagine that there would be some expenses related to that. That's why I am not sure that you would be saving that much by cancelling these Artemis IV development projects.

I would rather they cancel SLS and replace it with commercial options than try to do this.

[Paul451]

Even saving half a billion frees up significant resources for tertiary Artemis hardware development, which tend to be in the millions, not hundreds of millions. And it might be more achievable, politically, than trying to cancel SLS/Orion entirely.

[deltaV]

…here are the principal policy choices I believe should be made to shore up the Artemis Program both in the near and long term:

• Cancel the Lunar Gateway
• Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
• Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.

Eric's recommendations aren't optimal - canceling SLS and Orion too after Artemis V would be even better - but his recommendations would be better than the status quo.

[DanClemmensen]

…here are the principal policy choices I believe should be made to shore up the Artemis Program both in the near and long term:

• Cancel the Lunar Gateway
• Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
• Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.

Eric's recommendations aren't optimal - canceling SLS and Orion too after Artemis V would be even better - but his recommendations would be better than the status quo.

Eric's approach avoids SLS block 1B. Artemis IV and V use block 1B. I think the best approach is to cancel SLS and Orion after Artemis III. Actually, it would be even better to cancel them immediately, except that the cancellation costs are probably higher that flying Artemis II and Artemis III.

SLS/Orion serve two important purposes:
     --Important congress people like them for the pork
     --Their schedules will slip, providing protective cover for the lander and space suit slips.

[deltaV]

I think the best approach is to cancel SLS and Orion after Artemis III.

Five reasons to make cancellation of SLS and Orion effective only after Artemis V:
-Ensure we land on moon again even if Artemis III fails.
-Avoid the cutting corners on safety that's likely if Artemis III is our only shot at the moon for a while.
-Canceling earlier likely wouldn't save much money since much of the costs have already been paid
-Don't piss off Blue Origin and SpaceX by canceling their Artemis IV and V contracts. This is important because a plan that fraks everyone off won't survive in Congress.
-Keep competition between Blue Origin and SpaceX fair by letting both retain their HLS contracts.

It would have been great to cancel EUS a decade ago, but I fear redoing Artemis IV and V now to not use EUS would hurt schedule too much. Therefore it probably only makes sense to cancel EUS if we're planning to cancel SLS after Artemis III or planning to keep SLS for a decade or more.

[DanClemmensen]

I think the best approach is to cancel SLS and Orion after Artemis III.

Five reasons to make cancellation of SLS and Orion effective only after Artemis V:
-Ensure we land on moon again even if Artemis III fails.
-Avoid the cutting corners on safety that's likely if Artemis III is our only shot at the moon for a while.
-Canceling earlier likely wouldn't save much money since much of the costs have already been paid
-Don't piss off Blue Origin and SpaceX by canceling their Artemis IV and V contracts. This is important because a plan that fraks everyone off won't survive in Congress.
-Keep competition between Blue Origin and SpaceX fair by letting both retain their HLS contracts.

It would have been great to cancel EUS a decade ago, but I fear redoing Artemis IV and V now to not use EUS would hurt schedule too much. Therefore it probably only makes sense to cancel EUS if we're planning to cancel SLS after Artemis III or planning to keep SLS for a decade or more.

Yeah, I was assuming a Starship-based alternative to Artemis III that can get astronauts to NRHO. This would accommodate the Artemis III later landings and therefore would allow for their HLS missions.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I suspect that EUS and converting to a Centaur V are almost the same amount of trouble:

1) They both require a new interstage.  (The current LVSA will have to be modified for C5.)
2) They both require a new Orion adapter (Neither the current OSA nor the new USA will work as-is.)
3) They both have some structural challenges.  (Vibration and the height of the new OSA + Orion stack are high on the list.)
4) They both require some kind of ML change, either on ML1 or ML2.  Bechtel will be happy to charge through the nose for even a fairly modest redesign.

[deadman1204]

I think Eric's recommendations ignore something very important. If SLS/Orion were cancelled, artimis would be dead in the water.
Congress doesn't see those programs as boondoogles, because they are putting so much money in their districts. IF sls/orion are cancelled, that money isn't gonna look around for a new space thing. Its just gonna go away, thats how budgets work.

[armchairfan]

I think Eric's recommendations ignore something very important. If SLS/Orion were cancelled, artimis would be dead in the water.
Congress doesn't see those programs as boondoogles, because they are putting so much money in their districts. IF sls/orion are cancelled, that money isn't gonna look around for a new space thing. Its just gonna go away, thats how budgets work.

Eric didn't recommend canceling SLS/Orion, just the 1B upgrade.

Why not just cancel the SLS rocket right now? For $4.1 billion per launch, that is admittedly a tempting option from a budget standpoint. But for the time being, the most direct route to get NASA astronauts to the Moon is inside Orion atop an SLS rocket. The only essential function these vehicles fill is getting crew into a near-rectilinear halo orbit around the Moon and back.

[deadman1204]

I think Eric's recommendations ignore something very important. If SLS/Orion were cancelled, artimis would be dead in the water.
Congress doesn't see those programs as boondoogles, because they are putting so much money in their districts. IF sls/orion are cancelled, that money isn't gonna look around for a new space thing. Its just gonna go away, thats how budgets work.

Eric didn't recommend canceling SLS/Orion, just the 1B upgrade.

Why not just cancel the SLS rocket right now? For $4.1 billion per launch, that is admittedly a tempting option from a budget standpoint. But for the time being, the most direct route to get NASA astronauts to the Moon is inside Orion atop an SLS rocket. The only essential function these vehicles fill is getting crew into a near-rectilinear halo orbit around the Moon and back.

This is semantics. All but 1-2 artimis missions call for the 1b upper stage. Thus this would be cancelling most all sls flights - same thing as cancelling the rocket. While you can argue its not needed if a whole bunch of other stuff also happens at the same time, the liklihood of berger's wishlist to all happen at once is minimal.
Which also ignores the endless money being poured into boeing and betchel for these upgrades. 

Artimis isn't supposed to be cheap. Artimis is supposed to employ the entire shuttle workforce plus others.
Berger is a fan of sacrificing anything in the name of people on the moon. However flags and footprints is just the excuse to use sls/orion which were in dev for many years before any mission was established. Artimis is a reason to use sls. Artimis didn't pick the SLS, it exists strictly because of sls.
The whole lunar base thing is as much unfunded fantasy now as it was in apollo days. NASAs actions on this front prove it out (letting public set 50+ goals)?! Lunar plans after a few flags and footprints are the equivalent of space fanfict.

[armchairfan]

I think Eric's recommendations ignore something very important. If SLS/Orion were cancelled, artimis would be dead in the water. [snip]

Eric didn't recommend canceling SLS/Orion, just the 1B upgrade. (quote from Eric Berger snipped)

This is semantics. All but 1-2 artimis missions call for the 1b upper stage. Thus this would be cancelling most all sls flights - same thing as cancelling the rocket. While you can argue it's not needed if a whole bunch of other stuff also happens at the same time, the liklihood of berger's wishlist to all happen at once is minimal.
Which also ignores the endless money being poured into boeing and betchel for these upgrades. 

All of which Berger addressed in the article. You don't need the 1b upper stage and related upgrades if the gateway doesn't exist; you just need SLS to push Orion towards NRLO. There's nothing to co-manifest. So fly the existing SLS albeit with a Centaur V upper stage replacing the two-off ICPS one. I recommend that you read the original article instead of having others feed it to you piecemeal if you're interested in more details.

Artimis isn't supposed to be cheap. Artimis is supposed to employ the entire shuttle workforce plus others.

Well that's brutal but probably true. It also belies the true meaning of "sustainable"; i.e, impossible to kill as opposed to affordable. Frankly, it's hard to support a space program when that seems to be the primary mission.

It's no wonder why many of us closely follow what's happening in certain private companies. At least government money spent there has a much better bang for the buck and is something to get excited about.

[yg1968]

SLS is still a national disgrace (by Casey Handmer):
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2024/10/02/sls-is-still-a-national-disgrace/

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1841558221573513579

[rcoppola]

Brutal, well reasoned and true.

If I was king for a day I'd bring back Jim B and give him free-reign to overhaul both NASA and Artemis.

[punder]

SLS is still a national disgrace (by Casey Handmer):
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2024/10/02/sls-is-still-a-national-disgrace/

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1841558221573513579

Wow that’s a great essay.

[Eric Hedman]

SLS is still a national disgrace (by Casey Handmer):
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2024/10/02/sls-is-still-a-national-disgrace/

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1841558221573513579

Wow that’s a great essay.

Sadly, I agree with everything in this essay.  And unfortunately, I don't think NASA is the only agency that has sunk in capabilities from the same kind of rot.  I also think that Bill Nelson's legacy will be a dismal failure.

[Eric Hedman]

Brutal, well reasoned and true.

If I was king for a day I'd bring back Jim B and give him free-reign to overhaul both NASA and Artemis.

Unfortunately, nobody with a reasonable brain gets to be a king for a day.  I don't see this getting fixed anytime soon regardless of who is the next President.  There are so many things ruined by the rot of incompetence and politics.

My guess is that the heat shield issue on Orion not being fixable anytime soon and [[without billions of extra dollars and China making steady progress on their lunar ambitions is the most likely combination that could blow things up.  At that point maybe the President or Congress could push for proposals from industry on how they could handle crew and cargo to and from the Moon.   It would be a start.  Hopefully SpaceX and others have been working on concepts just in case.

[woods170]

Brutal, well reasoned and true.

If I was king for a day I'd bring back Jim B and give him free-reign to overhaul both NASA and Artemis.

That would only work if Jim B REALLY got free-reign, including giving Congress the proverbial middle finger.

But in the real world any attempt to overhaul NASA and Artemis is DOA, courtesy of how Congress operates.

But I digress.