NASA Really Really Needs An Artemis Plan – Soon
Artemis Wins Only Lukewarm Support In Final NASA FY 2020 Appropriation, Space Policy Online
“More than half the Artemis-related funding may not be obligated until NASA submits a multi-year plan explaining how it intends to execute that program and development of human lunar landers received far less than requested.”
Where Is NASA’s Plan For Sustainable Moon/Mars Exploration? (Update), earlier post
“‘[Pence] And I recommend to the public’s attention the public record that you will find that we are setting specific timelines for the Administrator in the next 60 days to designation of an office and submission of a plan for a sustainable lunar surface exploration and the development of crewed missions to Mars.”
Keith’s note: I asked NASA Administrator Bridenstine about the report requested by the Vice President and the National Space Council last week. The last meeting of the took place on 20 August 2019. Pence’s 60 day due date would therefore have been 19 October. It has been 61 days since the due date passed. Bridenstine said that the report has not been delivered and would provide a date when it will delivered.
Current top to bottom Artemis reviews being conducted by new HEOMD AA Doug Loverro are going to take some time. This recent budget action requires an Artemis program plan before all of the funds are released. Vice President Pence and the National Space Council also called for NASA to deliver an Artemis program plan. It is quite obvious by now that the White House and Congress do not have a clear idea as to how NASA is going to place humans on the Moon by 2024. They want to see plans.
Based on 20+ years of watching NASA, the agency has never been good at delivering this sort of plan to Congress and/or the White House. NASA never delivers these plans on time and the plans that are delivered usually punt on many of the important points which spawned the request for the plan in the first place. The Vice President expressed clear frustration with NASA Artemis progress and plans earlier this year. Congress has provided (at best) lukewarm support – along with healthy skepticism as to the why and how of NASA’s plans.
NASA needs to hit the ground running in January. There is no more schedule margin to burn. The sooner NASA provides a plan that is realistic – one that is not based on faith-based notional plans – the better the chance they will have to pull this off with the resources needed to make it happen. As for the contractor community: it is time for them to do what they are paid to do – on time – and knock off lobbying Congress for more money to do things that NASA is not asking for.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a firm plan. Artemis will shape both the human spaceflight half of NASA and the overall US approach to cislunar transport for a generation. There’s a lot at stake – and there’s a huge divide between those who primarily want to accomplish the mission, and those who primarily want to guarantee their lion’s share of the NASA Human Exploration cashflow for decades more with the mission an afterthought.
My read on the state of play: The mission-focused people are willing to compromise and put over half the total funding into a few SLS/Orion flights as part of Artemis, however ineffficient the use of funding and however large the technical/schedule risk.
Meanwhile, the cashflow-focused people are campaigning to put even more of the available funding into EUS and even more of the payloads onto SLS, regardless of mission risk.
In short, there’s a fight underway, and until that fight is settled, any official plan won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.
My take, fwiw, is that even the current compromise, with crew on SLS/Orion to Gateway and the rest of the way on commercial transport, is fatally flawed. SLS/Orion simply won’t be ready (let alone properly tested) in time, on the record to date.
Given assignment of Lander management to MSFC, I suspect that won’t be ready on time now either, mind. That will, I suspect, end up a perfect match for flying it all on SLS plus EUS – both parts of the project will recede into the future at one year per year, generating billions of cashflow per year indefinitely. A perfect program! From certain points of view…
If we want Artemis to actually accomplish the mission? A modest proposal:
– Give full program control to a hand-picked tiger team totally outside the existing NASA HSF centers and lines of authority, analogous to the COTS team that succeeded brilliantly at Commercial Cargo (before HSF realized hey, this matters, and stepped back in to bollix up Commercial Crew.)
– Give them a mandate to use OTA, SAA’s, whatever it takes, to commercially develop the flight systems needed with a minimum of trad paperwork overhead. Insight, yes. Micromanagerial oversight, no. And at least two competing/complementary flight systems for all vital parts of the mission.
– Authorize them to cherry-pick expertise from anywhere they want within the existing Centers. More important – VITAL – authorize them to refuse with extreme prejudice all unsolicited Center “help” that they don’t want.
– Give them ~60% of the current overall SLS/Orion plus Artemis funding. The other ~40% goes to retiring SLS/Orion to the land of NOD in a policially expedient manner. (I’d allocate less, but even at 40% it’d involve serious political heavy lifting.)
– Stand back and watch them go.
I would say no more than two competitors. NASA usually dilutes resources for political reasons and almost assures that nothing gets built and flown. Unfortunately, you are asking NASA management to relinquish some of their power for the good of the country and agency something I never saw during my 30+ years at NASA.
Well, it is labelled “a modest proposal”.
But it has happened in the past. COTS being a prime example. The problem of course is that these things succeed mostly because they’re under the HSF establishment’s radar. Once they’re noticed, and glommed onto and “helped” by the usual suspects, they bog down into the usual mess, yes.
So yes, the box says “Some political heavy lifting required”.
I always had the impression that COTS was something imposed on NASA management not something that they proposed to do voluntarily ( but I wasn’t involved with COTS). I don’t know if placing your tiger team in Alabama but not at MSFC would be enough to appease Shelby. What is clear is it can’t be business as usual at NASA if they have any chance to get to the moon by 2024.
By its nature this approach could not focus near enough pork on Alabama (or on any other single state) to offset a major reduction in SLS.
Shelby would have toeither be bought off with alternate funding for the region – missile defense work perhaps – or simply politically overpowered.
Neither likely to happen, absent an extremely unlikely degree of top-level political focus.
But then if you never describe the ideal, chances of anyone deciding to implement it are even lower.
You really don’t want to use the title of an essay by Jonathan Swift and expect people will understand your modest proposal isn’t entirely serious. I’ve done that a few times and had people take the idea at face value.
Oh, this “modest proposal” was entirely serious, unlike Mr. Swift’s original. Not very practical, absent an unlikely sustained top-level political intervention. But quite serious.
From the movie “Apollo 13”
JIM LOVELL
– Houston… We… We just can’t throw this together at the
last minute. So, here’s what you’re gonna do. You’re gonna
get the procedure up to us whatever it is. And we’re gonna
go over it step by step so there’s no foul-ups. I don’t have
to tell you we’re all little tired up here. The world’s
getting awfully big in the window.
DEKE SLAYTON
– Jim, this is Deke.
FRED HAISE (to SWIGERT)
– It’s Deke.
JACK SWIGERT
– They don’t know how to do it.
The ‘duct tape filters’ were actually a high-point in NASA history. The comparison doesn’t seem apt.
That conversation was referring to the plan for powering up the command module, reentry and landing, not to deal with the CO2 problem.
To be honest, that was a fictional conversation from a movie. But it did do a good job of capturing the sense and feelings of the people involved in the real Apollo 13 mission. The power up sequence was pretty complicated and did some things in an order you normally wouldn’t want. But some really good people could take the very abnormal situation and put together a viable plan within a few days. And the CM power up sequence wasn’t the only one they had to pull out of a hat to get Apollo 13 back.
For Artemis, the requested plan isn’t even close to that sort of nuts and bolts level of detail. I don’t see any technical reason it should take more than 60 days. Politically (and by that I mean keeping factions within NASA happy as well as Congressmen) I can see why it might take forever.
Simple. When SpaceX sends the Starship to the Moon buy tickets to send a couple NASA astronauts along with the commercial ones.
A serious response to a semi-serious post… Vast respect to SpaceX both for their accomplishments and for their ambitions. But total dependence for cislunar transport on them alone is a major potential single-point failure.
If NASA ended up both patronizing low-cost SpaceX and fostering low-cost commercial alternatives for NASA’s cislunar transport needs – “at least two competing/complementary flight systems for all vital parts of the mission” – I for one would consider that an extremely successful US civil space policy outcome. (An outcome far better than a straight projection of current trends, alas.)
I guess you miss the point. We’ve been depending upon the Lockheed/Boeing SLS/Orion. That has not worked out too well as they are about a decade behind schedule, going on 15 years, and have created a system which cannot do the intended job since it is underpowered. Space X might be a reasonable alternative.
Miss the point, you say? I may occasionally assume it goes without saying that SLS/Orion is a useless piece of white-collar welfare Congressional pork. That’s because I’ve been saying so since well before it was called “SLS”, and pointing out the systemic NASA problems that led to it for a couple decades before that.
‘We”, you say. Not me, nor anyone who’s had the sense to listen to me.
Once SpaceX starts flying to the Moon and making money others firms will emerge. That is how free markets work. Apple showed the way with the PC and traditional firms like HP and IBM followed in a few years with their own systems. SpaceX won’t be a lunar monopoly for long once they show how it’s done.
And it actually was a serious response. NASA needs to get out of the business of designing and building rockets. They need to get out of the business of planning space architectures like Artemis. Instead they should just buy rides like they do on commercial airlines.
Have you seen one fly yet?
Have you seen the SLS fly yet?
“There is no
spoonplan” [to accomplish anything].Never was, because the goal is for (certain congresscritters) + (swamp technocrats) + (oldspace contractors) to continue sucking tax dollars in perpetuity while providing only incremental results.
Budgetary vampires.
Sometimes I think NASA invented the phrase “We’ll cross that bridge when we get there”
The phrase you’re looking for is “we will burn that bridge when we come to it.”
More like “we’ll build that bridge once we get wet”
There have always been two flaws in NASA planning, and no indication this time will be different.
First, there is an obliviousness to costs, a related flaw being the expectation of new funding for each new step. NASA plans never end up focusing a system so that once complete it takes a fraction of the previous yearly budgets to actually launch, operate, rinse and repeat. So each new step needs new funding rather than redirecting previous funding. This never adds up, as budget parties eventually end and even near term budget plus ups end up not being enough. Then we leave someone else to clean up the mess. The silo having formed, the budget it gets is held on to for dear life. Second, and this one’s ironic, even being oblivious to cost vs. budgets, for all their expense the systems end up being ineffective. SLS and Orion are testament to this flaw, more evidence of this bad habit in progress.
When an organization has a mission that sells, and existing organizations that cost money to care and feed, and every decision is really nothing more than taking care of the existing organizations first, the mission will never win. The mission is just for selling, an advertisement, hope, image not reality. The day NASA has a good plan for moving out and leading in space it will be a plan that harbors no preconceptions, doing what’s necessary, with multi-billion dollar projects shut down, redirected, and contracts terminated while new ones are started. This, from all indications, is not that day.
A less wordy version of my original post: Keith, yes, it’d be great to see a coherent and timely plan for Artemis.
I’m afraid that will not happen, however, as recent signs are the do-it-all-within-NASA faction has decided not to settle for the existing SLS/Gateway/commercial compromise and is instead now going for the whole ball of wax.
Lander management going to MSFC was a bad early sign. The current push to reprioritize EUS development, to raise SLS/EUS flight rates, and to eliminate Gateway and fly all of Artemis on SLS/EUS makes this definite: The Old Guard is counterattacking.
I do not think we’ll see a real useful plan until this new fight is settled one way or another. I wish it weren’t so. But that’s the NASA/contractor political reality that I see. (Your mileage may, of course, vary.)
With a Congressional mandate to use SLS for the Europa Clipper, and the Congressional mandate to hurry said high-profile robotic mission along with a bigger appropriation . . . well, where are the two more cores going to come from (on schedule)? How fast can Boeing gear up the supply chain (and that one of a kind stir welder) to pop two more SLS cores into the production line? Nothing adds up here.
If the bill passes (and for Artemis, any bill passing real soon is better than more continuing resolutions), it would allow NASA to launch Europa Clipper by 2025, rather than the previous requirement to launch by 2023. That helps the SLS production bottleneck.
Except that Congress also wants NASA to supply the dates for SLS flights “to build the Gateway” before they can spend more than 40% of the authorized budget. If the Gateway elements fly on SLS rather than another launch vehicle, that SLS bottleneck reappears.
You don’t believe Boeing saying recently they could turn out an SLS every six months, no problem?
Me neither…
And what core are we going to launch the lander with?
If anyone is expecting NASA human space flight to come up with a strategy or a plan they probably need to guess again. NASA HSF is fairly lousy at strategy and plans-they don’t really know what those are. Since they have been taken over by the the operations community over the last 15-20 years there is no strategy and no plan. they can barely get beyond tactics. remember ops folks are good at checklists and procedures. They are not into big picture. Maybe if Mr. Lovarro brings in some appropriate people, visionary strategic planners, and if they are not too tainted by the status quo maybe they can come come up with something.
I believe the Space Council first directed NASA to make a plan to return to the Moon over a year ago.
I have to say that I think that any plan that shows up will be so much hand waving, created to meet the requirement for a plan, rather than thoughtful documentation of what we are doing. OK,that may be an exaggeration, but I wonder by how much?
What we really need is a plan for why we are going into space in the first place and the long term goals for the *nation* (as opposed to any corporate aspirations, as “visionary” as those might be). Exploration for science purposes only, exploration for eventual colonization, actual colonizing, resource exploitation, military and civilian government support for our citizens’ space activities, strengthening/expanding our economic sphere, some combination? If such a plan existed, a lot of questions about where to go and why would answer themselves.
The last time we had anything even approaching a national plan was VSE, which was what, over 15 years ago now? Until that happens we will just flail around like we have been doing and/or be in reactionary mode to other nation’s actions in space.
You mean like the plan the English had for settling North America? Oh wait, they didn’t have a national plan. The Virginia Company just wanted to make money mining gold, but found Tobacco and Cotton instead. The Pilgrims just wanted to be left alone. The Hudson Bay Company just wanted to make money selling furs. They basically made their plans up as the went along and the government went along for the ride. By contrast the Russians after 500 years are still trying to come up with a plan to develop Siberia.
The sadist thing about the Moon Race is that it created a culture of micromanagement at NASA that has led to the paralysis by analysis that had plagued space policy since then.
I don’t know about the English, but the US sent government funded survey teams out to understand what was beyond the frontier. I am sure they didn’t do this just for fun and am willing to bet they had expansion, colonization, and resource potential on their minds. There may not have been a written down plan, but someone in government was thinking about the future and acted accordingly. The results of these expeditions educated Congress and helped when it came time for legislation concerning settlement. It also helped the general public realize what was out west. The pioneers might not have consulted with the government, but would they have gone at all without knowledge of what was there and support from the government with things like Homestead laws? Frankly, I doubt it, or at least not to the same scale on which it occurred.
These government activities spanned administrations, unlike the “I don’t like the previous guy so I am scrapping his plans and going with mine…” approach we have now. Look, I am not saying that the government needs to monopolize everything space related. I am saying the government should do what they can in order to allow people to pursue their visions. Yes, Elon Musk is doing that with SpaceX and that is great. I wish him all the success in the world. But I don’t want SX to be the *only* company in space. I am just too wary of the old “What’s good for GM is good for the US” attitude. Again, I am not knocking, or even criticizing SX, just saying I don’t think it’s good idea for the nation to tie up all it’s boats to a single dock.
Right now it looks to me that Artemis is shaping up to be another flags and footprints type mission. My preference is that the US government activities in space should be geared toward expansion into space and be done in a fashion where one mission supports and flows into the next, all leading to to some preferred goal.
Yes, the government sent survey parties out, and the first thing they did was hire pioneer farmers, traders and fur traders as guides as they already knew the terrain from living there.
Sometimes the mountain men knew the areas that were being explored. Sometimes they didn’t and the teams were the first non-Native Americans into those areas. However, we are starting to digress.
The point is these expeditions were facilitated by the government and did play in a role in expansion into the west.
Do not misunderstand, I am all for letting our explorers, wanderers, etc lead the way into the space and not be dependent on the government doing it first. However, there is a role for the government to play.The definition of that role is lacking or worse it is there but the definition depends on who you ask and what regime happens to have power at the time.
This situation has been to our detriment as evidenced by the last 50 years in space with nothing getting done (yes, the scientific satellites have been doing great science, but that is a separate issue).. No, the government should not have total control, but it can play a big part in helping the space equivalent of mountain men, traders and settlers lead the way. So what role should that be?
They did, but it really wasn’t as important as you may think. The real value of government was creating what economists call the institutional framework.
First, the government took over the land claims of the colonies and provided a structured way to enable the land to be sold and/or claimed by private parties. The same laws also provided a procedure for frontier lands to be turned into territories and eventually states. The Louisiana Purchase added even more land to settle.
The government also built military installations using materials and labor bought from the pioneers. These also pumped money into those communities from their payrolls and purchase of supplies while providing protection. The government also paid private transportation to transport supplies, replacement personnel and their families to the facilities.
The government extended post service to the frontier and then funded the construction of a network of postal roads while paying for mail to be transported by stagecoaches, riverboats and railroads. Later the government made land available for railroads.
None of these really were part of a master plan but were independent steps that were seen to make sense at the time. What the government didn’t do was to design, own and run transportation systems other than a very short lived Post Office owned stagecoach line and the failed Camel Corps experiment.
That’s not really the case, or at least, the implication that the government had any such plans isn’t correct. From the Proclamation of 1763 to the Black Hills to the Sooners in the Indian Territories, the government in Washington (or London in 1763) was repeatedly ordering settlers to stay home. They were sick of getting dragged into wars because settlers causing trouble with the natives. The local officials usually had different sympathies, and looked the other way (at best.) But that’s not the same as a plan and policy of the national government.
Other related trivia includes the fact that the government never intended to make the Louisiana Purchase. They just wanted to buy New Orleans and its immediate environs, because a French customs post was a problem for traffic up the Mississippi and the Ohio. The French offer to throw in the entire Mississippi drainage for just 50% more money was a real surprise. Oh, and east Texas was settled from the United States while it was part of New Spain and the Mexican Empire. The US government swore up and down to Mexico that they’d never consider a land grab and admit Texas to the Union, even if most of the people in Texas wanted them to. That’s why Texas was a separate country for a decade, as opposed to the whopping three week lifetime of the Bear Republic. Again, none that seems like a deliberate and consistent government plan to settle most of what is now the United States.
You mean, they didn’t impose the newest European university ideas on surveying, botany, and navigation onto the frontier? They didn’t haul the earliest coal-fired furnaces with them to make the optimal metal tools they would obviously need? No North American Settlement Administration?
The problem is NASA doesn’t know WHY it is sending astronauts to the moon, only that they’ve been told to do so and are trying to do it the old Apollo way. I’m going to get more active on the NSC/UAG to try to explain why to them. It’s pretty simple: To establish a permanent anchor on the lunar surface from which Americans and our allies can outfit themselves and then move out to settle the moon for the benefit of the economy of our country and the world. Think of it as Nineteenth Century St. Louis where the Westward Ho! wagon trains outfitted and set out for Oregon and parts in between.