• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Artemis Moon Program

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
612
Artemis is the overall NASA program aimed at re-establishing manned lunar exploration which includes the "lunar gateway".

A human rated, reusable lander is being developed using the model of the commercial crew program. The schedule goal is to conduct the first, un-crewed landing in 2024 followed by a manned landing in 2025. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Blue Origin, Boeing, Dynetics, Lockheed Martin, Masten Space Systems, Northrop Grumman, OrbitBeyond, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX and Maxar are all bidding for a 2 contractor downselect about 1 year from now.

Contractors are not required to use the SLS to get the lander on the moon. However, NASA wants the ability to eventually dock with the lunar gateway.

Story here:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/10/07/nasa-opens-competition-to-build-human-rated-lunar-landers/

NASA program description
https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander2
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
564
For my part is Artemis waste of money
it focus on construction of a "lunar gateway" that need billions dollars to build and launch and assembly what take too much time
Pull money away from R&D budget needed to build the Landers and needed equipment like new Spacesuits.

My proposal drop the "Lunar Gateway" and spend the money into Reusable lander (base like on Blue Origin "Blue Moon")
Drop the SLS and goes with Falcon Heavy Falcon 9 and New Glenn or Vulcan
and Starliner and crew Dragon to get crews to landers

The Reusable lander operate from low earth orbit and use aerobraking on return to LEO
are refuel by exchange of Propellant tanks in LEO
The Reusable lander use a Direct landing trajectory to arrive on Moon and back
if there a emergency the crew module could land on Earth with help of aerobraking heat shield and parachutes.
 

Attachments

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
904
Reaction score
354
For my part is Artemis waste of money
it focus on construction of a "lunar gateway" that need billions dollars to build and launch and assembly what take too much time
Pull money away from R&D budget needed to build the Landers and needed equipment like new Spacesuits.
It's a 'gateway' more than a "lunar gateway" is the plan and keep in mind that current plan is for NASA to NOT 'own' the landers and equipment. They are still paying to develop them :)

My proposal drop the "Lunar Gateway" and spend the money into Reusable lander (base like on Blue Origin "Blue Moon")
It's in the competition which has seperate funds from the gateway

Drop the SLS and goes with Falcon Heavy Falcon 9 and New Glenn or Vulcan
Could happne now that Congress is changing but if certain people aren't out in 2020 NASA will have to run both.

and Starliner and crew Dragon to get crews to landers
Again that depends mostly on politics. Orion may only fly on the SLS and may only be used a couple of times every couple of years. We can hope.

The Reusable lander operate from low earth orbit and use aerobraking on return to LEO
You realize that's a lot of extra gear to carry all the way to the surface of the Moon and back right? The whole idea of basing a reuable lander at the Gateway is to allow the lander to carry more gear/crew to the surface and back. Basing it in LEO means it then has that much more propellant needed to get TO the Moon let alone back again.

are refuel by exchange of Propellant tanks in LEO
The idea is to keep moving 'excess' propellant outward to fuel (pardon the pun) future work. Having a LEO depot and one in Lunar orbit means propellant can 'rideshare' from LEO to the Moon for the lander and other uses.

The Reusable lander use a Direct landing trajectory to arrive on Moon and back
HIgher propellant useage/needs due to higher initial mass and lower landed and returned mass. Breaking it up is more efficent.

if there a emergency the crew module could land on Earth with help of aerobraking heat shield and parachutes.
An Orion capsule mounted on the Blue Origins lander which also mounts an aerobrake system and extra propellant tanks. What have you saved with all this?
Seriously OTHER than being a NASA idea and a government run program, (and don't get me wrong there are issues with both :) ) what is wrong with the Gateway?

RAndy
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
564
Again that depends mostly on politics. Orion may only fly on the SLS and may only be used a couple of times every couple of years. We can hope.
if SLS is axe by Capitol Hill remain only Starliner and crew Dragon to LEO

You realize that's a lot of extra gear to carry all the way to the surface of the Moon and back right? The whole idea of basing a reuable lander at the Gateway is to allow the lander to carry more gear/crew to the surface and back. Basing it in LEO means it then has that much more propellant needed to get TO the Moon let alone back again.
and
You realize that's a lot of extra gear to carry all the way to the surface of the Moon and back right? The whole idea of basing a reuable lander at the Gateway is to allow the lander to carry more gear/crew to the surface and back. Basing it in LEO means it then has that much more propellant needed to get TO the Moon let alone back again.
Launch all that stuff up to L1-point to Lunar gateway, has only benefit that Lander has lower propellant need as LEO version.
but if the Heat-shield and return Propellants left in Lunar orbit, the lander could be much smaller.

An Orion capsule mounted on the Blue Origins lander which also mounts an aerobrake system and extra propellant tanks. What have you saved with all this?
Seriously OTHER than being a NASA idea and a government run program, (and don't get me wrong there are issues with both :) ) what is wrong with the Gateway?
That too heavy , what i mean with crew module is habitat section of Lunar lander not the capsule
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,877
Reaction score
1,472
what is wrong with the Gateway?
I've followed the Gateway story since June 1999 and the Decadal Planning Team. Its prehistory reach back to Robert Farquhar in 1970.

So what's wrong with it ? just that it is a super idea castrated by NASA politics.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
282
what is wrong with the Gateway?
I've followed the Gateway story since June 1999 and the Decadal Planning Team. Its prehistory reach back to Robert Farquhar in 1970.

So what's wrong with it ? just that it is a super idea castrated by NASA politics.
I agree with you on that point Archibald, money and politics do not go along with one another when it is concerning NASA (look at what happened to the previous Constellation rocket).
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,877
Reaction score
1,472
If anybody interested I could provide a whole bunch of documents - and you will see how the ongoing LOP-G is a much downrated variant of much more formidable designs.

The Gateway is part of my "holy trilogy" of space projects - with suborbital refueling and an underground lunar base in the Marius Hills lava tube. The three work hand in hand.
 
Last edited:

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
904
Reaction score
354
if SLS is axe by Capitol Hill remain only Starliner and crew Dragon to LEO
Big "if" of course :) IIRC didn't LM-et-al post some concepts of Orion going up on other launchers at some point in time?

Launch all that stuff up to L1-point to Lunar gateway, has only benefit that Lander has lower propellant need as LEO version.
but if the Heat-shield and return Propellants left in Lunar orbit, the lander could be much smaller.
And if you didn't have to haul the lander all the way from Earth orbit then your propellant loading and mass-in-LEO is also smaller :) Or course what we're both REALLY arguing for is resuable aerobraking Orbital Transfer Vehicle from LEO to the Moon I suspect :)

That too heavy , what i mean with crew module is habitat section of Lunar lander not the capsule
The 'habitat' section would have to be built much like the Orion capsule to survive Earth reentry and landing for the idea to work though and that's my point. Or are you suggesting if things go badly they Orion (and it's SM attachment) are what is used to haul the lander from LEO to the Moon and then back? Didn't sound like it but unless they DO drag an Orion/Dragon/Starliner to the Moon and back then the Lunar lander cabin has to be just as robust as they are AND set up to carry all the neccessary equipment to land on Earth as well as the Moon.

Keep in mind that the 'Gateway' isn't only for the Moon though they are 'selling' it that way on the Hill. (Smart idea actually since the Moon has their attention)

Randy
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,864
Reaction score
1,789
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and private space venture Blue Origin, announced that he is teaming up with three old-school aerospace companies for the upcoming Artemis mission to the moon in 2024.

Bezos made the announcement at the ongoing International Astronautical Congress (IAC), which kicked off on Mondayin Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, he received the IAC’s first Excellence in Industry Award for his company’s contributions to human presence in space.
Blue Origin will be the lead contractor for a newly formed “national team,” as Bezos referred to it, joining forces with aerospace veterans Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper to build a lunar landing system that transports humans to the moon.
“We could not ask for better partners,” Bezos told the crowd at the IAC. “This is a national team for a national priority.”

 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,262
Reaction score
1,285
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and private space venture Blue Origin, announced that he is teaming up with three old-school aerospace companies for the upcoming Artemis mission to the moon in 2024.

Bezos made the announcement at the ongoing International Astronautical Congress (IAC), which kicked off on Mondayin Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, he received the IAC’s first Excellence in Industry Award for his company’s contributions to human presence in space.
Blue Origin will be the lead contractor for a newly formed “national team,” as Bezos referred to it, joining forces with aerospace veterans Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Draper to build a lunar landing system that transports humans to the moon.
“We could not ask for better partners,” Bezos told the crowd at the IAC. “This is a national team for a national priority.”
It's interesting that BO is leading when they've done relatively little in space compared to the likes of LM and NG. A hopper and a couple engines. They've never even put anything into orbit. Sure, eventually they'll probably get there but now? :confused:
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
612
I would bet BO is fronting the biggest chunk of cash. The other companies are probably more like risk sharing partners who would not be willing to fund anything more than component level contributions.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
612

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,864
Reaction score
1,789

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine gives Artemis update with core stage of Space Launch System

Published on 9 Dec 2019

The event highlighted the completion of the core stage for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will help power the first Artemis mission to the Moon.

Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussed the status of the agency’s Artemis program and took part in a question-and-answer session with the SLS core stage in the background.
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
127
Anyone else find this one just a little weird? Surely they have enough data from the earlier Apollo and ISS missions?
I guess the sensors and data collection will be much superior than Apollo, and ISS sits within the Van Allen Belts, so having considerable shileding from radiation.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
149
Reaction score
50
Anyone else find this one just a little weird? Surely they have enough data from the earlier Apollo and ISS missions?
I guess the sensors and data collection will be much superior than Apollo, and ISS sits within the Van Allen Belts, so having considerable shielding from radiation.
I guess so, I suppose if you're going to test out new personal anti-radiation gear as well you might as well test it out on a female torso which, you could argue, has more vulnerable areas.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
83
I guess so, I suppose if you're going to test out new personal anti-radiation gear as well you might as well test it out on a female torso which, you could argue, has more vulnerable areas.
There's a lot of logic to doing this. First, sensors are far better today than 50 years ago--think broadband vs. a telephone modem. But another advantage is that they can fully instrument a torso, putting detectors at multiple locations and depths. That provides an indication of just how far the radiation penetrates and to what parts of the body. It's very clever science and engineering.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
1,826
True, but I suspect that PR imperatives are playing even more of a role in this.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,864
Reaction score
1,789
True, but I suspect that PR imperatives are playing even more of a role in this.
That’s am unsupportable statement without evidence. What Blackstar says rings truer to me, than any conspiracy about PR imperatives.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
612
If the objective were solely to gather higher fidelity data on radiation, why aren't 1 female and 1 male dummy being used? If the data is neutral on dummy selection (can be adjusted to account for differences), then why not just 1 androgynous example. NASA is making a point of saying Artemis will send the first woman and next man to the moon rather than just simply saying Artemis will return humans to the moon.

NASA has all the cultural politics you would expect of a DC based bureaucracy. It would be interesting to see how many of its employees would quit if NASA headquarters were relocated to say Nebraska. The example of the Dept of Agriculture is probably applicable.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
231
This is all about the Chinese. A potential enemy cannot develop advanced systems. It cannot "take over" the moon.

And it cannot lower American prestige by doing things we can do before we do them. So it's going to get done before China sends a bunch of stuff to the Moon.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
612
This is all about the Chinese. A potential enemy cannot develop advanced systems. It cannot "take over" the moon.

And it cannot lower American prestige by doing things we can do before we do them. So it's going to get done before China sends a bunch of stuff to the Moon.

As far as I can tell, this is saying:
Artemis is a paranoid reaction to China. America is afraid that China will develop space technology to take over the moon before America can. American prestige is at stake so America will spend whatever is needed to get there first.

I guess Google translate mangles non English to English as badly as the other way around. Either that or you really need to work on your sentence composition.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
231
I would never use the word paranoid. Allow me to rephrase. A space race between the US and China has begun. The US is committed to winning not just a prestige victory but an economic one as well. China plans to mine the moon, build power stations and move on to the asteroids and Mars. Multiple sources online confirm this.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
83
NASA has all the cultural politics you would expect of a DC based bureaucracy. It would be interesting to see how many of its employees would quit if NASA headquarters were relocated to say Nebraska. The example of the Dept of Agriculture is probably applicable.
Did you throw a bunch of words into a blender to come up with those sentences?

Nebraska is not a vacation destination.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
612
NASA has all the cultural politics you would expect of a DC based bureaucracy. It would be interesting to see how many of its employees would quit if NASA headquarters were relocated to say Nebraska. The example of the Dept of Agriculture is probably applicable.
Did you throw a bunch of words into a blender to come up with those sentences?

Nebraska is not a vacation destination.

Your reaction shows you understood exactly what was meant and makes your "blender" comment self refuting.

Without $Trillions of dollars siphoned from the rest of the country, DC would be just another swamp. Those tax dollars have created an artificial enclave of like minded bureaucrats and contractors existing in a permanent growth industry of government.

A bureaucracy located in Nebraska would not be staffed with people who condemn it as undesirable. An even better idea is to abolish the civil service entirely and make government jobs as fully exposed to uncertainty and layoff as in private industry. It's harder to get all superior and sanctimonious when you are subject to being fired for it.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
231
Thank you for posting. The music appears to borrow from Avengers Endgame and James Bond.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,864
Reaction score
1,789
This has caused the space agency to think about leaning a bit more on its contractors, Bridenstine told Ars.

"The $600 million wasn’t everything we requested, which means we’re going to have to make some modifications to how we move forward," Bridenstine said. "But I do think the intent is to move forward with multiple contracts. We can’t delay, we’ve got to keep moving forward. Of course we might need to have some of our partners step up in a bigger way."
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
1,826

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — NASA withdrew without explanation last week a task order for its commercial lunar lander services program, frustrating many of the companies involved.

According to several industry sources, NASA withdrew late Jan. 31 a task order designated 19C for the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. The task orders serve as requests for proposal for those companies who have CLPS contracts, inviting them to submit bids for carrying out the missions defined in the task order using their landers.

The task order had been issued about a week earlier, with a short turnaround time, according those industry sources. NASA provided no explanation for withdrawing the task order and has not provided any follow-up communications with the companies. A NASA spokesperson, contacted by SpaceNews Feb. 2 about the task order, promised to look into it but has not yet provided any further information.

The sudden withdrawal of the task order, and lack of details, has puzzled CLPS companies. “Frustratingly nothing,” said an executive with one company, speaking on background, on the lack of information.

In a Feb. 5 interview during the SmallSat Symposium here, Seamus Tuohy, principal director of space systems at Draper, one of the CLPS companies, also said he had not been informed why NASA withdrew the task order. “Whatever it is, the NASA CLPS team has been very open with us and the other contractors, so I do expect we’ll get some explanation,” he said. He added he appreciated that NASA did notify the companies as soon as decided to pull the task order, so they could stop preparing, and spending money on, their proposals.

The 19C task order covered a smaller lunar lander mission, similar to the awards NASA made in May 2019 to Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines for carrying a suite of NASA-selected payloads to the lunar surface. The agency said last month it decided to go ahead with that task order after electing to postpone one for launching the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover, or VIPER. That mission would have required a larger lander, ruling out some of the CLPS companies.

The CLPS program was included in a NASA authorization bill introduced in the House Jan. 24. One section of the bill formally authorizes the program, requires NASA payloads flown on such missions that aren’t science payloads be funded by the directorate responsible for them, and calls for a report on the status of the program and any challenges it faces no more than three years after the bill’s enactment.

That section also sets requirements for domestic sourcing of lunar landers. NASA, the bill states, “shall procure the services of commercial landers that are majority-designed, majority-developed, and majority-built in the United States.” That’s similar to language in a report accompanying a Senate appropriations bill for fiscal year 2020 that “expects NASA to provide funding under this program only for lunar landers and rovers majority-designed, developed, and built in the United States.”

Such language has raised questions about some of the CLPS companies that are partnered with foreign companies or organizations. Draper is one such case, working with Japanese company ispace on the lander design, although the lander itself will be built in the United States.

Tuohy said he believed Draper’s approach complied with that language. “The design part I’m not that concerned about,” he said, because Draper modifies the ispace lander design to meet mission needs. “Every time you bid on a mission you are customizing it for that mission.”

‘We’re still very excited about CLPS. We’re not deterred,” he said. “We still think we’ve got a really good design and a good team, and we hope to make another go of it.”
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
1,826
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,701
Reaction score
1,826

Maxar Technologies has signed a contract with NASA to deliver a robotic arm called Sample Acquisition, Morphology Filtering and Probing of Lunar Regolith (SAMPLR). The arm – which will be used to acquire samples and determine the geotechnical properties of lunar regolith – is built from flight spare components from the Mars Exploration Rover mission involving Spirit and Opportunity.

The contract, worth $5m, Maxar will provide a complete robotic system including all avionics, mechanical systems and operational support while on the lunar surface.

SAMPLR is one of 12 externally developed payloads that NASA selected as part of its Artemis lunar program and will travel to its destination aboard a yet-to-be-selected commercial lunar lander through NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services project.
 
Top