NASA Is Downplaying The Artemis Accords – Again
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia Signs The Artemis Accords, State Department
“The United States welcomes Saudi Arabi’s signing of the Artemis Accords on July 14, affirming its commitment to safe, sustainable, and responsible space exploration.”
Keith’s note: President Biden just went to Saudi Arabia. Does NASA.gov mention this recent Saudi news as it relates to NASA on its home page? No. Does NASA’s Office of International and Interagency Relations mention it? No. NASA’s Artemis Program? No. [update: they added a link after I posted this] NASA’s Artemis Accords website? Yes. Barely. Saudi Arabia gets a tiny flag at the absolute botton of a 2 foot long web page.
If you use the NASA search engine for “Saudi Arabia” you get lots of links to pictures. If you search for “Saudi Arabia Artemis” you get 3 results that have zero to do with the Artemis Accords. Go back a week or more on @NASA and there’s nothing there. But wait – @SenBillNelson mentioned the signing last week to his 300K followers (a small fraction of @NASA’s 60 million) – and there’s this page that is seemingly unlinked to by anything at NASA.gov – so how do you find it? – NASA’s search engine certainly can’t.
“Downplaying” suggests a choice was made, a decision. That might be giving too much credit.
I sure wish Elon would fly and prove the viability of the StarShip soon. Right now the entire Artemis Program is based on the idea of an international program analogous to ISS mainly supporting the mini station Gateway so the US can focus on surface systems. But if StarShip is proven then the entire concept has to change; youll have one ship that can be used for transport, orbiting base, lander, surfase base. No other system like a Gateway, an Orion, or an SLS would make sense any longer.
You have previously expressed these simplified distortions and misunderstandings of the hows and whys of these programs and assets as energized by your ardent monotheistic faith in Starship. I addressed some of them in my most recent Space Review essay a few months ago by highlighting a number of their erroneous underpinnings.
As enthusiastic as I am for Space X’s continued success, I believe your religious conviction in such an imagined future displacement of everything by the potential capabilities of the reusable TSTO Starship configuration is naively misplaced.
Gateway and Orion are both kluges that with a proper design would not be needed, certainly not as designed. Orion was Apollo on steroids but then became an Apollo capsule on an Earth orbital ATV. That way NASA could enlist ESA at NASAs expense since the ATVs were owed for US Shuttle services. Just another form of foreign aid; NASA carrying a partner. But what does NASA get? A kluge.Then because the ATV is underpowered for a moonship, Gateway and a huge lander had to be created. Star Ship is that huge lander. But if it works, you can throw Orion, SLS and Gateway away. Ardent monotheistic faith? No I have always said we are all waiting for Mr. Musk to prove its viability. However, the entire Artemis program is counting on it. If it doesnt work then Artemis and Orion will not even perform up to the ‘Apollo 8 standard’.
The erroneous presumptions undergirding your declarations here are legion. At the heart of them all lies the false notion that this is solely about lunar return. It is not. For but one example, Gateway was conceived more than a decade before Artemis and even years before Constellation as a steppingstone to the rest of the Solar System.
I won’t bother addressing any others since you are so firmly established in your convictions. All I can encourage you to do is to study more thoroughly that which you evidently do not know.
Gateway was conceived back when the idea of sending an Orion capsule to an asteroid turned out to be impossible, and they decided to use a robotic spacecraft to return a boulder from an asteroid for astronauts to study it in space. That was never something most people considered a bright idea. In practice, Gateway does not provide any meaningful “stepstone to the rest of the Solar System.”
Regardless of their origins, currently SLS, Orion and Gateway are all about a a return to the Moon. Which also has a working Starship lunar lander on the critical path. Which means the whole architecture doesn’t work if Starship doesn’t work. Perhaps not in its currently conceived form; Artemis could work with out Starship reuse. That would just cost SpaceX a whole lot more money. But even without reuse, Starship would be a more than adequate replacement for SLS and could eliminate the need for Orion and Gateway. If NASA doesn’t want to launch or land astronauts on Starship, they can launch and land using Dragon and transfer to Starship in Earth orbit once it’s refueled.
Gateway was conceived at least a decade earlier than you claim. You need to more deeply research your history. Perhaps start with my TSR essay mentioned above which lists numerous pertinent documents with links.
Gateway as a program remains more than just a support for Artemis. I recommend reading the descriptions on official sites carefully and thoroughly, and note too discussions involving Gateway capabilities in space conference presentations/papers which have nothing to do with lunar access operations.
You ought to be able to succinctly explain why Gateway is necessary rather than references to studies and essays. Sure, you could design an architecture around it, but is that really the point from which you want to land on the Moon, or return from the Moon? It means your lander has to land from deep space and return to deep space. That increases fuel, mass, and reduces safety. Apollo only had to make a 10 mile orbit. The Artemis lander has to practically make a TEI maneuver. Sure, if you are going to use StarShip which was already deep space and lunar landing capable, its not an issue, but this means you must have a StarShip or similar vehicle. If you have a StarShip then what is the necessity of Orion or Gateway? Its the Houbolt LOR argument one more time.
I reread your Space Review article. You did a good job of identifying many of the issues with Gateway. You did a not so good job of identifying how it could be successful. You gave an apt comparison; it is like the National Space Transportation System that Shuttle was supposed to evolve to. It never did because Shuttle and NSTS were too expensive, too slow to develop, and never had a customer base. It was someone’s nice idea that never developed because there was never an economy of scale to make it successful. Its like ISS today; after spending $200 billion, its great to look at, fun to visit, but few users who have the need or desire to pay for its use,and so without significant users NASA is planning its destruction. Save the expense on Gateway. There is no practical use for it until a couple generations have passed and a lunar/planetary economy is developing. That day isnt today.
I am replying here to both fcrary and you, Nick.
I am struck by two things with both your assessments and the nature thereof:
(1) You both seem to have a remarkable tendency to read into what I have written viewpoints/interpretations which simply aren’t there in the first place;
(2) I think both of you too (and this contributes to (1)) are missing the forest for the trees.
My essay went to great lengths to highlight the broad and stepping-stone utility of the Gateway premise toward expansion out into the Solar System, and (despite Nick’s ‘ought to’ demand below) that utility won’t succinctly squeeze into a bumper sticker slogan. What ‘it’ has been about (even amongst the silly tangles with ARM) is so much more than just lunar surface (or asteroid) access (certainly for the folks who conceived it, who are working on it, and who are overseeing its implementation) regardless of a current lack of immediate financial commitments toward future supported applications/customers during this initial phase focused on supporting Artemis. [Those other potential users (e.g., the large-aperture space telescope community) certainly still have their eyes set on exploiting it for their purposes.]
Gateway is about establishing a beachhead in cislunar space to serve any and all users heading out there or beyond who can take advantage of the capabilities and opportunities it affords. Your ‘contrary evidence’ regarding SLS & Orion limitations is actually supporting evidence of this functionality! Those troubled programs are exploiting Gateway’s flexibility and utility, just as other (hopefully more fiscally responsible) users will be able to as well.
Nick, you criticized my having provided references to studies and essays. I did so partly because It had been evident in comments I’ve seen in many places that quite a few folks remain unaware of why & where today’s Gateway came to be. I would encourage you to actually go read them so as to get a better appreciation of the forest of many trees of which I speak. Below is the opening paragraph of the executive summary to the DPT/NExT 2001 Gateway Final Conceptual Design Report. Aside from the specific cislunar ‘location’ shift from L1 to the L1-L2 NRHO, everything that the authors write here holds true at face value and (at least currently) in the minds of those who are tasked with implementing the program. Perhaps it comes as close as possible to your requested succinct explanation. ‘Necessary’, btw, remains an inappropriate word here; ‘best-serves broad advancement in space exploration and development’ is the better description.
+++++++++++
This conceptual design report describes a
unique spacecraft design for expanding and
maintaining human presence beyond Low
Earth Orbit. Missions for human exploration of the solar system are an important part
of NASA’s future vision, and consequently,
reference mission studies are performed to
formulate the means by which these missions will be accomplished. These studies,
or “architectures”, describe the method by
which humans leave Earth, perform their
objective, and subsequently return to Earth.
Recent attention has been focused on a particular architecture for exploration within
Earth’s Neighborhood known as the Gateway Architecture. This architecture is an
innovative approach to achieving new scientific objectives such as returning humans to
the Moon and building advanced astronomical observatories in space. Critical to the
architecture is the subject of this report, the
Lunar L1 Gateway. The Gateway is the cornerstone in a series of elements that comprise the Gateway Architecture, as it serves as the primary mission staging platform
through which these missions will be performed. This platform, the details of which
are described within, offers the broad functionality needed to realize these various objectives while minimizing in-space
infrastructure.
You continue to say Gateway establishes a beachhead in case someone one day has a use for it.’ These systems cause billions to develop and then have finite lifespans usually limited to 35-40 years. Every year requires billions of dollars more to operate. Gateway is a black hole into which we can plan to pour money for decades awaiting a purpose that will likely never come. For some reason every design team looks upon what they are developing as permanent and yet as engineers the first thing they should recognize is obsolescence and finite life. If there is no recognized need today then we are better off to defer until there is one which will pay its way.
Yes, we spent $10billion on Webb and ten years, far too much and far too long, Now we could spend $100 billion more and perhaps another 25 years to develop a system that might one day be used to service the Webb; of course getting from one to the other, and developing the actual system for servicing, to be built on what platform, the underpowered Orion capsule? I must admit it does not seem like its viable. You’d be better off developing a new/next Webb telescope.
Could you please briefly list what you consider the applications of Gateway? You only mention “the large-aperture space telescope[s]”, and that makes no sense because human-occupied space stations have been proven to be a worthless platform for astronomy. Vague statements about it being a “staging platform” for other destinations don’t mean much. It’s been shown, on many occasions, that going anywhere else in the solar system by way of lunar orbit is a inefficient detour. There are minor benefits if there is a base on the Moon mining and shipping water up to lunar orbit. But those benefits are limited and sort of niche applications. I’d really like to see a brief but specific list of applications for Gateway which have not been debunked.
It is evident from your astronomy comment that you haven’t thoroughly read the TSR essay of which I spoke earlier here. I’ll try to succinctly address your specific requests when I get more time but it may be helpful for you to read my essay for context and some references/links offered therein that do elaborate on your questions. Its primary title is Guarding Gateway’s Goodness.
It IS important to remember that the Gateway NRHO isn’t actually a ‘lunar’ orbit even if it shares some gross characteristics with same.
It’s in a Earth-Moon L1 halo orbit. For the purposes of my comments about uselessness for planetary destinations, that distinction makes no difference.
When it comes to space-based astronomy, no I haven’t read your blog post on a web site I don’t follow. And I don’t see why I should have to. If you want to argue the point here, on this site, post your opinions (at least in an abbreviated form) on this site.
I am, however, a planetary scientist who has been involved in lots of space-based astronomy observations. And I know the history about how telescopes on space stations were very inadequate. Vibrations from the crew and moving parts, outgassing from a platform which never has requirements on contamination in mind, etc. China’s idea of having a free-flying telescope near their space station is interesting. But that’s not Gateway, and the few things Gateway could do for astronomy are pretty niche applications.
What I wrote is a little bit more than a blog post:
https://www.thespacereview….
If you aren’t willing to see what I have already described therein (which addresses much re: your requests, AND at a minimum will set you straight on your demonstrably brilliant misunderstanding about the space telescope opportunities), I don’t see why I should bother restating any of the rationales/applications here.
Gateway, in anything close to its current form, was proposed in 2012. The concept of some sort of station on a similar halo orbit is much older. Probably going back Robert Farquhar’s suggestions in the late 1960s. But that’s different from Gateway itself. As far as other uses go, NASA solicited ideas for other uses. However, that was done after they had already decided to build it, so it’s not reasonable to call them the station’s primary purpose. In any case, NASA hasn’t actually called for proposals to fund and build instruments for those other purposes.
fcrary, I have responded to you and Nick K together below following one of Nick’s comments.