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

NASA Releases Science Plan For First Artemis Human Landing Mission

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 7, 2020
Filed under , ,
NASA Releases Science Plan For First Artemis Human Landing Mission

NASA Invites Media to Discuss Science Priorities for Artemis III Moon Landing
“NASA is hosting a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EST Monday, Dec. 7, to discuss the release of a report defining the agency’s science priorities for the Artemis III mission, which will launch the first woman and next man to the Moon in 2024. The teleconference will stream live on NASA’s website.”
NASA Artemis III Science Definition Team report
“The Artemis III mission will be the first human mission to the surface of the Moon in the 21st Century, and will build on the legacy of Apollo to usher in the modern era of human exploration and development in deep space. The lunar surface is an ideal location to answer fundamental planetary science questions. In the 50 years since humans last visited the Moon, new advances arising from robotic lunar missions, reanalysis of older data, modeling, and sample analysis have produced dramatic results and new questions about planetary volcanism, volatiles, impact processes, tectonics, and the lunar environment. Driven by new questions, we set out a robust science plan for the Artemis III crew return to the lunar surface.”
Keith’s note: According to this document NASA still does not know how it is going to land humans on the Moon and return them to Earth. At this point prior to Apollo landings there were posters on the wall of every school room in America laying out the Apollo mission profile. NASA has 4 calendar years to figure this out – they need to design, test, and fly the hardware – and it all needs to work. There is no room for error in the current schedule. Four years out and crews have yet to be selected. Crew training facilities do not yet exist since much of the mission hardware is still TBD. We are about to return to a world we left half a century ago and we seem to be in a hurry to do so.

“Artemis III will be the first human mission to the Moon in the 21st Century. Astronauts aboard Orion for Artemis III will rendezvous with a Human Landing System (HLS) vehicle in lunar orbit to make their descent to the lunar South Pole. NASA has awarded three companies, Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX, to begin refining their HLS designs. Artemis III astronauts will spend up to 6.5 days on the surface, living inside the HLS crew cabin that they will then use to launch back to lunar orbit to rendezvous with Orion. The Artemis III crew may rendezvous with the lander at the Gateway or may board the lander directly from Orion. While the SLS will launch crew aboard Orion, and potentially carry co- manifested payloads to lunar orbit, the increasingly capable commercial launch market will be the workhorse of lunar development. Commercial rockets are expected to carry CLPS landers and many other surface and orbital assets, including Gateway modules after Artemis III.”

My question at the media telecon: “The science part of the report looks great. I am confused about the human part. At this point prior to the Apollo landings – as early as 1965 – Apollo program astronauts were in the field training for lunar geology and flying simulators based on an established mission architecture. At the same point prior to the first landing the Artemis program only has part of this in place. When will you pick crews and start training in simulators and in the field – and how will you do that given that the mission architecture is still several years away from being defined? Can you really pull this off so as to be ready to go no later than 4 years from TODAY? It seems a bit compressed.”
Ken Bowersox replied “We expect to see a lot of progress in the next year when down select to our commercial partners. As for talking training I expect you will see that in the next year or so.” When I asked when field training is going to start Bowersox said that some of this already happens in the field and in places like Desert RATS “flight specific training will start 1.5 to 3 years prior to the mission.” Jacob Bleacher added that Apollo veterans have provided some input into Artemis training.

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

21 responses to “NASA Releases Science Plan For First Artemis Human Landing Mission”

  1. Tally-ho says:
    0
    0

    There is no way we are landing on the moon by 2024. Look how long it took to complete the Orion capsule. There is no reason to believe that there won’t be similar delays unless NASA sets the requirements, writes a big check to someone like SpaceX, and gets out of the way.

    • ed2291 says:
      0
      0

      I agree! I predict the next humans to circle the moon will be those artists that paid Elon for the trip in the Starship and the next on the moon are more likely to be Chinese or sent by Space X than NASA astronauts.

    • chuckc192000 says:
      0
      0

      Yeah, they need to knock it off with the 2024 landing talk.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Writing a big check didn’t work very fast for commercial crew program either. We were talking 2014 crewed flights initially, and finally got there by 2020. Not exactly a recipe for keeping things running fast

      • ed2291 says:
        0
        0

        Because republicans repeatedly cut necessary funds for commercial crew to give to the failed SLS program.

  2. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    the difference between a well planned project and one that’s not.

    the difference between a project that understood where it wanted to go and how it was going to get there (at least in broad brush strokes) and one that doesn’t.

  3. Winner says:
    0
    0

    Thanks Keith for keeping them on their toes. I think we all know that the architecture isn’t defined, the rocket is way behind schedule and over budget, the project isn’t fully funded, and the president who wanted it to be done by the end if his second term was defeated for a second term. We may get back to the moon this decade but it’s not going to be in the time frame they say and it likely will involve more commercial participation than currently admitted.

  4. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Ken Bowersox replied “We expect to see a lot of progress in the next year…As for talking training…you will see that in the next year or so.”

    Sounds like the “kick the can down the road” approach we have been doing since 1972. Thank you so much Keith for holding them accountable and injecting a little reality.

  5. space1999 says:
    0
    0

    Wow, nostalgia… I remember that book, hadn’t thought of it in a long time. Can’t remember if I owned it or came across it in a library. Fond memories of the Apollo era…

  6. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    The other comments are excellent and I just applaud them. It is funny to read the comment from Jacob Bleacher – I have talked to a number of Apollo veterans (both astronauts and flight controllers) and the few that are still around are really old. What they could contribute now is of limited use, at least they have the oral histories. For instance the last time I saw Gene Kranz he was still getting along pretty well but …

  7. DJE51 says:
    0
    0

    It is a clash between actual science and President Trump’s pretend science. An human lander is important, right? I think that NASA is relying on SpaceX to pull their fat out of the fire!

  8. Steve Pemberton says:
    0
    0

    One thing that should be different compared to Apollo is that they won’t be training test pilots to be geologists. At least that’s assuming that there will be a four person crew, which I think all three of the proposed landers will be capable of. That would allow for two pilots and two scientists. Even if the landers are automated I’m sure there will be two pilots just like they have with crew Dragon. The science EVA’s would then be done by the two scientist astronauts. The pilots would probably get to do at least one EVA, to inspect the outside of the ship if nothing else and maybe help with deploying the rover and other equipment. I would hope so anyway, as it would be a bummer to spend a week on the Moon just looking out the window and never get to go outside.

    But even with the training being more specialized that doesn’t change the fact that it still needs to begin a few years before the first mission, as I would expect that many of the procedures that are developed and perhaps even equipment design can be influenced by things that come up during training.

    Now if they land with less than four crew, well then we are back to training pilots to be geologists, or training geologists to be pilots as was the case with Harrison Schmitt.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I haven’t read through the whole report yet, but it looks like they are _not_ thinking in terms of geologists on the crew. They discuss the importance of Apollo-like field geology training for the astronauts, and the need for good communications with scientists on the ground (to give the astronauts live advice.)

      In a way, I can see why. Astronauts with PhDs aren’t assigned to missions based on academic specialty. An astronaut with a PhD in biology may end up operating a material science experiment as easily as a biological experiment. I’m not even sure if there are any PhD geologists with field experience in the astronaut current corp. And recruiting a new class of them for Artemis, to be bumped to the front of the line for crew assignments, would probably not go over well with the current astronauts.

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        I can understand that on ISS where there is a wide variety of experiments over several disciplines, and it’s also not that practical to try and match the expedition astronaut schedule with the flown experiment schedule. They could do that somewhat on Shuttle, especially when they used payload specialists. In a sense this will be a similar situation, short duration missions that will be focused primarily on one discipline, in this case field geology, which is very dependent on contextual observations that are made during sample collections.

        Apollo showed that with training they could do a reasonable job, but unless they just don’t have an extra seat to carry a geologist I’m not sure why they wouldn’t. Now there might be a particular flight carrying a low gravity experiment that would really benefit from a specialist to run it (and then train that astronaut for geology), but the case would have to made why that experiment would take precedence over the geology objectives for that flight.

        As for other astronauts being disgruntled, I’m not sure how that would be much of a consideration. Joe Engle was bumped from Apollo 17 and replaced by Jack Schmitt when the original flight that Schmitt was assigned to Apollo 18 was cancelled, and the scientific community pressured NASA to reassign Schmitt to the flight.

        Now if NASA doesn’t have very many geologists in the astronaut corps right now, that circles back to Keith’s question about preparedness as it relates to the timeline.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Even during the Shuttle era, they did fly mission specialists who were scientists who were assigned tasks outside their previous field. In the case of Jack Schmitt, he was already in the astronaut corp. His reassignment to Apollo 17 was just that, a reassignment. He could, potentially, have been assigned to Apollo 17 in the first place. Bringing in new astronauts in the class of 2021, especially to have geologists for Artemis, would be a different matter. And also a moot point, since it looks like they will be naming 18 astronauts as candidates for Artemis tomorrow.

          That’s why I was asking if there _are_ any geologists in the current astronaut corp. Because, if there aren’t, then there aren’t going to be any geologists landing on the Moon until Artemis IV, at the earliest. (Well, NASA astronauts…)

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            I’m not sure that Joe Engle felt better about being replaced by a scientist-astronaut who was reassigned from another mission, as opposed to one that came in with a new astronaut class (not that this would have been logistically possible in that situation). Either way I still think astronaut morale would play a very small role in any decision to send people with specific scientific skills to the Moon.

            Then again I suppose that some of the people who will be involved in the priorities will put a greater value on experiments that are geared toward building capabilities for eventual missions to Mars or other destinations, and see geology as something to fit in as best they can. Not saying they will completely get their way but like anything there will be competing visions for what the priorities are. Especially since the building capabilities angle is probably a better selling point to policy makers and the general public.

  9. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    No SLS, No lander, No Gateway. Orion and SLS have so far taken 15 years. Most of these missing links will be ready in 4 years? Not hardly. 8 years? Ha. And now we are going for science? I thought he goal was use of resources to be able to go further? If they are after sciene I guess they are trying for a repeat of Apollo? We can always hope that Elon Musk will be sucessful and NASA can buy tickets on Starship. .

  10. Matthew Black says:
    0
    0

    I’ve had the Charles Coombs books since I was a little boy in the late sixties, and early seventies, Keith and I still cherish them.

  11. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    If this is all about science, shouldn’t there be several robotic prospecting missions planned or done already? NASA has LRO, done LCROSS and LADEE, and planning VIPER. Seems lunar science not that important, nobody talked about the moon until Artemis program was announced. Regarding Apollo, lander was selected and many other contracts awarded quickly. Seems to me there’s still the usual “reduce costs, make things more efficient” which means minimal infrastructure being built. I wonder if SpaceX is ahead of everyone else is because Musk emphasized infrastructure like test facilities and able to build several items to be tested (which many failed but they got experience).

    Apollo had to build a lot of infrastructure including Pad 39 because there was none. But then much of their management had experience building infrastructure (and a lot) during WWII. I feel everyone these days has had to constantly fight for whatever scraps of money in the name of “reduce costs, make things more efficient.”

  12. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    We are not getting there by Christmas 2024 – that’s very clear. So, the Biden Administration needs to set a specific target date. JFK pushed for ‘sending a man to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of the decade’, and NASA achieved that with huge funding. That funding simply isn’t there now, but the worst thing NASA could do is keep pushing back the date.

    If they go for a ‘July 2029’ landing – 60 years after Apollo 11 – that should be achievable, but the risk might be that we miss that date, which I think would be a huge morale blow to the US space community. So its better not to tie it to a specific anniversary, but try for ‘as soon as is possible, pending sufficient funding.’

    The way to bring the date forward from July 2029 is to rely far more on US commercial companies, rather than make it a purely NASA-led effort. That means having the political courage to use companies like SpaceX or Blue Origin when its very clear that NASA SLS is simply not going to deliver. They also need to be prepared to replace Orion with a commercial system.

    People might then say – ‘well, NASA didn’t go to the Moon, Musk did, or Bezos’… but surely the goal for the US should be an ‘American return to the Moon’? If NASA can’t deliver on SLS and Orion, it should redirect its efforts (and funding) to develop capabilities to make a long-term human presence on the surface, and in lunar orbit, a reality by the end of the decade. The worst thing for Artemis (short of outright cancellation) would be a repeat of Apollo – one or two ‘flags and footprints’ missions, and then its cancelled due to its funding being cut. We’re back where we started, but this time, we are looking on, as China takes the lead.

    Only by having a sustained presence on the surface, that is expanded over time, can the science really be done properly. We need to do more than just collect more moon rocks. We need to think big – a replacement for Arecibo on the Moon? Solar astronomy? Developing the means to use lunar resources for manufacturing? What really allows us to achieve the bigger goals of a sustained human presence in space and long-term exploration of the solar system?