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.
Apollo

Artemis Lunar Landings Will Be Rare Events

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 10, 2022
Filed under ,
Artemis Lunar Landings Will Be Rare Events
Artemis

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

27 responses to “Artemis Lunar Landings Will Be Rare Events”

  1. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    Some of us are no longer counting on Artemis after 15 years of waiting on NASA. Once SpaceX has StarShip operating we figure it will routinely be visiting the Moon frequently.

    • Richard Brezinski says:
      0
      0

      I have to admit I no longer see NASA as I did not too many years ago. Used to be NASA would research how best to do the job, assign technical managers to oversee the job, and directly manage much of the R&D. Now I see NASA as mainly money or contract managers, trying to get others to do what was once their work. In many cases its international ‘partners’ who provide the critical systems and now its just as often commercial firms which figure out how to do the job. If Orion is an example NASA cannot even figure out what the basic requirements need to be. NASA just accepts what they can get.

      • SpikeTheHobbitMage says:
        0
        0

        A large part of that is due to Dick Shelby and friends demanding maximum pork at the expense of program viability. Between that and the machinations of some spectacularly bad NASA Administrators, the entire crewed spaceflight program has become seriously dysfunctional.

        A fish rots from the head and if you want to know what the end-game of systemic corruption is like, take a long look at Russia.

        • Richard Brezinski says:
          0
          0

          Shelby had some to do with it but I think it started years earlier. Remember Orion and Ares I were safe simple and soon. And they might have been. NASA succeeded in shutting down all of Shuttle, all of its suppliers, and laying off all its personnel before they started on SLS. That had a lot to do with it. NASA’s operations focus; they thought they were the next air force, flying 3 vehicles five times a year for a month or two, and focused all their advancement, promotions and energy on operations while letting their engineering base go to pot. That has a lot to do with it. The Orion design is unsuitable for Moon missions. That had a lot to do with it. Congress helped but there was a reason NASA could not put together a reasonable new flight vehicle in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.

          • SpikeTheHobbitMage says:
            0
            0

            There was no possibility of Ares being safe, simple, or soon. The entire point of Congress mandating ‘Shuttle Technology’ was to justify sole-sourcing the entire project to the existing Shuttle suppliers, and damn the consequences. SLS is just a continuation of that misbegotten policy.

  2. Freddy Flinton says:
    0
    0

    What would that launch rate chart look like if say… the FAA gave Starship the go ahead for their demo.
    then
    Starship had a successful flight
    followed by a successful SLS flight.

    Then the natural questions on cost and flight frequency would be compared between the 2 vehicles….

    then Shelby is retired

    would the chart remain the same?

    • Dan says:
      0
      0

      SLS/Orion cannot launch any more frequently than that. The production rate is too low can cannot in practice be increased, nor can the per-mission cost be reduced. The comparison might cause Congress to allow NASA to purchase Starship missions in additions to or in place of the SLS/Orion missions.

      • Christopher James Huff says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, Starship will be able to do autonomous landings, so there could be hundreds of tons of material waiting on the lunar surface, but when it comes to having people there to do something with it all, SLS/Orion limits us to a couple people visiting for a few days once every year or two. When they’re not too busy exploring the Tollbooth to bother.

      • Freddy Flinton says:
        0
        0

        The point is that SLS is Shuttle derived which = expensive. Think about turning an RS-25 engines designed for reusability into a disposable one. But lets not stop there, lets modify the Shuttle reusable SRBs so they are disposable. How long will Congress go along with this unsustainable design while Starships are flying at a fraction of the cost? Probably as long as lobbyists support their respective campaigns.

    • Dan says:
      0
      0

      The first two Artemis Lunar landings will use Starship HLS as the lander portion of the mission, so Starship is already the important part.

      • gunsandrockets says:
        0
        0

        Only the first manned landing during Artemis-3, will use the SpaceX Human Landing System.

        But the next NASA manned lunar landing, currently scheduled for Artemis-5 which may be as late as 2031 and no earlier than 2028, may very well use the other HLS that NASA is programming for.

  3. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think they’re just going to bring back rocks though…And they are staying a lot longer each trip.

  4. mitest1234 says:
    0
    0

    From a PR perspective, I fail to see why cadence matters. This is Apollo Redux for most people who are hardly paying attention anyway and even with Apollo, viewing waned after Apollo 11. If anything, having them farther apart may create more interest, such as with pacing of the Olympics. Not saying going back to the Moon is not the thing to do, but expectations should be pretty low that anything beyond the first landing is going generate interest, short of an Apollo 13 type situation.

    • SpikeTheHobbitMage says:
      0
      0

      If you want to actually get some meaningful research done or build a moon base then cadence is critical. A major contributor to ISS’s delays, cost overruns, and general poor performance, was Shuttle’s abysmally low flight cadence. SLS makes Shuttle look like a speed demon.

      • mitest1234 says:
        0
        0

        Good point. That is a more significant angle as to why this cadence is bad.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        I haven’t seen what the research program looks like. If its basically geology, then unmanned rovers to do some scouting followed by periodic human sorties might be OK on infrequent occasions. Maybe once every 2 to 5 years is OK. If the goal is human research, such as how well do humans hold up in 1/6 G, then periodic missions of increasing length are required. If the visits are every couple years they will not establish a ‘database’ anytime soon. If the real goal is establishing an outpost, a base, or a permanent camp, then eventually a permanent setup, with more frequent missions, with a vehicle stationed for immediate return, are all required. I do not foresee this program getting there. So someone should have been asking what this program is all about.

        • mitest1234 says:
          0
          0

          What is any Moon program all about? I’d like to see us go there, but if a non-space asked me why, I’d say “…..”. I don’t think I can give an answer that truly justifies billions of dollars. I’d like to have one. It can’t just be because “it’s in our nature to explore.”

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          As far as I can tell, there is no well-defined plan for Artemis lunar science. If memory serves, the OIG cited this as on reason the schedule was unrealistic. The astronauts should have started training already but can’t because it isn’t clear what they should train for.

  5. Richard Malcolm says:
    0
    0

    This doesn’t exactly look “sustainable.”

  6. Jack says:
    0
    0

    My guess is the Artemis lunar landings will be 0.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      Don’t bet against Elon.

      The Artemis Lunar landing depends on the SpaceX Moonship (Human Landing System). The SLS & Orion are optional for a Moon landing. They are just a very expensive way of transporting 4 persons every 2 years to meet up with the Moonship.

      Cheaper if they just transfer the Astronauts onto the Moonship in low Earth orbit with Crew Dragon flights. According to the GAO each seat on the SLS/Orion stack is more than $1B each!

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        And how does the crew get back from lunar orbit to the Earth? Starship can’t without directly entering the atmosphere and NASA hasn’t approved it to land astronauts.

        • SpikeTheHobbitMage says:
          0
          0

          Just bring the Crew Dragon along and use it for crew reentry. It only has 10 days of free flight but it can hibernate for six months while docked in Starship’s cargo bay. CD’s heat shield is rated for direct Lunar return so Starship only needs to get it most of the way home. That consumes nearly half of Starship’s 25t LEO-refuel-only capacity, but NASA was only planning on using 5t of that anyway. That leaves ~8t for Starship’s crew accommodations and supplies. Easy, peasy.

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          Two possible options. Rendez-vous with the Crew Dragon that remain at LEO that brought the Astronauts to the Moonship if the Lunar mission is about 2 weeks in length. Or send up a new Crew Dragon to pick up the Astronauts from the Moonship. Probably can substitute a Starliner for the Crew Dragon for the latter option, AIUI the Starliner have a 1 week endurance in LEO by itself.

          While the Moonship can not reenter the atmosphere. It should be able to use aero capture to go into Low Earth orbit. However operations could be simplified if there is a propellant depot in orbit around the Moon in addition to the required LEO propellant depot.

          It is better if the Moonship goes to LEO after ascending from the Lunar surface. Since a cargo Starship can docked with it to transfer tonnes of cargo/samples back to Earth. The current plan of returning the Astronauts in the Orion limits the samples to about 50 kg due to mass allowance and storage volume available, IIRC. Even if the two(?) Lunar surface EVA suits is stored in the Moonship.

      • Jack says:
        0
        0

        It depends on program management and funding.
        Both highly questionable items.

        Also Starship is supposed to pick up the astronauts at the gateway and ferry them to the lunar surface.
        I haven’t seen anything that says Starship can be use as direct descent lander as you suggest.

  7. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Our best hope is that the damn thing blows up a few weeks from now.

  8. gunsandrockets says:
    0
    0

    The illustration is at least one year out of date. Rumors are the current Project Artemis manifest schedule is even worse. Here is the leaked document that Eric Berger reported…

    https://uploads.disquscdn.c

    Slippage of Project Artemis is apparently falling into the JWST trap of slipping one year, every year. It’s beginning to look like NASA will be lucky if they can accomplish a second lunar landing before 2030. I predict the first landing will slip from 2025 to 2028.

    Oh how far Project Artemis has fallen from the ambitions of 2019. When NASA hoped for one lunar landing every year, beginning in 2024!