totm dec 2023 Artemis Discussion Thread

[AckSed]

Dig that wood veneer: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Lunar_I-Hab_mock-up_all_set

Spoiler

 

[PakledHostage]

18 minutes ago, AckSed said:

Dig that wood veneer:

Needs an inlaid chess board...

[SunlitZelkova]

I had a thought. I don’t think we will ever see the government built Artemis Base Camp habitat. Instead, after 3-4 missions, SLS will retired, because in a few years the holders of the purse will come around and see SLS as an interim system like how Shuttle was never meant as a permanent means of launching astronauts to the ISS.

Artemis Base Camp will instead be outsourced to someone like Axiom or Gravitics, perhaps even i-Space (the Japanese company that wants to colonize the Moon), similar to how the ISS replacement will be an all commercial station.

Artemis will become a completely privately run program, apart from NASA sending astronauts and funding experiments and research.

By then (circa 2033) focus will then shift to funding technology and experiments for a crewed Mars mission, as international tensions will have heated up with China and there will be a perceived threat of them landing first.

I don’t expect Starship to fly to Mars for a long time, at least not until a few Artemis missions are flown, because SpaceX will want data of how Starship behaves when landing on the Moon before trying to land on Mars. Data from landing on concrete pads on Earth or getting caught by chopsticks won’t contribute to the problem of landing on Mars without infrastructure, and landing on the Moon allows more tests to be carried out instead of waiting for every transfer window to launch to Mars.

Also by this time, I would expect the 7 seat version of Crew Dragon to fly, for the transport to the ISS replacement station and LEO taxi to the waiting Starship HLS which will take more astronauts to the Moon than the initial Orion missions.

[tater]

 

[RCgothic]

Orion to starship in LEO would be a total waste of an SLS.

[DAL59]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use Crew Dragon for "Apollo 9", and use the SLS to visit gateway?

[cubinator]

17 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use Crew Dragon for "Apollo 9", and use the SLS to visit gateway?

The most reasonable thing to do is not use SLS at all.

[RCgothic]

29 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use Crew Dragon for "Apollo 9", and use the SLS to visit gateway?

That's certainly the direction I'd go. Or maybe Starliner to throw someone other than SpaceX a bone.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use Crew Dragon for "Apollo 9", and use the SLS to visit gateway?

You might want to use Orion as it will return from moon orbit Moonship will stay in lunar orbit. But you launch it on an cheaper platform than SLS. 

I would also not use an full size starship for the Moonship at least not all the length of the crew compartment if crew is only 4-7 people.  2 full decks in addition to the cargo hold would give all private cabins and have space for an lab and a workshop. 

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

You might want to use Orion as it will return from moon orbit Moonship will stay in lunar orbit. But you launch it on an cheaper platform than SLS. 

I would also not use an full size starship for the Moonship at least not all the length of the crew compartment if crew is only 4-7 people.  2 full decks in addition to the cargo hold would give all private cabins and have space for an lab and a workshop. 

Apollo 9 was entirely in earth orbit, as would be this.

[SunlitZelkova]

I like this proposal. My understanding of it is that SLS missions to the Moon would then wait for EUS.

Perhaps they got some radiation readings they didn’t like during the multiple passes through the Van Allen belts with ICPS.

Does Artemis II still use that profile? Or is it more direct because it’s just a flyby?

Edit for clarity- waiting for EUS gives them time to realize SLS is unworkable and cancel it and then just use Dragon as a LEO taxi. Better than producing more ICPS and more cores that then need to be used to avoid wasting money, prolonging SLS’ service life.

Edited April 19 by SunlitZelkova

[magnemoe]

43 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Apollo 9 was entirely in earth orbit, as would be this.

Get it but we docked for half an century  now and has it ever been issues outside the pre Apollo learning experiences and the Mir crash? Having to move back and retry is like an turnaround on landing. 
Has any mission failed to dock? Outside of launch fails and starliner who did not reach correct orbit?

[Ultimate Steve]

2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Get it but we docked for half an century  now and has it ever been issues outside the pre Apollo learning experiences and the Mir crash? Having to move back and retry is like an turnaround on landing. 
Has any mission failed to dock? Outside of launch fails and starliner who did not reach correct orbit?

Soyuz 10 is the one that comes to mind.

[tater]

4 hours ago, RCgothic said:

Orion to starship in LEO would be a total waste of an SLS.

SLS is a waste of an SLS.

[Exoscientist]

14 hours ago, tater said:

 

 It should not  be lost sight of the fact the delays in Stasrship are a primary cause in these delays in the Artemis landing missions.

Who in space reporting will put to NASA the tough questions:  

Was NASA aware the current version of Starship could only get 40 to 50 tons to orbit, so they would have to wait for V2 or even V3 to do Artemis?  

Did SpaceX inform them they throttled down the Raptor for reliability on IFT-2 and IFT-3?  

  Bob Clark

[SunlitZelkova]

52 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

It should not  be lost sight of the fact the delays in Stasrship are a primary cause in these delays in the Artemis landing missions.

Incorrect, IMO. SLS is the primary source of delays. Artemis I was originally scheduled for November 2021 but was pushed back by a year due to delays. We might have been closer to Artemis II if it weren't for the delays between the rocket's inception circa 2011 and the completion of the first vehicle in 2021.

52 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

Was NASA aware the current version of Starship could only get 40 to 50 tons to orbit, so they would have to wait for V2 or even V3 to do Artemis?

I would bet $1000, that yes they were. It's well known NASA and SpaceX have had good communication with each other on HLS development progress.

52 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

Did SpaceX inform them they throttled down the Raptor for reliability on IFT-2 and IFT-3?

There is no evidence they did this, but if they did, then I believe SpaceX would inform NASA.

Edited April 20 by SunlitZelkova

[RCgothic]

There's no surprise that with how late they started HLS it's not ready, and there's no reason to think anyone else would have done better. That said, HLS isn't the only source of the delays, because even if that was ready to go the space suits aren't.

Both programmes started (and restarted) far too late.

[tater]

SLS was required by the law that created it to be operational (not a test flight!) by the end of 2016. "GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY. It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016."

ICPS was only supposed to fly exactly once, they have neither the EUS, nor the MLP to fly with EUS built.

They don't have spacesuits for EVA.

Assuming they can fly Artemis III by 2026, they will only be 10 years late!

 

[Exoscientist]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Incorrect, IMO. SLS is the primary source of delays. Artemis I was originally scheduled for November 2021 but was pushed back by a year due to delays. We might have been closer to Artemis II if it weren't for the delays between the rocket's inception circa 2011 and the completion of the first vehicle in 2021.

I would bet $1000, that yes they were. It's well known NASA and SpaceX have had good communication with each other on HLS development progress.

There is no evidence they did this, but if they did, then I believe SpaceX would inform NASA.

Reading the article it’s clear the delay in the development in the Starship specifically in the refueling capability is a primary reason  for why these alternative missions for Artemis III are being considered. 

“An unrealistic timeline

The space agency's date for Artemis II is optimistic but potentially feasible if NASA can resolve the Orion spacecraft's heat shield issues. A lunar landing in September 2026, however, seems completely unrealistic. The biggest stumbling blocks for Artemis III are the lack of a lander, which SpaceX is developing through its Starship program, and spacesuits for forays onto the lunar surface by Axiom Space. It is not clear when the lander or the suits, which NASA only began funding in the last two to three years, will be ready.”

 Note the alternative missions being mentioned now for the Starship in Artemis III will require no refueling flights. 

    Bob Clark

[mikegarrison]

5 hours ago, tater said:

SLS was required by the law that created it to be operational (not a test flight!) by the end of 2016. "GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY. It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016."

ICPS was only supposed to fly exactly once, they have neither the EUS, nor the MLP to fly with EUS built.

They don't have spacesuits for EVA.

Assuming they can fly Artemis III by 2026, they will only be 10 years late!

 

"goal".

[tater]

4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

"goal".

Only off by 10 years!

Note that they in no way even attempted to achieve this goal. That would have required some flight article (even just a test like Green Run) about the time they tested the boilerplate Orion on Delta IV Heavy in 2014.

Green run was 2021. So yeah, that should have been 2014.

Or earlier.

At least they got paid every year for their delays.

Edited April 20 by tater

[tater]

Hmmm

 

[SunlitZelkova]

8 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

Reading the article it’s clear the delay in the development in the Starship specifically in the refueling capability is a primary reason  for why these alternative missions for Artemis III are being considered. 

“An unrealistic timeline

The space agency's date for Artemis II is optimistic but potentially feasible if NASA can resolve the Orion spacecraft's heat shield issues. A lunar landing in September 2026, however, seems completely unrealistic. The biggest stumbling blocks for Artemis III are the lack of a lander, which SpaceX is developing through its Starship program, and spacesuits for forays onto the lunar surface by Axiom Space. It is not clear when the lander or the suits, which NASA only began funding in the last two to three years, will be ready.”

 Note the alternative missions being mentioned now for the Starship in Artemis III will require no refueling flights. 

    Bob Clark

I’d be skeptical these can be called delays when Artemis has never had a realistic timeline to begin with. When it began, the first landing was scheduled for 2024- a purely political date.

Instead of reassessing a choosing a realistic goal, they have only been moving milestones back by a year at a time as new issues in development come to light.

Meanwhile, SLS has been delayed for years, as tater described.

According to the original plan, EM-1 (Artemis I) would be in 2016, and then EM-2 (Artemis II) would be in 2018.

I think a landing in 2025 or 2026 would have been achievable if Artemis had kicked off in 2017 or so. At that time NASA was still planning for the silly ARM mission.

Apollo the Moon landing program began in 1961 and landed in 1969. Roughly 8 years. Artemis began in 2019, so a better date would be 2027 or 2028 (the latter of which is Ars Technica’s predicted date).

[Exoscientist]

32 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I’d be skeptical these can be called delays when Artemis has never had a realistic timeline to begin with. When it began, the first landing was scheduled for 2024- a purely political date.

Instead of reassessing a choosing a realistic goal, they have only been moving milestones back by a year at a time as new issues in development come to light.

Meanwhile, SLS has been delayed for years, as tater described.

According to the original plan, EM-1 (Artemis I) would be in 2016, and then EM-2 (Artemis II) would be in 2018.

I think a landing in 2025 or 2026 would have been achievable if Artemis had kicked off in 2017 or so. At that time NASA was still planning for the silly ARM mission.

Apollo the Moon landing program began in 1961 and landed in 1969. Roughly 8 years. Artemis began in 2019, so a better date would be 2027 or 2028 (the latter of which is Ars Technica’s predicted date).

 
 An article on the Starship performance shortcomings for the Artemis missions:

Starship Faces Performance Shortfall for Lunar Missions
by Alex Longo
https://www.americaspace.com/2024/04/20/starship-faces-performance-shortfall-for-lunar-missions/

   Bob Clark

[SunlitZelkova]

8 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 
 An article on the Starship performance shortcomings for the Artemis missions:

Starship Faces Performance Shortfall for Lunar Missions
by Alex Longo
https://www.americaspace.com/2024/04/20/starship-faces-performance-shortfall-for-lunar-missions/

   Bob Clark

It’s a problem but they’re working on it. For those not in the know it’s a good introductory article.

I don’t know how many people are silent readers in this thread. If there’s anyone visiting for the first time it will be good for them, but a number of us who have been following this stuff for years as it comes along are already aware of the challenges.

Note that that article never suggests replacing Starship. It just talks about the challenges and questions the feasibility of a 2026 landing. It doesn’t question feasibility of any landing.