You are not logged in.
The following is a major excerpt from an article written by Dick Eagleson. It was posted in the Space Review on October 2, 2017.
I think it is right on target. The writer pointed out that Elon Musk has a clear battle plan and is "willing, but quite able, to fight back" against the "Old Boy Network" in NASA and Congress. Let's hope so.
The full article can be read at:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3339/1
Many of the changes to BFR from the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) seem aimed squarely at minimizing the time to reach initial operational capability. The decrease in diameter from 12 to 9 meters allows fabrication of BFR in SpaceX's existing Hawthorne factory, so scratch the time needed to build a bespoke factory elsewhere. The Raptor engine version slated to power BFR seems likely to be either the same as, or only a modest upgrade of that which has already been tested at McGregor. The 42 Raptors of ITS would have produced 685,000 pounds-force each at sea level. The 31 Raptors of BFR will produce 385,000 pounds-force each. So a smaller BFR powered by smaller Raptors is intended to allow a first Mars mission of twin BFR's by 2022 in place of now-cancelled Red Dragons.
Looking at the economics of the newest BFR, absent the haze of sentiment, I see why Elon is, in essence, announcing the coming phase-out of Falcon 9, Dragon 1, and even of Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 before the latter have made their first flights. All will still fly and do useful work, but BFR is an even more productive cash cow than the Falcons and Dragons could have been if kept in indefinite production and service. With BFR there is no non-recoverable second stage, no problematical payload fairing, no time-consuming ride back to port on drone ship for the first stage. For ISS crew and cargo there is no comparable ride back to port for a capsule splashing down in an ocean. BFR is 100 percent recoverable, 100 percent “feet-dry,” and, literally, gas-and-go.
The variable cost per mission of BFR is dominated by propellant. Given that LNG is cheaper than RP-1, a full propellant load for BFR may not cost a lot more—maybe not even as much—than one for an Falcon Heavy. The Falcons already provide SpaceX with very handsome gross margins per mission. BFR will considerably improve those numbers.
For the rest of launch services industry:
A propellant-dominant mission variable cost structure provides margin to keep launching and making some money even in the face of anything but outright giveaway levels of subsidy by any foreign government or private launch services competitor. I don't see any governments or private operators being likely to actually try such a thing, but BFR’s economics serve pretty effective notice that there would be no point in making the effort.
For NASA:
SLS is now certifiably toast. Elon slit its throat in Adelaide. How long it will take the shambling corpse to notice it is dead and actually fall down is now a matter for the Vegas oddsmakers. Aside from the sporting question of whether the first BFR test flies before SLS EM-1 gets off the ground, BFR will provide the capability to put 20 metric tons more payload at a whack into LEO than even the decade-distant-at-best SLS Block 2. That’s over twice as much LEO throw weight as the anemic SLS Block 1 and almost half again more than the SLS Block 1B. Oh yeah, SLS costs $2 billion a copy, is production-limited to two missions per year, max, and is expendable. BFR, once built, will fly for close to the cost of propellant, will be able to do so on an extremely short turnaround, and will be 100 percent reusable. Did I mention that BFR's payload volume will also be bigger than SLS's? Somebody play Taps already.
Also for NASA:
The Deep Space Gateway is now certifiably toast. When a 2-BFR mission can put 150 tons on the Moon and bring 50 tons back many times per year, it becomes straightforwardly possible—if I may indulge an American West analogy—to quickly and cheaply put as many Ponderosa main houses as one cares to on the actual lunar surface (or subsurface). By that standard, the notional DSG is just a “line shack” out in the middle of nowhere.
Yet again for NASA:
Space-borne astronomy and planetary science could be a lot cheaper if sponsoring groups could take advantage of BFR’s ample Earth-escape throw weight to not build probes that are prodigies of light weight. More savings yet could accrue from making maximum use of the cavernous payload bay of the freighter version of BFR’s upper stage to avoid all the origami engineering needed to get probes inside existing payload fairings. Such projects, when BFR's many advantages make them cheap enough, are increasingly likely to originate outside of NASA's ambit.
For Blue Origin:
Elon has seen Jeff Bezos his 7-meter payload fairing and raised him 2 meters. And, in addition, done away with the fairing entirely in favor of a door that comes back along with the rest of the freighter version of the BFR spaceship. He's also rendered the economics of New Glenn’s non-reusable upper stage(s) problematical by, in essence, doing with BFR what Blue Origin doesn't plan to do until New Armstrong. “Gradatim” may simply not be fast enough to keep up.
For Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic:
Elon’s Adelaide presentation about point-to-point suborbital service on Earth is more problematical of accomplishment than the purely space-related aspects of BFR. But if SpaceX establishes this service on even one such route, it pretty well kills the nascent sub-orbital space tourism business as currently envisioned by both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Even at Concorde-like ticket prices, an antipodal BFR flight would cost a small fraction of what both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin seem set to charge. The flights would also last much longer and involve much more zero-G time than the flight profiles planned by Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Plus, you'd actually get to go somewhere instead of just up and back. But the real killer is that the space tourists might well be outnumbered by in-a-hurry businesspeople who are willing to pay for speedy transport and might see also getting a set of astronaut wings as just a nice souvenir of the trip.
The twin changes of SpaceX's message at this year's IAC compared to last year’s are those of speed-up and autarky—going it alone—regarding BFR. Last year, I think, Elon was still hopeful that he could convince NASA into joining his ITS-based Mars crusade and bring some non-trivial government cash to the marriage too. Over the intervening year, though, SpaceX's relations with NASA have, on net, appeared to deteriorate.
The ISS people have thrown in with SpaceX and seem to be increasingly embracing practical reusablity. SpaceX has friends other places within NASA as well.
Musk now realizes, in my opinion, that there is no significant NASA money in prospect for his Mars project and also that there is still a sizable bloc in NASA and Congress alike that still cherish hopes of smacking down SpaceX and restoring the status quo. The revised BFR plans are, in part, a way of minimizing future NASA and congressional leverage over what SpaceX does. They are also a way of simultaneously holding a number of traditional NASA and congressional “rice bowls” at risk. The Old Boy Network has long been used to being able to squish troublemakers pretty much at will. SpaceX, though, is not only willing, but quite able, to fight back. The BFR revisions showcased in Adelaide are, in addition to being a roadmap, also a battle plan.
Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2017-11-15 21:52:10)
Offline
NASA is one of SpaceX's best customers, so I doubt SpaceX and NASA are going to fight over who has the better rocket, but I'm still waiting for the day when we can kill Orion and SLS. It can't come soon enough. Yesterday would've been fine with me. However, no PowerPoint presentation from Musk made that so. Orion and SLS were just bad ideas from the word "go".
Offline
This confirms in every jot and detail the overall impression I have got of the impact of Space X's latest plans...
The only question now is "can they do it"? But as the article notes, Space X are already a good way down the road to the BFR and construction is scheduled to commence in 2018. So we should soon know how realistic Musk's plans are. A lot of people say Space X has a record of missing deadlines...true, but a lot of that had to do with learning "on the hoof" - they now have a hell of a lot of inhouse knowledge. So my bet is more on them meeting their own deadlines.
The following is a major excerpt from an article written by Dick Eagleson. It was posted in the Space Review on October 2, 2017.
I think it is right on target. The writer pointed out that Elon Musk has a clear battle plan and is "willing, but quite able, to fight back" against the "Old Boy Network" in NASA and Congress. Let's hope so.The full article can be read at:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3339/1Many of the changes to BFR from the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) seem aimed squarely at minimizing the time to reach initial operational capability. The decrease in diameter from 12 to 9 meters allows fabrication of BFR in SpaceX's existing Hawthorne factory, so scratch the time needed to build a bespoke factory elsewhere. The Raptor engine version slated to power BFR seems likely to be either the same as, or only a modest upgrade of that which has already been tested at McGregor. The 42 Raptors of ITS would have produced 685,000 pounds-force each at sea level. The 31 Raptors of BFR will produce 385,000 pounds-force each. So a smaller BFR powered by smaller Raptors is intended to allow a first Mars mission of twin BFR's by 2022 in place of now-cancelled Red Dragons.
Looking at the economics of the newest BFR, absent the haze of sentiment, I see why Elon is, in essence, announcing the coming phase-out of Falcon 9, Dragon 1, and even of Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 before the latter have made their first flights. All will still fly and do useful work, but BFR is an even more productive cash cow than the Falcons and Dragons could have been if kept in indefinite production and service. With BFR there is no non-recoverable second stage, no problematical payload fairing, no time-consuming ride back to port on drone ship for the first stage. For ISS crew and cargo there is no comparable ride back to port for a capsule splashing down in an ocean. BFR is 100 percent recoverable, 100 percent “feet-dry,” and, literally, gas-and-go.
The variable cost per mission of BFR is dominated by propellant. Given that LNG is cheaper than RP-1, a full propellant load for BFR may not cost a lot more—maybe not even as much—than one for an Falcon Heavy. The Falcons already provide SpaceX with very handsome gross margins per mission. BFR will considerably improve those numbers.
For the rest of launch services industry:
A propellant-dominant mission variable cost structure provides margin to keep launching and making some money even in the face of anything but outright giveaway levels of subsidy by any foreign government or private launch services competitor. I don't see any governments or private operators being likely to actually try such a thing, but BFR’s economics serve pretty effective notice that there would be no point in making the effort.For NASA:
SLS is now certifiably toast. Elon slit its throat in Adelaide. How long it will take the shambling corpse to notice it is dead and actually fall down is now a matter for the Vegas oddsmakers. Aside from the sporting question of whether the first BFR test flies before SLS EM-1 gets off the ground, BFR will provide the capability to put 20 metric tons more payload at a whack into LEO than even the decade-distant-at-best SLS Block 2. That’s over twice as much LEO throw weight as the anemic SLS Block 1 and almost half again more than the SLS Block 1B. Oh yeah, SLS costs $2 billion a copy, is production-limited to two missions per year, max, and is expendable. BFR, once built, will fly for close to the cost of propellant, will be able to do so on an extremely short turnaround, and will be 100 percent reusable. Did I mention that BFR's payload volume will also be bigger than SLS's? Somebody play Taps already.Also for NASA:
The Deep Space Gateway is now certifiably toast. When a 2-BFR mission can put 150 tons on the Moon and bring 50 tons back many times per year, it becomes straightforwardly possible—if I may indulge an American West analogy—to quickly and cheaply put as many Ponderosa main houses as one cares to on the actual lunar surface (or subsurface). By that standard, the notional DSG is just a “line shack” out in the middle of nowhere.Yet again for NASA:
Space-borne astronomy and planetary science could be a lot cheaper if sponsoring groups could take advantage of BFR’s ample Earth-escape throw weight to not build probes that are prodigies of light weight. More savings yet could accrue from making maximum use of the cavernous payload bay of the freighter version of BFR’s upper stage to avoid all the origami engineering needed to get probes inside existing payload fairings. Such projects, when BFR's many advantages make them cheap enough, are increasingly likely to originate outside of NASA's ambit.For Blue Origin:
Elon has seen Jeff Bezos his 7-meter payload fairing and raised him 2 meters. And, in addition, done away with the fairing entirely in favor of a door that comes back along with the rest of the freighter version of the BFR spaceship. He's also rendered the economics of New Glenn’s non-reusable upper stage(s) problematical by, in essence, doing with BFR what Blue Origin doesn't plan to do until New Armstrong. “Gradatim” may simply not be fast enough to keep up.For Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic:
Elon’s Adelaide presentation about point-to-point suborbital service on Earth is more problematical of accomplishment than the purely space-related aspects of BFR. But if SpaceX establishes this service on even one such route, it pretty well kills the nascent sub-orbital space tourism business as currently envisioned by both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Even at Concorde-like ticket prices, an antipodal BFR flight would cost a small fraction of what both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin seem set to charge. The flights would also last much longer and involve much more zero-G time than the flight profiles planned by Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Plus, you'd actually get to go somewhere instead of just up and back. But the real killer is that the space tourists might well be outnumbered by in-a-hurry businesspeople who are willing to pay for speedy transport and might see also getting a set of astronaut wings as just a nice souvenir of the trip.The twin changes of SpaceX's message at this year's IAC compared to last year’s are those of speed-up and autarky—going it alone—regarding BFR. Last year, I think, Elon was still hopeful that he could convince NASA into joining his ITS-based Mars crusade and bring some non-trivial government cash to the marriage too. Over the intervening year, though, SpaceX's relations with NASA have, on net, appeared to deteriorate.
The ISS people have thrown in with SpaceX and seem to be increasingly embracing practical reusablity. SpaceX has friends other places within NASA as well.
Musk now realizes, in my opinion, that there is no significant NASA money in prospect for his Mars project and also that there is still a sizable bloc in NASA and Congress alike that still cherish hopes of smacking down SpaceX and restoring the status quo. The revised BFR plans are, in part, a way of minimizing future NASA and congressional leverage over what SpaceX does. They are also a way of simultaneously holding a number of traditional NASA and congressional “rice bowls” at risk. The Old Boy Network has long been used to being able to squish troublemakers pretty much at will. SpaceX, though, is not only willing, but quite able, to fight back. The BFR revisions showcased in Adelaide are, in addition to being a roadmap, also a battle plan.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I suspect NASA eventually will have no choice to support Musk's plans. One way to save face would be to add NASA's current interest in the moon to Musk's Mars plans. In the past, the cost of doing both would be prohibitive. Now it is possible to do both economically. I wonder whether that's one reason Musk included a slide showing the BFS on the lunar surface. It's a way for him to "compromise" his plans to NASA priorities (if they ever become priorities) and acquire NASA money or equipment useful to the Mars project, which could use some of the same habitat, life support, surface transport, and scientific instrument technology as a moon project.
Offline
I think you could be right. But part of the problem here I think is the pork barrel politics in the USA...all these projects translate back into factories, offices and jobs in the hundreds of thousands. How you dismantle this patronage system in the USA that has been built up over the last 70 years and rebuild it around Space X has got to be problematic - especially if Space X is making enough money not to need subsidy (which I think it quote likely given the scope for orbital tourism, lunar tourism and Mars revenue generation, not to include Super-Fast Earth Transit).
I suspect NASA eventually will have no choice to support Musk's plans. One way to save face would be to add NASA's current interest in the moon to Musk's Mars plans. In the past, the cost of doing both would be prohibitive. Now it is possible to do both economically. I wonder whether that's one reason Musk included a slide showing the BFS on the lunar surface. It's a way for him to "compromise" his plans to NASA priorities (if they ever become priorities) and acquire NASA money or equipment useful to the Mars project, which could use some of the same habitat, life support, surface transport, and scientific instrument technology as a moon project.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The mere fact that Bezos is building a 7 meter diameter rocket is probably why SpaceX is skipping that logical step. OK, Elon, we're all on board with you. So...now what's the future for Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser? Not good, since they just reached the glide test step. The boosters are still regarded as expendable, there.
Offline
BFR and ITS both require lightweight composite cryogen tanks that have never flown in space, much less seen regular service use like the gas tanks in a commercial jet. It is my understanding that the wing tanks in modern Boeing and Airbus jets are now made with a high percentage of composite structure, to include wing skins that form pressurized Jet-A1 tanks. At the very least, SpaceX may want to consider composite RP-1 tanks for Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy to evaluate the ability of the tanks to withstand repeated loading from ascent and landing. If LOX degradation of resins and the resultant micro-cracking issues have been adequately resolved, then maybe they can perform a test using all composite tanks in Falcon.
Offline
Here's a link to an op-ed on spacenews.com:
http://spacenews.com/op-ed-a-house-divi … -a-rocket/
Suggest our members scroll down and read the comments as well.
Offline
Even if the full rocket only is sent to space once a year its that standing army that needs new jobs when in stand down mode. I also seem to remember that the Orion was compartible with all the current launchers including space x. So we have a cheaper taxi even for the nasa hardware use of orion as the lower portion of the SLS is over kill for use to the ISS.
The BFR even thou its got some parts in proto testing will not come into a full rocket for at least another 7 years for a production level and use. So do we want to wait decades more just like Nasa's time table or do we want them pushed such that we get them to turn away from their present bloat ware cost provided products.
Offline
SpaceNut; We still don't have any idea about Jeff Bezos and the New Glenn. That could be another answer and nail in the coffin of the SLS.
I don't want to see a lot of good engineering and support talent going to waste either, but this "workfare system" isn't getting results that we the taxpayers deserve.
Offline
Maybe a deal could be done where the companies become sub-contractors for Space X or are licensed to build Space X-style rockets. But I suspect Musk will be protective of his brand and quality control.
Even if the full rocket only is sent to space once a year its that standing army that needs new jobs when in stand down mode. I also seem to remember that the Orion was compartible with all the current launchers including space x. So we have a cheaper taxi even for the nasa hardware use of orion as the lower portion of the SLS is over kill for use to the ISS.
The BFR even thou its got some parts in proto testing will not come into a full rocket for at least another 7 years for a production level and use. So do we want to wait decades more just like Nasa's time table or do we want them pushed such that we get them to turn away from their present bloat ware cost provided products.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Something Very Bad Might Be About to Go Down at NASA
https://futurism.com/nasa-inspector-gen … rt-looming
"This is utterly indefensible and is totally on NASA regardless of how contractors screwed up."
The first launch was originally mandated by Congress for December 2016
https://web.archive.org/web/20201112003 … 11-267.pdf
Offline
If it had been allowed to do the competitive launch build it would have been by 2010...
The cost plus contract was the issue for how it wanted to keep every one employed after shuttle.
Only some of the contractors have performed correctly with product to be used.
Offline
NASA eyes three dates for mega moon rocket’s maiden launch
https://www.digitaltrends.com/space/nas … en-launch/
Mars Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=101Lbw9YTzg
Robert Zubrin on the Lunar Orbit Gateway, debate with Greg Autry an American space policy expert, educator, entrepreneur and author.
FAA gives qualified environmental thumbs up for Starship launches:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa- … -launches/
Elon Musk: Mars civilization is 20-30 years after first landing
https://www.fox6now.com/news/elon-musk- … mp;amp;amp
“My advice for the Artemis Generation is to learn as much as possible from our predecessors."
https://twitter.com/JimFree/status/1552302184682950662
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images of pits indicate that the Moon has caves. Could they become astronaut habitats?
Scientists have discovered that parts of the pits are always about 63°F (17°C), differing from extreme temperatures at the Moon's surface
https://twitter.com/NASAMoon/status/1552010650116816896
A social media youtube channel Conspiracy Skeptic not sure his figures are correct so take him with a pinch of salt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVd-PCo6NbU
Deep Space Transport (DST), also called Mars Transit Vehicle the crewed interplanetary spacecraft concept by NASA to support science exploration missions to Mars of up to 1,000 days.
https://www.inverse.com/article/29948-n … ars-travel
Deep Space Habitat (DSH) is a series of concepts by NASA that would be used to support crewed exploration missions to the Moon, asteroids, and eventually Mars
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/11/ … t-concepts
In 2015 NASA funded studies for several types of deep space habitat concepts under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP).
Mars Base Camp (MBC) is a crewed Mars laboratory orbiter concept under study that was commissioned by NASA from Lockheed Martin in US. https://web.archive.org/web/20170929053 … C_2017.pdf Mars Base Camp harnesses many NASA technologies in development, or technology goals at the time of the 2010s. In September 2017, the plan was updated including a concept for a reusable crewed shuttle called MADV (Mars Ascent Descent Vehicle), which would connect to the MBC Mars space station
Mars details?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03 … ion-plans/
It would be composed of two elements: an Orion capsule and a propelled habitation module.
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/spa … sport.html
The DST vehicle would depart and return from the Lunar Gateway to be serviced and reused for a new Mars mission.
and the report?
https://spacenews.com/independent-repor … -feasible/
I assume he refers to Congressman Robert Aderholt here?
Aderholt calls for basically full speed ahead on Artemis, including Gateway, as well as partnerships with private sector. Calls Russia an “erratic partner” with whom cooperations should be restricted to ISS.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1 … 0373993476
Mosques, jihad and mohammedanism exported to outer space?
https://twitter.com/SciDiplomacyUSA/sta … 5239831552
'Welcome to the Artemis Accords, Saudi Arabia! Since Prince Sultan bin Salman Al Saud’s historic flight aboard Shuttle #Discovery in 1985, we continue to work together to foster our bilateral relationship in space.'
Saudi Arabia has signed the Artemis Accords
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/statu … 7606516737
Earlier today, Saudi Arabia joined a growing number of nations that have signed the Artemis Accords, affirming its commitment to sustainable space exploration that follows a common set of principles promoting the beneficial use of space for all of humanity.
— Bill Nelson
I wonder if Bill is also aware of all those religosity passages about jihadism, rape, war, slavery in that Quran or Koran book?
Aderholt walked through in his speech these 11 “pillars” for the future of America’s space program. A lot of familiar themes here
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1 … 0373993476
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-07-27 17:03:32)
Offline
With its huge cost it cannot afford any setbacks to its operation. It also somehow must get faster and with a lower contracted cost to build or its going to really just end up as being a red flag for make work for the contractors...
Offline
The Space Launch System is yesterday’s rocket
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/space-la … 18754.html
Why has NASA built a giant new rocket?
https://www.economist.com/sls-pod
Offline
More news related to Artemis and Gateway
Boeing sued for allegedly stealing intellectual property related to NASA's Artemis moon rocket
https://www.space.com/artemis-sls-boein … ty-lawsuit
The suit alleges Boeing's improper use of stolen technology put astronauts' lives at risk and led to ongoing SLS launch delays.
Offline
NASA practices for 2024 launch of Artemis 2 moon mission
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-2-mo … simulation
Artemis 3 or Artemis III the first crewed Moon landing mission of the Artemis program and the first crewed flight of the Starship HLS lander. Artemis 4 Artemis IV is the fourth planned mission of NASA's Artemis program. The mission will launch four astronauts on a Space Launch System rocket and an Orion to the Lunar Gateway. The mission will deliver the I-Hab habitat module, developed by the European Space Agency and the Japanese space agency JAXA, to the Gateway. The NASA Office of Inspectior General (OIG) estimates the earliest that ML-2 will be available for Artemis IV is November 2026. Gateway is Station around the Moon which include Space Station partner agencies: NASA, European Space Agency (ESA), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and Canadian Space Agency (CSA) unliek the ISS Brazil and Russia's Roscosmos will no longer be 'Participating' countries. Artemis 5 (officially Artemis V) is the fifth planned mission of NASA's Artemis program and the first crewed flight of the Blue Moon lander.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa … auncher-2/
,
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa- … r-provider
U.S. Budget Boosts Funding for First Moon Trips With Women, People of Color (subscription)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … #xj4y7vzkg
agency is prioritizing diversity
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/conten … oman-moon/
The only people who touched the moon’s surface in 1972 were white men.
NASA’s enhanced DED-based 3D printing process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JHqdVU9Ebo
We have no info who makes the Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) but NASA is expect to have either a pressure vehicle or an unpressurized rover being developed by NASA that astronauts can drive on the Moon while wearing their spacesuits, development of the LTV is a part of NASA's Artemis Program, NASCAR might build one or Lockheed Martin and General Motors or Northrop Grumman or AstroLab or Nissan North America or a foreign company like 'Toyota' it is an open competition the new Car or Moon buggy is expected to fly on Artemis 5.
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-06 07:50:00)
Offline
Artemis 3 is a manned flyby past the moon using SLS/Orion. That vehicle is capable (barely) of reaching (and returning from) the halo orbit where the Gateway station is intended to be, but is not there yet. SLS/Orion is NOT capable of getting into and back out of low lunar orbit, so it cannot reprise what we did in Apollo 8. The shortfalls are in service module dV and the reasons for it are twofold: (1) Orion itself is still overweight, and (2) the service module is too small have enough mass ratio to get the needed dV when pushing Orion around.
Artemis 3 will fly. It might even fly this year, although the history of past delays weighs against that.
Artemis 4 is supposed to be a manned lunar landing. Since they have no flying lunar lander vehicle yet, talking about a near-term manned landing with a nonexistent vehicle is utter nonsense! SpaceX and Blue Origin were funded to create landers, but neither has a flying vehicle yet. One successful flight test does NOT prove such a vehicle works. Let the schedule or the budget drive your decisions, and you WILL kill a crew! It has happened 3 times before, and nearly happened on 2 other flights that squeaked by (Apollo 11 and Apollo 13).
By the way, the Artemis lander design is way more difficult than the Apollo lander design. That is entirely driven by the halo orbit for the Gateway station that is supposed to be the staging point for Artemis landings. The dV to reach the surface from there is about 50% higher than it from low lunar orbit. And there is as yet no staging point: Gateway does not yet exist, either.
Orion and Gateway do not have any effective radiation protection for crews, not against solar flares. Those are the real killers. Pointing at cosmic rays is a BS canard. It is only luck that we did not lose an Apollo crew to one. There was a lethal event in 1972 between two Apollo missions to the moon.
If you realize that I do not believe all the hype about how soon Artemis will take place, then you got the right message! This thing is either years in the future if done right, or it will end early from one or more dead crews, because it was done wrong (which is EXACTLY what they are doing!)
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-08-06 08:14:53)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I might try find the correct Gateway SLS thread later
Artemis II crew inspect Orion capsule with media in tow
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_ … e_999.html
'Just before they launch to the Moon, the crew will ride aboard these fully-electric, zero-emission vehicles'
https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/ … 6253566977
Artemis II - Underway Recovery Test Update
https://twitter.com/nasagroundsys/statu … 9385714691
The CMTA is a full-scale mockup of the NASA_Orionspacecraft and is used by NASA and its Department of Defense partners to practice recovery procedures for crewed Artemis missions.
Offline
Artemis 6
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa- … r-provider
pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file … _rev_b.pdf
Artemis-V Lunar Terrain Vehicle and delivery of the ESPRIT Refueling Module to the Lunar Gateway, followed by a crewed lunar landing.
Artemis 7 Lunar landing with the delivery of the Habitable Mobility Platform
https://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to- … it-module/
International Space Station funding would be extended to 2030 and Artemis-8 in 2032, landing with the delivery of lunar surface logistics and the Foundational Surface Habitat.
the Gateway program or Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the station was renamed Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G) Gateway to be developed, serviced, and utilized in collaboration with the CSA, ESA, JAXA, and commercial partners.
Artemis 9, 10 and 11, delivery of lunar surface base logistics and shift.
Artemis 3 will fly. It might even fly this year, although the history of past delays weighs against that.
Space Editor at Ars Technica
Eric Berger
'Artemis III could turn into a humans-to-Gateway mission. Gateway being ready, of course, is no slam-dunk either.'
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/ … 4292746240
NASA weighs changes to Artemis 3 if key elements are delayed
https://spacenews.com/nasa-weighs-chang … e-delayed/
“We may end up flying a different mission if that’s the case,” he said. “If we have these big slips out, we’ve looked at if can we do other missions.” Artemis 3 could also change based on the outcome of Artemis 2, he added.
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-09 08:37:38)
Offline
SpaceX's Vacuum Raptor Engine Aces Cold Space Test for Artemis Moon Missions
Offline
What this is beginning to look like is an SLS/Orion launch scheduled, that is looking for an actually-useful mission to do.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
SpaceX returns vital life science research to Earth
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Spac … h_999.html
NASA’s Engineering Marvel: Preparing the Gateway to the Moon
https://scitechdaily.com/nasas-engineer … -the-moon/
Offline