EM-3/Artemis 3 Orion Construction and Processing Updates

[DanClemmensen]

I assume Starship HLS will use an IDSS that it derives from the Crew Dragon. I think Crew Dragon is active-only. If Orion is active-only, then SpaceX will need to add passive mode capability. Do you know what the HLS Option A (and Option B) contracts stipulate for the dock?

It will use a heavier duty version with similar specifications to the upgraded APAS-89 version known as APAS-95 used by Shuttle on the ISS PMA's and the Mir SO Docking Module. The heavy duty specs and reasoning is explained in the IDSS documentation. All Gateway modules ports will use a heavy duty IDSS design.

I have read the IDSS spec and I knew about the heavier-duty variants. I know they are backward-compatible with the "light-duty" variants, so e.g. a Crew Dragon (light duty?) active port could in theory dock to the heavy-duty passive port on Gateway if it could get there. What I do not know is the contractual requirement for the Starship HLS port (Option A and Option B) and the actual implementation on the Artemis III Orion, especially with respect to active vs. passive vs. active-passive. Where can I find this information? I have not been very successful navigating the NASA site looking for specs and contracts.

Will the HLS port be on the nose? We have seen renders that imply this, but the torques would be quite large if HLS docks to Gateway with a nose port. A dorsal port in the HLS airlock compartment would impose less torque if HLS can physically dock to Gateway in this config. (I'm reasoning qualitatively here. Quantitative torque computations give me a headache.) This would be somewhat similar to the position of the airlock port on the Shuttle.  This has ramifications for the Orion docking to HLS for Artemis III.

[russianhalo117]

I assume Starship HLS will use an IDSS that it derives from the Crew Dragon. I think Crew Dragon is active-only. If Orion is active-only, then SpaceX will need to add passive mode capability. Do you know what the HLS Option A (and Option B) contracts stipulate for the dock?

It will use a heavier duty version with similar specifications to the upgraded APAS-89 version known as APAS-95 used by Shuttle on the ISS PMA's and the Mir SO Docking Module. The heavy duty specs and reasoning is explained in the IDSS documentation. All Gateway modules ports will use a heavy duty IDSS design.

I have read the IDSS spec and I knew about the heavier-duty variants. I know they are backward-compatible with the "light-duty" variants, so e.g. a Crew Dragon (light duty?) active port could in theory dock to the heavy-duty passive port on Gateway if it could get there. What I do not know is the contractual requirement for the Starship HLS port (Option A and Option B) and the actual implementation on the Artemis III Orion, especially with respect to active vs. passive vs. active-passive. Where can I find this information? I have not been very successful navigating the NASA site looking for specs and contracts.

Will the HLS port be on the nose? We have seen renders that imply this, but the torques would be quite large if HLS docks to Gateway with a nose port. A dorsal port in the HLS airlock compartment would impose less torque if HLS can physically dock to Gateway in this config. (I'm reasoning qualitatively here. Quantitative torque computations give me a headache.) This would be somewhat similar to the position of the airlock port on the Shuttle.  This has ramifications for the Orion docking to HLS for Artemis III.

The heavier variant is to be used on HLS Starship for Gateway ops. HLS is proposed to dock to Gateway following its arrival in NRHO ahead of Artemis IV though the current plan is not noted. Orion will continue to use it lightweight mass optimised NDS port. Both Orion and HLS Starship will both launch with active docking systems for Gateway use however Artemis-III will see Orion function as the active vehicle and Starship function as the passive vehicle by leaving its soft capture system docking mechanism unpowered.

As for Cotract information you are likely looking at a FOIA request unless someone know specifically what to enter in a search field. However ITAR could play an obstacle.

[Timber Micka]

I think there are renders showing Orion with the docking tunnel mod, which looks like a very short extension (minimal modification).

Just found one. Pic on the left on this Lockheed tweet. Right pic is old design

https://twitter.com/LMSpace/status/1575156643079274498

I think you are looking at the "soft capture system" (SCS) portion of the "active" IDSS in its extended position. It's a normal part of the dock, not a modification.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_System_Standard

Ok sorry. That's a weird-looking feature.

[DanClemmensen]

I think there are renders showing Orion with the docking tunnel mod, which looks like a very short extension (minimal modification).

Just found one. Pic on the left on this Lockheed tweet. Right pic is old design

https://twitter.com/LMSpace/status/1575156643079274498

I think you are looking at the "soft capture system" (SCS) portion of the "active" IDSS in its extended position. It's a normal part of the dock, not a modification.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_System_Standard

Ok sorry. That's a weird-looking feature.

(This is all from my reading and not from any inside information)
Yep, it's weird. It's also the heart of the IDSS and the feature that distinguishes it from earlier docking systems. It starts in the extended position and then contacts the passive system with pretty much zero force. It has a limited amount of freedom of motion on all six axes. After it latches to the passive system, the the SCS is then pulled back into its non-extended position in the active dock, bringing the two spacecraft together, after which the rest of the latches engage. The exact magic for this appears to be unspecified, but I'm guessing the actual actuators are augmented by the active vehicle's RCS for really big spacecraft.

[russianhalo117]

I think there are renders showing Orion with the docking tunnel mod, which looks like a very short extension (minimal modification).

Just found one. Pic on the left on this Lockheed tweet. Right pic is old design

https://twitter.com/LMSpace/status/1575156643079274498

I think you are looking at the "soft capture system" (SCS) portion of the "active" IDSS in its extended position. It's a normal part of the dock, not a modification.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_System_Standard

Ok sorry. That's a weird-looking feature.

(This is all from my reading and not from any inside information)
Yep, it's weird. It's also the heart of the IDSS and the feature that distinguishes it from earlier docking systems. It starts in the extended position and then contacts the passive system with pretty much zero force. It has a limited amount of freedom of motion on all six axes. After it latches to the passive system, the the SCS is then pulled back into its non-extended position in the active dock, bringing the two spacecraft together, after which the rest of the latches engage. The exact magic for this appears to be unspecified, but I'm guessing the actual actuators are augmented by the active vehicle's RCS for really big spacecraft.

See the Zarya PMA-1/Unity, PMA-2 propulsive soft capture video for that scenario (Jump to 5:30 and it will show it shortly after):

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://flic.kr/p/2oN51R1

KSC-20230622-PH-CSH01_0021
The Orion spacecraft for the Artemis III mission is in view in the high bay of the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on June 22, 2023. The Orion spacecraft is being prepared for its launch atop the Space Launch System rocket on Artemis III, which will send astronauts, including the first woman and first person of color, on a mission to the surface of the Moon. Photo credit: NASA/Cory Huston

[Vahe231991]

https://twitter.com/_mgde_/status/1689035886451646464

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/SpacecoastPix/status/1781355234704621736

Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
NASA is quietly considering major changes to Artemis III.

D. Stamos/Helodriver
@SpacecoastPix
Next change will be to have Orion and Starship dock in the VAB before launch.
9:12 AM · Apr 19, 2024

Article:  https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/nasa-may-alter-artemis-iii-to-have-starship-and-orion-dock-in-low-earth-orbit/

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1781350879087428001

Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera (Alex)
@Alexphysics13
Take it with a huge amount of salt as things haven't been made official.

But it'd be hilarious to see Orion launch on SLS without an ICPS. We'd be on the SLS Block 0 configuration

[catdlr]

Adrian Ruiz
@adrian_ruiz_99
I love how it seems people didnt read the article. The reason for this consideration is not Orion but Starship not being able to refuel yet, and needing more time to develop.
9:10 AM · Apr 19, 2024

https://twitter.com/adrian_ruiz_99/status/1781354729664139713
·

[Proponent]

But it'd be hilarious to see Orion launch on SLS without an ICPS. We'd be on the SLS Block 0 configuration

I'm sure, though, that there would be a dummy ICPS to maintain mechanical compatibility with the launch tower, and probably weight and balance and aerodynamic qualities as well, so the vehicle would not look like Block 0.

[pochimax]

https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2025/05/28/nasa-marks-milestones-for-artemis-iii-orion-spacecraft-at-kennedy/

NASA continues to make steady progress preparing the spacecraft that will carry astronauts toward the Moon to rendezvous with their lunar lander and bring them back to Earth on Artemis III. Technicians recently powered on the Artemis III Orion crew module for the first time inside the Neil A. Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, a key milestone in the work being done to prepare for the next Americans to walk on the Moon.

This initial power on marked the startup of the crew module’s two vehicle management computers and six power and data units, which are responsible for commanding vehicle subsystems. The spacecraft will continue to undergo additional assessments throughout the summer including testing the display units, hand controllers, and audio systems that astronauts will use on their journey to the Moon. Once functional testing is complete, the crew module prop system will undergo proof pressure and leak testing. Proof pressure and leak tests ensure it can safely withstand the rigors of space.

The Artemis III service module, provided by ESA (European Space Agency), is also undergoing testing in the same facility. In May, engineers completed crew module adapter and environmental control and life support systems proof pressure and leak testing. Engineers expect to power on the service module’s avionics systems and controllers in the fall. 

Following initial power on of both the Artemis III crew module and service module, technicians will continue assembling the two elements and carry out additional testing, including thermal and acoustic tests, before the modules are connected in 2026.

https://twitter.com/NASAKennedy/status/1927796150716837937

[AndrewM]

Some snips from the FY26 PBR Technical Supplement relating to Artemis III Orion.

The Artemis III's spacecraft development will be completed in mid-2027, including the incorporation of the Rendezvous, Proximity Operations, and Docking capability necessary to conduct the mission.

[Page EXP-6 (32)]

The current target dates are Artemis II no later than April 2026 and Artemis III in mid-2027.

[Pg. EXP-8 (34)]

Under Crew Vehicle Development Key Achievements Planned for FY 2026:

Continued assembly, integration, and testing of the Artemis III CM and SM will culminate in the integration of the CM and SM into the CSM.

[Pg. EXP-9 (35)] [Pg. EXP-20 (46)]

Under Exploration Ground Systems Key Achievements Planned for FY 2026:

For Artemis III, EGS will conduct integrated operations including flight software sustainment releases, booster stacking, core stage 3 mate and stacking of Orion, and emergency egress system crew training and certification.

[AndrewM]

Some updates from the GAOs annual assessment of major NASA programs.

NASA is implementing enhancements to how future heat shields—for Artemis III and beyond—are manufactured to
achieve uniformity and consistent permeability. A Moon to Mars official said in January 2025 that the manufacturing
changes are underway, and a new heat shield should be ready by summer 2026. As of January 2025, a NASA official said that the heat shield is not driving Orion’s readiness for Artemis III.

The Orion program continues to make progress toward
Artemis III readiness. For example, the European Space Agency delivered its European Service Module. The module was connected with NASA’s crew module adapter in October 2024.

As of February 2025, the Orion program reported that leaks in the hydrazine valves planned for installation in
the crew module and the first-time installation and integration of the docking system are driving the program’s schedule for Artemis III. The program identified the cause of the valve leaks and is rebuilding and testing the valves. The docking system continues to progress through development and testing, and the program reports that it is not currently working any technical issues.

[DanClemmensen]

Some updates from the GAOs annual assessment of major NASA programs.

NASA is implementing enhancements to how future heat shields—for Artemis III and beyond—are manufactured to
achieve uniformity and consistent permeability. A Moon to Mars official said in January 2025 that the manufacturing
changes are underway, and a new heat shield should be ready by summer 2026. As of January 2025, a NASA official said that the heat shield is not driving Orion’s readiness for Artemis III.

I do not understand how this is acceptable. They will be using what is essentially a completely new heat shield design for Artemis III. It will fly with for the first time on that mission, with crew, and with no prior uncrewed flight test. How can this be acceptable? They presumably have multiple types of ground tests that demonstrate that it "should" work. That's nice, but they had multiple ground tests of the previous heat shield prior to Artemis I, and that heat shield still showed unexpected and potentially fatal spalling.

The correct approach from a safety standpoint is to cancel Artemis II and replace it with an uncrewed mission after the new heat shield is ready. Clearly, this is horribly expensive and would delay Artemis, so it appears from the outside that NASA is compromising crew safety because of cost and schedule. But if NASA does not have a tested heat shield, they should not fly with crew.