totm dec 2023 Artemis Discussion Thread

[tater]

On 6/9/2022 at 10:08 AM, RCgothic said:

If I were NASA I'd be ordering more ICPS to make use of ML-1.

 

On 6/9/2022 at 10:18 AM, Beccab said:

Seriously, why wasn't this the plan from the beginning? Who thought "nah we don't need another ICPS for redundancy, everything will be fine. Shut it off"?

Because ICPS should never be used with astronauts, it's awful.

A better question was why ICPS was proposed at all, instead of building a proper upper stage.

ICPS means multiple burns *this is just the first mission(?).  Each burn is a possible LOM failure. Looks like they do a really long burn in the current plan, then Orion does the rest? I have read different things about this over the years.

Edited June 17, 2022 by tater

[tater]

 

[Death Engineering]

On 6/9/2022 at 12:18 PM, Beccab said:

Seriously, why wasn't this the plan from the beginning? Who thought "nah we don't need another ICPS for redundancy, everything will be fine. Shut it off"?

Jim, prolly.

[tater]

 

[Beccab]

9 hours ago, tater said:

 

For some reason, the cool pics are all only on Facebook

https://m.facebook.com/100064581708121/posts/pfbid0246Ph8XA4mR3i3mbALfNovXZ2CwbBQhPPnzpzoDgjjXih3QAsgt4tSLz75dhSzutcl/

This is the first time we see a Raptor 2 Vacuum I think

Edited June 11, 2022 by Beccab

[RCgothic]

 

Yup. That this was going to happen was obvious.

[tater]

10 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Yup. That this was going to happen was obvious.

From the story:

If Artemis III actually happens—meaning LSS is a thing—then the rest of the cadence should change to reflect that. All the Gateway missions should be scrapped, and just do lunar surface ops. That or use CCVs to get crew to the Starship, and dump SLS/Orion.

[tater]

It seems like NASA has not internalized their new reality. In general, when they have a vehicle selected, they proceed with missions based on that vehicle, or variants of that vehicle within their own planning.

So Apollo scheduled missions based on the stack they had, AND they envisioned follow-on missions using variants of the LEM as part of the Apollo Applications Program like Lunar Exploration System for Apollo, etc.

Fast forward to now, and they select Lunar Starship, then apparently forget it exists in all future planning.

From the Berger piece:

Quote

The key elements included a lunar terrain vehicle, a "habitable mobility platform" that would enable crews to take trips across the Moon lasting up to 45 days, and a surface habitat for up to four crew members. This became known as the "Artemis base camp."

NASA's internal schedules, however, put off any real development of such a base camp into the 2030s. Even if NASA manages to send a lunar terrain vehicle before then, functionally it would be little different from the unpressurized electric rover used during the Apollo Moon program five decades ago. In other words, Artemis would feel similar to Apollo, rather than like something new.

My bold. Read that.

Hey, morons, YOU HAVE A BASE CAMP! It's already paid for. Starship has the living areas of a decent sized suburban house. 4 people could stay on Starship and each have their own room. Not bunk, ROOM.

Edited June 20, 2022 by tater

[Beccab]

 

2 minutes ago, tater said:

From the story:

If Artemis III actually happens—meaning LSS is a thing—then the rest of the cadence should change to reflect that. All the Gateway missions should be scrapped, and just do lunar surface ops. That or use CCVs to get crew to the Starship, and dump SLS/Orion.

The "baseline" is the original plan, which will now not happen. The two alternatives, one focusing on "cadence" and the other on "content", are both pretty terrible in their own way:

-Both plans have Artemis II having a NET 2025 date, meaning SLS won't carry crew at least until then, and Artemis III with the first landing in 2026. Given that in 2021 it was in 2024, we're effectively gone further away from that during last year

- If we go with the "cadence" plan, NASA will order an additional ICPS for an Artemis 3.5 mission; this one (likely costing quite a lot to restart the ICPS production line, the estimate in the article is 5 billion dollars) will only launch in 2027, and has no specified target. Hopefully it's a landing, since the only part of Gateway that's around the moon at that point is the one launched on FH
- After that, Artemis IV only launches in 2029. That's SLS 1B's maiden launch, and when Gateway receives the first module. Hopefully there's a landing here too, otherwise it will be 4/5 years between the previous and next landing
- The 1 launch per year cadence begins in 2031! The date is far enough and with important enough payloads that it will definitely get delayed, but that's not important. After that, gateway modules n'stuff until the first surface base in 2034, 12 years from now, which is a date with 0 chanches to stick.

----------

- Let's look at the "content" plan instead: instead of launching Artemis 3.5, it's Artemis 4 to lunch in 2027 this time, which under the previous plan did not include a landing but only Gateway ops. This is SLS block 1B we're talking about; if the target is 2027, we'll be very lucky to see this in 2028 looking at the history of the program. But let's take 2027 for now.
- After Artemis 4, there's a nice 3 years gap that will certainly get reduced by the previous mission's delays. This schedule puts Artemis 5 in 2030, which means the gap between lunar landings will be 4 full years. I see why they separated this plan from the "cadence" one
- Artemis 6 and beyond then have a cadence of one per year, but that's 8 years from now: to show how believable an Artemis target that far is, in 2019 (first post in this thread) the 1 launch/year cadence was supposed to start in 2024, or 5 years later.


You can't even say that the crew will have gotten more confident with the vehicle by then, since that's a rocket that they will have prepared for launch only 5 times in 8 years (and only twice for the 1b configuration). No way it will have that cadence in 2030.

All in all, Artemis seems to have reached the target of not being Apollo 2.0, but only because at this point it's more Apollo 0.5

[RCgothic]

They absolutely have to scrap gateway. It's simply not achievable alongside a surface presence, and it's always been entirely purposeless.

I also agree they have to scrap the separately designed Basecamp. Just permanently emplace a LSS as a hab.

Doing the above would free up so many more crewed surface missions it's ridiculous.

-_-

 

[tater]

4 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

They absolutely have to scrap gateway. It's simply not achievable alongside a surface presence, and it's always been entirely purposeless.

I also agree they have to scrap the separately designed Basecamp. Just permanently emplace a LSS as a hab.

Doing the above would free up so many more crewed surface missions it's ridiculous.

Yep, Gateway is garbage.

Quote

The internal schedules reveal that NASA is going to spend the entirety of the next decade, if not longer as schedules inevitably slip, building the Lunar Gateway.

Utterly useless.

They need not emplace LSS it's a huge hab that moves, but clearly they could if they like. LSS left in lunar orbit? Better than Gateway. in 1 go.

 

[tater]

Actually, it's even more comical.

The plan in place literally has an ISS-sized volume in lunar orbit by Artemis III. Actually, it has two of them! SpaceX is contracted for a demo mission without crew to the lunar surface.

So think about the Artemis reality that is apparently not on NASA radar.

In 2026 Artemis III happens (let's assume that). That means before Artemis III, SpaceX flies Lunar Starship Demo (LSSD). Starship tanks up in LEO, flies to the lunar surface, then leaves the sufrace demonstrating it can safely return the crew to lunar orbit. What orbit? They can fly to an unstable lunar orbit, then it's a hazard that will crash into the Moon. They can put it in the 86° (?) frozen LLO. They can send it to NRHO (or some other parking orbit). I'm ignoring the idea that they use the same one for crew, as that implies them refilling it at the Moon, but if that is even an option then the rest of Artemis needs to be entirely scrapped, do it all with SS. All.

So we have a roughly ISS sized crew volume sitting in lunar orbit. With a docking point on front, solar panels, radiators, etc. Why do they need to spend a decade building a station that will have the total volume of the airlock deck on LSSD?

A proper Artemis plan internalizing LSS would have LSSD becoming a lunar station. One that in a desperate emergency could be partially refilled, and sortie to the surface to rescue crew, BTW.

You need ~8t of hypergols to get Orion from NRHO to LLO.

Send a tug to NRHO using a commercial LV.

Send Orion to NRHO to meet tug. Tug takes Orion to LLO, meets LSS.

All the Gateway launches replaced with a single tug launch per mission.

[StrandedonEarth]

A base camp will take so long because there’s no funding for it…

[tater]

16 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

A base camp will take so long because there’s no funding for it…

If LSS works, base camp is silly as currently depicted.

Use a LSS, or land cargo with LSS and build it.

LSS can fly from LEO to the surface and up to NRHO if fully tanked. A RT from NRHO to the surface takes ~300t of props, and a Starship can deliver >400t to NRHO.

Looks like a stretched tank tanker version (nose=tanks) can deliver enough props to NRHO to enable a LSS sortie, and propulsively return to LEO, too.

[tater]

For a non-stretched Lunar Starship, a trip to NRHO via LLOa and the lunare surface is possible as long as the total vehicle dry mass (including crew/consumables/cargo) is ≤120 tonnes.

No tiles, no flaps, no reserved props for Earth EDL, but with solar and landing legs. I think this is well within what I would expect for LSS, total vehicle mass is not bad dry, and they could use thinner skin if needed since it doesn't have to deal with reentry heating/stress.

 

[wumpus]

On 6/9/2022 at 12:18 PM, Beccab said:

Seriously, why wasn't this the plan from the beginning? Who thought "nah we don't need another ICPS for redundancy, everything will be fine. Shut it off"?

Didn't we discuss something about NASA switching to "success-based-planning" and how that was technically the dumbest possible way to run a project (it might be smart with dealing with Congress, and it might maximize revenues for the prime, but it isn't likely  to get anywhere near on time or on budget).  Something about planning a schedule such that all your tests work the first time?  Sounds like taking this further so it can break the mission as well as the budget.

[SunlitZelkova]

17 hours ago, Beccab said:

All in all, Artemis seems to have reached the target of not being Apollo 2.0, but only because at this point it's more Apollo 0.5

I know many like to say “it’s all because of SLS”, but to what extent does Congress actually hold sway over NASA planning?

Why hasn’t doing an architecture with the Commercial Crew vehicles and LSS in LEO and then traveling to the Moon been at least been mentioned as a possibility? 1960s NASA documents are full of proposals denying their own purpose if something more efficient for the same job comes along.

If they do have some reason not to adopt such an architecture, they ought to inform the public. If we get one Moon landing in 2026 and nothing happens for five years, can you imagine the hard time the media is going to give NASA for choosing the mission profile they did and rejecting other concepts? Especially if Starship is flying regularly by then and perhaps done a few crew missions.

Apollo literally began with North American offering to build a direct ascent lunar lander but then agreeing to shave off part of their role in the program (and thus income) in favor of LOR with Grumman’s LM. Why would it be so difficult to cut Gateway or even SLS out of the picture?

16 hours ago, tater said:

A proper Artemis plan internalizing LSS would have LSSD becoming a lunar station. One that in a desperate emergency could be partially refilled, and sortie to the surface to rescue crew, BTW.

The current situation says something rather sad about NASA planners, as this is the “almost like someone playing KSP” type of concept that can be found in many 1960s studies and concepts.

[Beccab]

2 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

f they do have some reason not to adopt such an architecture, they ought to inform the public. If we get one Moon landing in 2026 and nothing happens for five years, can you imagine the hard time the media is going to give NASA for choosing the mission profile they did and rejecting other concepts?

Not to mention, with such an absurdly low launch cadence every launch is basically the maiden launch; how much experience with the rocket will you still have 3 years after the second time you repeated launch preparations?

[RCgothic]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I know many like to say “it’s all because of SLS”, but to what extent does Congress actually hold sway over NASA planning?

Why hasn’t doing an architecture with the Commercial Crew vehicles and LSS in LEO and then traveling to the Moon been at least been mentioned as a possibility? 1960s NASA documents are full of proposals denying their own purpose if something more efficient for the same job comes along.

If they do have some reason not to adopt such an architecture, they ought to inform the public. If we get one Moon landing in 2026 and nothing happens for five years, can you imagine the hard time the media is going to give NASA for choosing the mission profile they did and rejecting other concepts? Especially if Starship is flying regularly by then and perhaps done a few crew missions.

Apollo literally began with North American offering to build a direct ascent lunar lander but then agreeing to shave off part of their role in the program (and thus income) in favor of LOR with Grumman’s LM. Why would it be so difficult to cut Gateway or even SLS out of the picture?

The current situation says something rather sad about NASA planners, as this is the “almost like someone playing KSP” type of concept that can be found in many 1960s studies and concepts.

For Apollo, the goal was commanded, the method was flexible.

For Artemis, the method is commanded, the goal is flexible.

If Congress says they have to build and use SLS, they have to do it. If Congress doesn't give them funds to study other architectures, they can't.

[Beccab]

3 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

For Apollo, the goal was commanded, the method was flexible.

For Artemis, the method is commanded, the goal is flexible.

If Congress says they have to build and use SLS, they have to do it. If Congress doesn't give them funds to study other architectures, they can't.

Maybe something can change with Shelby's retirement this year, but who knows really

[tater]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The current situation says something rather sad about NASA planners, as this is the “almost like someone playing KSP” type of concept that can be found in many 1960s studies and concepts.

I think there is a general POV that they will believe the Starship part of Artemis when they see it, which is understandable, 100% reuse is incredibly difficult.

That said, instead of notional planning showing baseline, cadence, and mission, they could also have a timeline that includes "fully functional Starship" and maybe even a 5th for "partially successful Starship." The latter would be Starship working only as well as F9, booster reuse, teething issues on Starship reuse.

Both of those timelines would be radically different than the current ones. Course they might have to sandbag them, and include SLS, and then fill in with "secondary" missions using CCVs.

[Vl3d]

Has this been discussed? I think Jeb and Val plushies are going on Orion / Artemis I around the Moon.

 

[Beccab]

26 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Has this been discussed? I think Jeb and Val plushies are going on Orion / Artemis I around the Moon.

 

That's just the boarding pass that you can get by putting your name in an Artemis link, I got one too. Unless it's an extremely subtle announcement, I doubt that means it

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, Beccab said:

That's just the boarding pass that you can get by putting your name in an Artemis link, I got one too. Unless it's an extremely subtle announcement, I doubt that means it

Aw... ok. :(

[RCgothic]

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

Edited June 23, 2022 by RCgothic