NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

[RJMAZ]

That will never happen. There is no point to it.

Saving tens of billions of dollars is a strong point.

This is like saying Falcon 9 will never happen and there is no point to it back in 2010.

SpaceX has a proven record beyond LEO. Falcon Heavy is already performing the first lunar Gateway module launch and they just launched the Europa clipper.

Or are you suggesting SpaceX gets the whole moon mission and there is no point going half way and fitting the existing ESM and Orion onto Starship? It's hard to tell from your short post if you are a SpaceX lover or hater.

I'm not a fan of the excessive number of orbital refueling flights with the proposed Starship HLS system. I prefer for everything to get smaller as you approach the destination. I would then have a small methane fueled lunar lander with a gross weight under 100 ton that can fit inside Starship. Then a 1,000 ton Starship can do multiple trips back and forth from Earth orbit to Moon orbit. This smaller Starship only requires 4-5 Earth refueling flights from Earth for each round trip to the moon surface. I assume there will be a large space station in LEO which would also be the refueling depot. The Moonship and Lander can then be inspected at the space station after each flight. I think inspections and system tests are critical.

With the Lunar lander about 75% of the fuel is required for descent and only 25% for ascent. I would then have the fuel for descent in a large "drop tank" that remains on the moon surface. These "drop tanks" become accommodation modules. The methane tank then becomes accommodation and the oxygen tank remains oxygen storage. Each moon landing mission then places a drop tank to create a circle. Then a large inflatable dome is placed in the middle.

 

[NMaude]

Saving tens of billions of dollars is a strong point.

True, but there's this thing called "Pork barrel politics".

 

[zevets]

True, but there's this thing called "Pork barrel politics".

It is an often forgotten fact that California based SpaceX got its first funding once democrats had the Presidency, both the house and senate, and Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house.

 

[_Del_]

True, but there's this thing called "Pork barrel politics".

" Senate Launch System" is not a misnomer. I would happily see it die, but in their master's chamber when they gather for the feast, they'll stab it with their steely knives, but I expect they just can't kill the beast.

 

[publiusr]

Well, Trump was not likely to cut SLS on his first term.

Presidents become a bit more steely on a second term when there is nothing to lose. You don’t want to alienate folks the first go-around when running for re-election.

 

[NMaude]

Well, Trump was not likely to cut SLS on his first term.

Presidents become a bit more steely on a second term when there is nothing to lose. You don’t want to alienate folks the first go-around when running for re-election.

Trump wants to have his Nixon moment with the Artemis III crew:

And no doubt also with the Artemis II crew also.

 

[publiusr]

Well, he and SLS are both “yuge” and orange.

 

[RJMAZ]

Trump wants to have his Nixon moment with the Artemis III crew:

This is why I think there will be a shift to the lowest risk approach to the moon landing.

Elon surely has to know that Starship landing a man on the moon in 2026 will be difficult. They first have to do an unmanned landing. This requires atleast 15 times flights to refuel in Earth orbit before going to the Moon.

If a smaller moon lander is made it will be too heavy for New Glenn, Falcon Heavy and Vulcan. Boeing will not be able to make an extra SLS to dedicate to sending a small lander to the moon.

This comes back again to a Starship launch system. Starship has 3-4 times the liftoff thrust of New Glenn, Falcon Heavy and Vulcan. I would conservatively assume 2-3 times the payload to moon with the current tested Starship configuration. That's an easy 30 ton of payload to the moon that cover the ESM and Orion. That is enough for a Moon Lander double the weight of the Apollo lander.

Boeing with the starliner disaster will be easy to have the SLS taken from them. The other SLS contractors could work to make the emergency small moon lander. Aerojet Rocketdyne can provide the same AJ10 engine that will be used on the ESM for the Moon Lander. Northrop Grumman has its hands full with the B-21 and Sentinel.

 

[aim9xray]

" Senate Launch System" is not a misnomer. I would happily see it die, but in their master's chamber when they gather for the feast, they'll stab it with their steely knives, but I expect they just can't kill the beast.

In a dank Senate chamber, conditioned breeze in my hair, a warm smell of funding, rising up through the air

 

[Byeman]

Boeing with the starliner disaster will be easy to have the SLS taken from them. The other SLS contractors could work to make the emergency small moon lander. Aerojet Rocketdyne can provide the same AJ10 engine that will be used on the ESM for the Moon Lander. Northrop Grumman has its hands full with the B-21 and Sentinel.

Wrong.
a. Boeing Starliner is a different group than Boeing SLS.
B. there are no other SLS contractors for the Core vehicle.
C. Also, SLS contractors can not build an "emergency small moon lander." That would require an open competition for the contract to do that.
d. AJ10 is too small for lander
c. NG has a space group that doesn't work on B-21 and Sentinel.

 

[NMaude]

Phillip Sloss has new video out about Artemis cancellation anxieties at NASA and Artemis II stacking options:

Two years removed from the Artemis I launch, there's a big change in the vibes, but NASA continues to get Orion ready to fly Artemis II. In this video, I look at whether it's too soon to start stacking SLS for the flight...and what the risks are with delaying that for even more time.

A decision on the Orion base heatshield was expected before the end of the year, but now the appointed NASA leadership is in a lame duck situation...hmmm...

The change in administrations won't get in the way of Starship flight testing, and SpaceX is ready to launch the sixth prototype any day now; but I'll look at how the upcoming government efficiency review and new budget policy might get in the way of Artemis III. There's a new watch list, too, post-election. (On top of all the other ones.)

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
01:22 Artemis II Orion back in the altitude chamber for vacuum testing
01:56 EGS launch team terminal countdown simulation
02:31 Finishing Orion assembly and test
04:02 Looking ahead to Artemis II solid rocket booster stacking
10:22 ESM-4 update from Airbus, installing prop system tanks
10:57 Sixth Starship flight test ready to launch
11:43 Artemis III outlook further clouded by cancellation rumors
13:03 Presidential transition big picture for Artemis
14:04 Court challenge to impoundment act another watch item if Artemis funds are withheld
15:04 Thanks for watching!

 

[RJMAZ]

Wrong.
a. Boeing Starliner is a different group than Boeing SLS.

Same company. Same punishment.

B. there are no other SLS contractors for the Core vehicle.

I said SLS. This means the boosters and engines.

C. Also, SLS contractors can not build an "emergency small moon lander." That would require an open competition for the contract to do that.

SpaceX and Blue Origin already have lander contracts. This leaves Dynetics and the SLS contractors. The Dynetics Alpaca lander was actually my favourite lander from the very start.

d. AJ10 is too small for lander

You would run multiple engines.

c. NG has a space group that doesn't work on B-21 and Sentinel.

Same company. It will keep the upper management happy and make up for them shifting the workforce around.

There has been a lot of discussion on other forums regarding the SLS cancellation. The best idea I have seen is summarised as follows:

The crew go to LEO on Crew Dragon.
Lunar Starship HLS is fully fueled waiting in LEO.
Crew go direct to the moon surface on HLS.
A disposable Starship tanker is waiting in Lunar orbit to refuel HLS to allow it to return to LEO.
The crew return from LEO on Crew Dragon.

Considering the SpaceX HLS has to be finished for the first manned flight then nothing is stopping Humans going on HLS to the moon. HLS has to have life support systems to handle the mission on the moon surface so it shouldn't be too difficult to provide life support to and from the Moon.

 

[Byeman]

Same company. Same punishment.

not relevant and can't punish the SLS group for Starliner issues

I said SLS. This means the boosters and engines.

Meaningless. Aerojet has no spacecraft experience. NG SRB group has no spacecraft experience. Can't use a the same company for another task just because a division has a contract for a specific item.

SpaceX and Blue Origin already have lander contracts. This leaves Dynetics and the SLS contractors. The Dynetics Alpaca lander was actually my favourite lander from the very start.

don't need any more landers.

You would run multiple engines.

There aren't enough of them even for the ESM.

Same company. It will keep the upper management happy and make up for them shifting the workforce around.

Not relevant, still separate divisions and that many people don't move within a company.

There has been a lot of discussion on other forums regarding the SLS cancellation. The best idea I have seen is summarised as follows:

The crew go to LEO on Crew Dragon.
Lunar Starship HLS is fully fueled waiting in LEO.
Crew go direct to the moon surface on HLS.
A disposable Starship tanker is waiting in Lunar orbit to refuel HLS to allow it to return to LEO.
The crew return from LEO on Crew Dragon.
.

nope. not going to happen. too much SpaceX

 

[publiusr]

What about SLS and Falcon Heavy—that allow a landing while Starship goes through its teething?

 

[RJMAZ]

What about SLS and Falcon Heavy—that allow a landing while Starship goes through its teething?

What are you landing with if Starship is not available?

If Starship has teething issues then there is no Starship lander available in 2026 for Artemis III.

The Blue Origin lander is planned for 2029 which is after Trump has left office.

The only option is for Starship to work or an small Apollo style lander will have to be created very rapidly. The small emergency lander would have to be a quick up and down with a few hours spent on the surface. A backup solution to guarantee a man on the moon for Trump.

 

[NMaude]

The only option is for Starship to work or an small Apollo style lander will have to be created very rapidly. The small emergency lander would have to be a quick up and down with a few hours spent on the surface. A backup solution to guarantee a man on the moon for Trump.

In that case dusting off and massively updating the Grumman project Apollo LM design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last 55 years?

 

[Byeman]

What are you landing with if Starship is not available?

If Starship has teething issues then there is no Starship lander available in 2026 for Artemis III.

The Blue Origin lander is planned for 2029 which is after Trump has left office.

The only option is for Starship to work or an small Apollo style lander will have to be created very rapidly. The small emergency lander would have to be a quick up and down with a few hours spent on the surface. A backup solution to guarantee a man on the moon for Trump.

nope, a "small Apollo style lander" would take longer

 

[Byeman]

In that case dusting off and massively updating the Grumman project Apollo LM design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last 55 years?

no such thing, would take a complete redesign.

 

[BlueAbyssal]

What are you landing with if Starship is not available?

Nothing. There are no feasible alternatives. Either Artemis III gets pushed back or rescoped.

 

[martinbayer]

In that case dusting off and massively updating the Grumman project Apollo LM design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last 55 years?

It's a bit like musing about dusting off and massively updating the Ford Model T design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last one hundred years.

 

[RJMAZ]

It's a bit like musing about dusting off and massively updating the Ford Model T design taking into account the massive advances in manufacturing technology, materials sciences, structural design and electronics in the last one hundred years.

Yes the hot rod guys produce fibreglass bodied replicas of Model T with higher performance in a few months. They could probably rebuild the Apollo lander 3d printed out of plastic and run it from Raspberry Pi wrapped in tin foil for shielding. Something so basic and low performance as the Apollo lander could probably be designed and built in a few months by most of the aerospace giants providing they were given billions of dollars and off the shelf engines are used.

But today's safety levels will require a 5 year development and it will then weigh 5 times as much. It would be interesting if they did it as a race to make the lander. Provide half a dozen OEM the payload fairing dimensions of Falcon Heavy and a maximum fueled weight of the lander. Offer a billion dollars per lander. NASA would have a dozen landers by 2026.

 

[publiusr]

I thought Dynetics shaved weight off Alpaca...guess we know why that rabbit looked angry.

 

[NMaude]

Celestium (Formerly Astrographics) has uploaded a video about the Lunar Gateway:

Why build a space station around the Moon? Explore Artemis' Lunar Gateway—humanity's next giant leap for lunar exploration, science, and Mars missions. Join us for an in-depth breakdown!

 

[Byeman]

Yes the hot rod guys produce fibreglass bodied replicas of Model T with higher performance in a few months. They could probably rebuild the Apollo lander 3d printed out of plastic and run it from Raspberry Pi wrapped in tin foil for shielding. Something so basic and low performance as the Apollo lander could probably be designed and built in a few months by most of the aerospace giants providing they were given billions of dollars and off the shelf engines are used.

Wrong. There are no off the shelf engines available. Fiberglass doesn't work for spacecraft. Cars don't need lifes upport or guidances.

Going cheap doesn't work. Small companies have been trying to do what you describe for NASA and have been failing.

 

[Archibald]

@Byeman you are beating a dead horse - he has been banned LMAO

 

[NMaude]

It appears that NASA has decided to start stacking Artemis II:

NASA is stacking the Artemis II rocket, implying a simple heat shield fix

NASA expects it to take about four months to fully assemble the main parts of the SLS rocket.
STEPHEN CLARK – 22 NOV 2024 6:50 AM | 85


The aft segment of the SLS rocket's left booster stands on support posts on NASA's mobile launch platform. The SLS boosters stand on their own weight, without requiring hold-down bolts.

The Space Launch System rocket that will dispatch four astronauts on the first Moon mission in more than 50 years passed a major milestone Wednesday.
NASA said ground teams inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida lifted the aft assembly of the rocket's left booster onto the mobile launch platform. Using an overhead crane, teams hoisted the left aft booster assembly—already filled with pre-packed solid propellant—from the VAB transfer aisle, over a catwalk dozens of stories high and then down onto mounting posts on the mobile launcher.
This marks the start of stacking for the second SLS rocket earmarked to launch NASA's Artemis II mission and slated to send NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen on a 10-day flight around the far side of the Moon. Artemis II will be the first crewed flight of NASA's Artemis program and the first time people fly on the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft.

 

[FighterJock]

Good news then NMaude. NASA must have sorted the heat shield problem out to start stacking Artemis 2, looking forward to next years Moon orbit.

 

[TomcatViP]

Like someone did say, nearly anonymously, Stack Baby Stack, Oh Yeah...

 

[aim9xray]

"Happiness is a stack that isn't decked!"*



* From a NASA Flight Awareness poster, circa 1968, which had Snoopy doing his "happy dance".

 

[NMaude]

Phillip Sloss has a video out concerning the Orion heat-shield and what NASA decides will effect when Artemis II stacking starts:

We don't know for certain when, but NASA's Orion base heatshield investigation is expected to culminate in a set of decisions by the end of 2024, and this video takes a look at what is known ahead of that announcement. The Avcoat thermal protection material ablated away in larger pieces than predicted during the Artemis I re-entry back to Earth from the Moon two years ago.

After almost two years, NASA recently said it now understands what happened, but hasn't explained that publicly or said how it is going to resolve the issue with the next two heatshields that were already built. In this video I'll recap what has been said by NASA or by watchdog groups and what decisions are anticipated in the last few weeks of the year.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
01:02 Orion heatshield design history
02:52 Artemis I lunar skip re-entry
07:00 Description of heatshield performance and issue(s) from Artemis I
11:00 History of the heatshield investigation so far
17:56 Where are we now?
21:15 How lunar re-entry trajectories could influence launch availability
24:25 Looking at upcoming heatshield decisions
26:40 Thanks for watching!

 

[publiusr]

Last flight of the old log....

 

[RedLegion]

So, no more moon dreams.

 

[FighterJock]

Don't say that RedLegion, we might see a Chinese moon landing then.

 

[TheKutKu]

Artemis II will launch with the same heatshield but a modified trajectory
Artemis II is delayed to April 2026 (7 months) "and we will do everything possible with our commercial partners to launch it earlier"
Artemis III is delayed to Mid-2027 (>9 months) "assuming SpaceX HLS readiness"

 

[FighterJock]

Well I was not expecting that TheKutKu, NASA delaying Artemis 2 to April 2026 and Artemis 3 to Mid-2027 at least.

 

[NMaude]

Artemis II will launch with the same heatshield but a modified trajectory
Artemis II is delayed to April 2026 (7 months) "and we will do everything possible with our commercial partners to launch it earlier"

NASA delaying Artemis 2 to April 2026 and Artemis 3 to Mid-2027 at least.

If NASA is still using the unmodified heat-shield and using a modified reentry trajectory to reduce heat-loading on the heat-shield then why is it being delayed? That makes no sense as no hardware modifications are being made.

 

[FighterJock]

Same thoughts here NMaude, it is crazy that it is being delayed for something as minor as that heat-shield that even as you say has no modifications on it. Makes me angry just thinking about it.

 

[NMaude]

There's no reason why the stacking of Artemis II can't begin as all the hardware is there at the Kennedy Space Centre (Mostly in the VAB).

 

[Michel Van]

If NASA is still using the unmodified heat-shield and using a modified reentry trajectory to reduce heat-loading on the heat-shield then why is it being delayed? That makes no sense as no hardware modifications are being made.

NASA point on Orion heat-shield as main problem
But in Update Administrator Bill Nelson say also:

We delay Artemis II [ and III ] to give our Partners more time...

Between this line lies more problems:
Boeing is far behind schedule and over budget on SLS including quality control issue on core stages
Orion Heat shield is issue, but main problem is it Life-support system, that is not ready and has issues.
Seems Airbus has also some issue with Orion Service modules for Artemis II.
I don't know if Launch pad 39B is repaired form damage of Artemis I launch.

For Moment act NASA like this:

 

[NMaude]

I don't know if Launch pad 39B is repaired form damage of Artemis I launch.

IIRC its repairs were completed earlier this year.

Boeing is far behind schedule and over budget on SLS including quality control issue on core stages

All of the Artemis II SLS launcher hardware has been turned over to NASA so they're ready to start stacking the launcher.

Seems Airbus has also some issue with Orion Service modules for Artemis II.

The Artemis II SM has already been handed over to NASA.