This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Artemis

Artemis Is Getting A Major Reboot

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 27, 2020
Filed under , ,
Artemis Is Getting A Major Reboot

NASA planning document may offer clues to changes in Artemis program, Ars Technica
“For this assessment, about 60 people at the agency and from industry sought to determine the status of the program as it was currently structured. After the analysis, Loverro told staffers at NASA he had “concerns” about whether the existing plan would work. In particular, during internal briefings, Loverro expressed doubts about the remote assembly of elements of the lunar lander at the Gateway. He also wanted NASA engineers to make sure the Orion spacecraft, with crew on board, could dock to the lander without the Gateway. The potential revision of this plan, which may entail the launch of an entire lunar lander on an upgraded version of the SLS rocket, is notable for several reasons. Perhaps most significantly, it would place primary responsibility for NASA’s Moon program on the shoulders of Boeing. That company is building the core stage of the SLS rocket, as well as an upgraded upper stage–the Exploration Upper Stage–that would now be required for use by August 2024 on the Block 1B version of the SLS. In fact, it would be required to accelerate development of the beefier SLS rocket.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

38 responses to “Artemis Is Getting A Major Reboot”

  1. DougSpace says:
    0
    0

    The Gateway was never necessary for sustainable access to the Moon. There are proposed architectures that don’t require it. Rendezvous and transfer of cargo, crew, or propellant modules between vehicles coming from Earth and reusable landers was always an alternative to the Gateway. So, this move to allow direct docking between the Orion and the lander is a welcome step towards a more direct path to the Moon.

    Now, the next step towards turning this into a truly cost-effective and hence sustainable architecture would be to change the architecture to utilize commercial vehicles for an end-to-end, commercial transport system. Falcon Heavy to LEO is an underconsidered, existing capability that should be looked at when considering new, more sustainable architectures. And a tipping point criteria (Starship to orbit) for the transition of support towards a PPP with SpaceX would recognize the reality that Starship’s superior cost and capability is probable.

    • Henry Vanderbilt says:
      0
      0

      But. The core problem here is not Gateway. Buy Gateway from Boeing, manage it out of Huntsville, and launch and visit it only with SLS, and Gateway would be double-plus good again.

      And this is most certainly not about sustainable space architecture. The people gumming up the works here are blatantly indifferent to sustainable space architecture.

      It’s about sustainable funding.

      This is about a space congressional-bureaucratic-industrial complex that wants to control the entire space exploration cashflow, while eliminating all rivals so there’s once again no longer an alternate (commercial) performance metric for their glacial pace and mountainous costs.

      Any solution, however logical technologywise, that does not deal with this central political-economic fact is a non-starter.

      • DougSpace says:
        0
        0

        Certainly that is at the core of the problem. But programs have been shut down before despite pain at the local level. And Rep Horn and many others are supporting the Default Path despite the SLS not being built in their district. The thing is, at this moment, there is no equivalent to the SLS. But once Starship reaches orbit we will find out whether it is only pork or if some of these decision-makers no longer have any semi-legitimate reason to not transition their support from SLS to Starship. But, until then, it is an open question.

    • imhoFRED says:
      0
      0

      Agreed.

      A LEO based refueling architecture could include participation by most if not all major American space companies, provide sorely needed redundancy, and would utilize proven, working launchers.

      SLS + Orion could still fly crew to Moon

  2. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Interesting, but this is putting too many eggs in one basket. Under it the SLS has only 1 chance to get it right and no options for testing the lander as was done during Apollo.

    The key to making this work is going to be dropping the Orion from the Artemis program. This allows NASA to focus on the lander and getting the SLS right.

    In place of SLS/Orion use the Falcon Heavy/Dragon2 to deliver the astronauts to the lander in Lunar Orbit. Recall the Dragon2 was designed with deep space missions in mind. In fact SpaceX was looking at using it for a commercial lunar mission in 2018. It represents the fastest, and probably safest given the record of the FH/Dragon2, way to get astronauts to the lunar lander.

    As I noted, there is a used Dragon2 capsule at the Cape with no future missions planned from the launch abort test. It could be repurposed by SpaceX for a uncrewed Lunar Demonstration Mission probably by the end of this year. The Falcon Heavy boosters are already at the Cape, all that is needed is a Core and second stage.

    If successful it could be followed up with a crewed mission next year with a purpose built Dragon2.

    The funding could come from delaying further work on the Orion, which will no longer be needed near term to support the lander. It could be reserved for later deep space missions.

    In addition to providing slack in the SLS schedule the early success of the Falcon Heavy/Dragon2 would greatly build public and political support for Artemis. Just as Apollo 8 made everyone realize we could reach the Moon, it will send the same political message that this is doable.

    By contrasting, the constant schedule slip of the SLS/Orion is just going to erode confidence that Artemis is doable.

    • Tally-ho says:
      0
      0

      The Orion capsule is done. With Artemis 3 (EM-3) we are switching to a pure manufacturing mode. There is no further design/development/qualification work on Orion past EM-2. Your savings will be from dropping SLS in favor of commercial vendors. Don’t leave it to only SpaceX. Come one come all.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        You are assuming they won’t find any problems on the tests flights, Artemis 1 and 2. Pretty big assumption given the problems Boeing has had Starliner. As for the cost savings, $1-2 billion per SLS, another $ Billion or so for the Orion equals around $2-3 billion a flight compared to a per flight cost of maybe $300-350 million for the Falcon Heavy/Dragon2.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        In a sense, that’s unfortunate. Between Apollo 7 (C type) and 17 (J type), the capabilities of the CSM and LM increased substantially. I’m sure they’ll learn things from Artemis I and II which would make them _want_ to adjust the design for Artemis III and later.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I don’t think an unmodified Dragon 2 could do that. The Falcon Heavy (expended) can get one to the Moon, and the Super Dracos could manage the orbital insertion and Earth return burns. But it would take bigger fuel tanks than the current Dragon 2 has (and virtually the full payload capacity of Dragon 2 worth of fuel.) That a possible modification, but it would take more than just dusting off the Dragon used in the abort test. A free return flyby should be possible, but remember that Apollo 8 did enter lunar orbit. It wouldn’t have been as impressive if it had just been a flyby.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        True, a flyby may not be as impressive, but it’s better than sticking to LEO and it will still test lots of the elements needed for a mission. Also, if I am not mistaken all the Artemis I flight is doing is a simple around the Moon flight since the Orion doesn’t also doesn’t have the fuel for an Apollo 8 style orbital.

        • DJE51 says:
          0
          0

          The Falcon Heavy is not human rated, and SpaceX has no intention and no interest in human rating it. All of their “human rated” expertise is going into first, Crew Dragon, and second, into Starship. So your speculation is not borne out by the most recent information from SpaceX. Far better to speculate on the date of the introduction of Starship into the equation, which will be a true game changer (being 100% reusable) and will enable both Lunar as well as Mars landings and possibly settlements.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Given that the FH is based on the Falcon 9 which is human rated I am sure it won’t be hard for SpaceX to human rate a Falcon Heavy if they had a NASA contract for it under a Lunar Commercial Crew program.

          • Skinny_Lu says:
            0
            0

            I would like to know what is left to human rate the FH? I know SX has other plans but if NASA paid them to do it, I think they would do it. No?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I believe two Falcon 9 launches to low Earth orbit, one with a Dragon and one with a service/propulsion module would do the job. You’d need to develop the service/propulsion module, but that’s a relatively simple spacecraft. And perhaps beef up the mechanical structure on the Dragon’s docking adaptor. But it also might be enough to actually get into lunar orbit.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            That will also work, as will letting the Falcon Heavy preposition a lander in lunar orbit. With that architecture you could probably do a lunar landing for less than $1 billion a flight, compared to the estimated $5-6 billion for the SLS/Orion and future lander scheduled for Artemis 3 & 4.

        • jadebenn says:
          0
          0

          The Artemis I Orion will enter and exit a distant Lunar orbit. It’s not a flyby.

          • Rabbit says:
            0
            0

            Potato potahtoe . . . lack of ΔV is lack of ΔV.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Dragon2 could likely duplicate it given how little
            ΔV Orion has because it is so heavy. Of course that assumes that Artemis I actually launches.

            Reports are that Artemis I has slipped to mid-late 2021. Anyone want to bet by 2022 folks will still be waiting for that magical and wonderful first flight?

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        I would like to see a free return Moon flyby by SX, as soon as possible. I’m sure Mr Musk would come up with some imaginative way of promoting his brand. Please make it so. =)

    • Henry Vanderbilt says:
      0
      0

      Again, not putting all our eggs in one SLS basket is a programmatically rational response. But the problem is, the opposition here wants all eggs in that basket because it’s their basket, and never mind what’s programmatically rational.

      Assume everyone involved actually wants to usefully explore space (never mind open it up to commerce) and you’ll never come up with a practical solution to the current impasse.

      Understand: The other side primarily wants to control the nominally-for-exploration cashflow. To do this, they know they need to maintain the appearance of preparing to do serious exploration, no more. (Recent decades have shown them this is so.) Why should they compromise with you in the slightest, just because it would improve odds of actual useful exploration happening? Until you can apply sufficient pressure to force them to modify this behavior, they won’t.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        “they need to maintain the appearance of preparing to do serious exploration….” Ha, Ha. Hit it on the Head!

  3. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think we have to necessarily drop SLS/Orion from the plan. But we could relegate SLS/Orion to launching crew.

    Landers could be put together in LEO via docking/berthing and sent on their way via upper stages that are refueled in LEO. That means several (cheaper) launches on the likes of Falcon Heavy (which is getting a larger fairing and a vertical integration facility), Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Vulcan, New Glenn, and etc.

    The US has plenty of other launch options (existing and up and coming) that are cheaper and have a higher cadence than SLS. We should use them. All of them.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I think the alternatives are down to Falcon Heavy and Vulcan. I don’t think the Atlas V can get that large a payload to the Moon, and the Delta IV Heavy is effectively unavailable. That is, they take a long time to produce and all the available launches from now until the planned retirement date are taken. I also can’t see NASA baselining New Glenn until it’s flown. It’s development is entirely dependent on Mr. Bezos’ ability and willingness to sell a billion dollars of stock every year. I think that’s a safe bet, but I doubt NASA management would gamble the Artemis program on that.

      • imhoFRED says:
        0
        0

        Atlas V doesn’t need to loft a large payload to the moon. EOR fueling could be a quite valid architecture.

        It’s horrible that distributed lift architectures have been blacklisted by NASA without rational public debate.

        Gateway can be, but does not HAVE to be involved with distributed lift.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        Good thing SpaceX looks to be working on vertical integration and a larger fairing for DOD launches. NASA could take advantage of the larger fairing, which is one disadvantage of the current Falcon Heavy.

    • Henry Vanderbilt says:
      0
      0

      Relegating SLS/Orion to launching crew was the original compromise offered to them under Artemis, and they’re obviously rejecting that. Yes, there are other rational ways to affordably assemble Moon missions in space with commercial launchers that don’t require Gateway. But until this major push to hang the entire program off a mythical fly-twice-in-two-months EUS SLS is defeated, kicking around other, rational, approaches is fun, but futile.

      • jadebenn says:
        0
        0

        “…a mythical fly-twice-in-two-months EUS SLS…”

        Why are you acting like that’s impossible? You just need to outfit high bay 1 in the VAB. You don’t even need a higher production rate if you’re willing to skip a year and stockpile a core.

        With both high bays 1 and 3 equipped for SLS, you stack a Block 1 for the crew on ML-1 and a Block 1B for the lander on ML-2. Then you roll the Block 1B stack out to pad 39B, launch it, come back to the VAB, pick up the Block 1 stack on ML-1, roll that out to 39B, and launch it too.

        I’m not saying it’s the best solution, but it’s not impossible to fit two SLS launches within such a short time. It’s not even really hard. 90% of the infrastructure necessary for that exists. In fact, literally the only thing that would need to be changed from the current plans is putting high bay 1 back into active service.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          What about staffing and the workforce? How many extra people would they have to hire and train? What you’re describing would require two launch campaigns running at least partially in parallel.

          • Skinny_Lu says:
            0
            0

            Absolutely. Both you and I know this is not going to happen. The SLS program is already cutting corners all over, because they cannot do what it’s needed in the time they are being asked to do it.

        • Skinny_Lu says:
          0
          0

          Sure. Maybe in Fantasy Island.
          Not in real life. Please.

        • Henry Vanderbilt says:
          0
          0

          Didn’t say “impossible”. To clarify, what I meant by “mythical” was really really unlikely, given how much extra time & money it would predictably cost for the current organizations under business-as-usual to both develop EUS and also develop the ability to reliably launch SLS/EUS twice in two months.

          A lot of the people who would have to sign off on that extra money apparently share my lack of faith in the current organizations’ ability to then deliver on time & budget.

          I have no argument with your technical proposal, FWIW. It’s just that no matter what the technical path, it won’t be funded without the current impasse being resolved. And that impasse is highly unlikely to be resolved in favor of an all SLS/EUS Artemis without near miraculous increased confidence in the organizations involved. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

  4. MAGA_Ken says:
    0
    0

    That company is building the core stage of the SLS rocket, as well as an upgraded upper stage–the Exploration Upper Stage–that would now be required for use by August 2024 on the Block 1B version of the SLS. In fact, it would be required to accelerate development of the beefier SLS rocket

    Might as well plan on the tooth fairy.

    Loverro told staffers at NASA he had “concerns” about whether the existing plan would work. In particular, during internal briefings, Loverro expressed doubts about the remote assembly of elements of the lunar lander at the Gateway.

    Snort. He and untold numbers of commenters on NASAWatch, Ars Techna, and NASASpaceflight.

    Also nobody has been able to answer my question. Does NASA intend to leave Core Stage 1 exposed to the elements at Stennis in Mississippi for months during checkout for the Green Run? Does anyone think this is unwise?

  5. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    “…Human Landing System. Those awards are likely to come sometime in mid-March.”

    This should be very interesting, looking forward to see what is proposed and various praises or rants along with.

  6. Henry Vanderbilt says:
    0
    0

    With Artemis, NASA HQ and the White House offered the SLS Congressional/Industry/NASA faction half the action. But the SLS faction’s position seems to be everything gets developed within their empire and flies on SLS, or nothing flies at all.

    So, the death-duel over SLS/EUS/unitary-NASA-lander versus Commercial-transports/Gateway/modular-commercial-lander continues.

    Only way that gets settled soon is either A: the White House decides it has other higher priorities and surrenders, or B: the White House cracks the whip on the bureaucracy and cuts a deal with Congress to put SLS and its faction out to pasture.

    Maybe give Huntsville lots of Space Force/missile-defense money instead? Seal SLS management harmlessly away in the land of NOD, while providing jobs for the Huntsville worker bees doing something productive and useful under new competent organizations?

    Absent such a decision, this project will drag out into incoherent uselessness. For instance, now that MSFC has seized control of Lander development, I expect it’ll be a constant battle to keep it from morphing into something massively unitary and SLS/EUS-tied. Meanwhile EUS will remain nebulous and unfunded, and SLS itself absent yet more unlikely billions won’t be morphing into something capable of flying twice in one year, never mind two months.

    This is our future. Ya gotta laugh, because otherwise it hurts too much.

  7. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I think I believe Mr. Bridenstine when he says this is not the plan. Artemis and SLS Block 1B schedules aside, the list includes a couple of “science” launches. One for Europa Clipper, which is plausible, and a June 2027 launch for a Europa Lander, which is not plausible. The last iteration of the lander concept study, delivered to NASA a bit over two years ago, assumed a November 2026 launch. That was considered a tight development schedule if they had gotten approval to start immediately, which they didn’t. If the money magically appeared today, they might manage to be ready for launch a year and a half later than that that SLS manifest says. That’s a minor detail, but it is enough to convince me that list is, at most, a rough draft and not an official plan.

    I can also see why someone would have to put together such a list. The House did say they wanted something along these lines. Not officially enough to force NASA to do so, but seriously enough that, at some point, Mr. Loverro or Mr. Bridenstine will be asked about it by a congressional committee. A good answer would be to say NASA looked into that approach, and then explain why they decided not to do it that way. To do that, someone would have to put together the sort of SLS manifest we’re discussing. Also, if the report about concerns over lander docking/assemble at Gateway is correct, someone may have asked for people to flesh out the other options. That could be what we’re seeing, and that wouldn’t imply that’s an official plan.

  8. Henry Vanderbilt says:
    0
    0

    On less hasty reading… I noticed something else. This release comes during a blackout period when four bidders are preparing lander bids for NASA. As such, any rational bidder has to take the release as a strong hint of NASA desire to put a unitary lander on SLS/EUS, thus putting considerable pressure on them to conform their bids to that.

    And if/when nobody bids a space-assembled modular lander for commercial launch, well, then the usual suspects can say “none of the bidders though it was practical!”

    My take: If HQ is to maintain control of the Artemis program, heads need to roll for this.

    Mind, if HQ and the White House are good with ongoing internal insurrection turning Artemis into yet another never-fly money sink for tens of billions more, well, then, OK, no problem.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      The proposals were due last November, so it’s too late for anyone to change what the submitted. It’s the _selection(s)_ which are expected to be announced in the next couple weeks. The blackout is probably about saying anything which implies who will be selected, before it’s signed off and official. This leaked manifest, which certainly looks like a draft of a hypothetical idea to me, could be taken to say, “we’re about to select the bid which submitted a single-element lander.” And that could make Boeing stocks go up a bit, at a time when they badly need that, and now we’re opening up a whole can of legal worms.

      • Henry Vanderbilt says:
        0
        0

        Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Not that the hints a major faction likes the all-SLS approach were lacking earlier, but it makes this particular eruption a bit less egregious than I’d assumed.

        I still think this insurrection needs to be either squashed, or surrendered to. No good’ll come of it lingering on.