NASA's moon mission - ARTEMIS

[Barabino]

Fun factoid: a company named Artemis recently sponsored Mark Beaumont world-recordsetting bicycle ride around the world in 80 days, a title from Jules Verne, who also wrote a little something about a moon landing once. Okay, maybe not that fun.

i have full respect for him because he's going to travel by bike as long as he can (note that from china to australiahe's NOT cheating: he does not go "forward" toward east)... If I were him, i'd travel everywhere by plane (especially southern australia looks like a boring desert! - I can accept its hot dry climate but not biking uphill and downhill thru the hills! ) and i'd go by bike only for the last 5 km, with some teen babes (possibly exotic horny teen germans ) welcoming me at the ARRIVAL

[publiusr]

A good overview
https://www.americaspace.com/2019/08...es-2019-08-09/

video of the "new Apollo 8" mission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=OevodZJZrOI

[selvaarchi]

"Trump’s 5-year moon landing plan has gone off the rails"

https://qz.com/1690589/trumps-artemi...s-new-trouble/

The idea was simple when vice president Mike Pence pitched it earlier this year: Let’s get astronauts back on the moon by 2024, not 2028 as had been NASA’s plan.

To make this happen, the White House proposed a temporary increase of $1.6 billion this year to NASA’s budget, and something on the order of $20 to $30 billion in additional money over the next five.

But the accelerated efforts are now stalled as Republican lawmakers fight over whose constituents will get the spoils of the lucrative program. Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, is urging US president Donald Trump to skip all that and just hold a contest for space companies.

[selvaarchi]

"NASA’s new HPE-built supercomputer will prepare for landing Artemis astronauts on the Moon".

https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/22/na...s-on-the-moon/

NASA and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) have teamed up to build a new supercomputer, which will serve NASA’s Ames Research Center in California and develop models and simulations of the landing process for Artemis Moon missions.

The new supercomputer is called “Aitken,” named after American astronomer Robert Grant Aitken, and it can run simulations at up to 3.69 petaFLOPs of theoretical performance power. Aitken is custom-designed by HPE and NASA to work with the Ames modular data center, which is a project it undertook starting in 2017 to massively reduce the amount of water and energy used in cooling its supercomputing hardware.

Aitken employs second-generation Intel Xeon processors, Mellanox InfiniBand high-speed networking, and has 221 TB of memory on board for storage. It’s the result of four years of collaboration between NASA and HPE, and it will model different methods of entry, descent and landing for Moon-destined Artemis spacecraft, running simulations to determine possible outcomes and help determine the best, safest approach.

[publiusr]

More updates
www.americaspace.com/2019/08/23/artemis-updates/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/...moon-landings/
www.thespacereview.com/article/3776/1

[selvaarchi]

"NASA refines plans for Artemis lunar lander"

https://spacenews.com/nasa-refines-p...-lunar-lander/

NASA has updated a draft solicitation for crewed lunar landers, adjusting details about how it plans to procure landers to meet the agency’s goal of landing humans on the moon by 2024.

NASA published Aug. 30 a second draft of a broad agency announcement for what the agency calls the Human Landing System, which will be used to transport astronauts from the Gateway to the lunar surface and back as part of NASA’s overall Artemis program. The announcement, like the original draft published July 19, is part of NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program.

The revised draft maintains the basic outlines of the program, including NASA’s plans to acquire lunar lander services from companies, rather than the landers themselves. Selected companies would develop an initial version of the lander to support missions in 2024 and 2025, followed by a more advanced “sustainable” lander in 2026.

The revised version instead incorporates smaller changes based on industry feedback to the initial draft. “We read and adjudicated and dispositioned all 850-something comments,” said Lisa Watson-Morgan, program manager for the Human Landing System at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, during a “virtual industry day” teleconference about the updated draft Sept. 3.

[publiusr]

The Human Landing System
file:///C:/Users/CLAYSAM/Downloads/Attachment_A12_HLS_DAC2_Architecture_Analyses_of_A lternatives_Public_082719.pdf

[selvaarchi]

"House members skeptical about NASA’s approach to returning humans to the moon"

https://spacenews.com/house-members-...s-to-the-moon/

Members of a House committee expressed skepticism about NASA’s reliance on commercial launch vehicles to carry out human lunar landings by 2024 rather than an upgraded version of the Space Launch System.

The Sept. 18 hearing by the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee on NASA’s exploration programs left members of both parties with doubts that with NASA’s current approach, and the cost and schedule problems programs like the Space Launch System and Orion have suffered, it could achieve the goal of returning humans to the surface of the moon by 2024.

The agency’s witness at the hearing, Ken Bowersox, the acting associate administrator for human exploration and operations, contributed to that skepticism. “How confident are you that we’ll have boots on the moon by 2024?” Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) asked him during the hearing.

[Nicolas]

I'm curious how skeptical they are about landing humans on the moon by 2024 without relying on commercial launch vehicles?

[Swift]

I'm curious how skeptical they are about landing humans on the moon by 2024 without relying on commercial launch vehicles?

Good question. I'm much more doubtful about the SLS program than I am about most of the commercial programs.

[publiusr]

Jim Hillhouse has some comments about that:
https://www.americaspace.com/2019/09...es-2019-09-17/

"SpaceX also claims that Falcon Heavy can deliver 16.5 tons (15MT) to the Moon, which makes the cost per kilogram $10K/kg. But this claim must be taken with some serious reservations."
"Past experience with Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts has shown that initial pricing quotes on commercial resupply launches by SpaceX can in subsequent contracts grow substantially while claimed cargo to be launched might experience underperformance."
"In truth, the marginal cost for a dedicated cargo SLS 1A, which could launch all three HLS elements together, as a government funded equipment (GFE) rocket is $450M, according to a cost estimate that NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Directorate (HEO) provided to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) for the Europa Clipper launch. At the very least, SLS is price competitive with the Falcon Heavy."

"Most importantly…
SpaceX claims a FH can deliver 15MT at $150M, making the claimed cost per kg $10K/kg. What a deal!
But the CRS numbers tell a far different story; that the likely cost for an FH expendable to launch 15MT is far, far higher. Based on CRS history, more like $1.2B (@$80K/kg) to $1.8B (@$120K/kg). And that’s just one FH lunar launch. And if 3 are needed?
SpaceX would say that costs won’t be nearly so high in the case for lunar lander element launches. Well…ok.
So, how do cargo prices drop to $10K/kg, a factor of 8 to 12, if delivering cargo on an expendable FH 390,000 kg to Gateway vs 300 km to ISS on a reusable F9/Dragon?
This is why I wrote that an SLS is price competitive with a Falcon Heavy.
If you have numbers that paint a better picture for SpaceX, I can talk to you on or off-line, whichever you prefer. "

************************************************** ************************************************** *********************

Now, Starship Superheavy could change this--but for LH2 and NTR--SLS is the only game in town--for now.

[selvaarchi]

"Japan to join Artemis program"

https://spacenews.com/japan-to-join-artemis-program/

The Japanese government plans to join NASA in its Artemis program of lunar exploration, although the details about how it will contribute remain to be worked out.

In an Oct. 18 statement posted on Twitter, the office of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe said that his government’s Strategic Headquarters for National Space Policy had decided the country would join NASA in its plans to return humans to the moon, one that could lead to Japanese astronauts one day setting foot there.

“At long last, Japan too will turn over a new page leading to lunar and space exploration,” Abe said in an English-language statement. “Today, we decided on a policy of participating in the U.S.’s challenging new venture, as an ally connected to the U.S. by strong bonds.”

[docmordrid]

Jim Hillhouse has some comments about that:
https://www.americaspace.com/2019/09...es-2019-09-17/
>
>
"Most importantly…
SpaceX claims a FH can deliver 15MT at $150M, making the claimed cost per kg $10K/kg. What a deal!

But the CRS numbers tell a far different story; that the likely cost for an FH expendable to launch 15MT is far, far higher. Based on CRS history, more like $1.2B (@$80K/kg) to $1.8B (@$120K/kg). And that’s just one FH lunar launch. And if 3 are needed?

SpaceX would say that costs won’t be nearly so high in the case for lunar lander element launches. Well…ok.

So, how do cargo prices drop to $10K/kg, a factor of 8 to 12, if delivering cargo on an expendable FH 390,000 kg to Gateway vs 300 km to ISS on a reusable F9/Dragon?

This is why I wrote that an SLS is price competitive with a Falcon Heavy.
If you have numbers that paint a better picture for SpaceX, I can talk to you on or off-line, whichever you prefer. "

Comparing SpaceX's F9-Dragon CRS, which is both a development program and launch services contract (which has had 8 launches added to the original 12 - upping the contract's cost), with a dispensed Falcon Heavy - developed on SpaceX's dime, makes no sense. Two different critters. Not to mention Cargo Dragon's are volume limited on CRS flights, restricting their pressurized payload mass. Cargo Dragon 2, which is what would be used for Artemis, has more internal volume and a larger Trunk.

Of course if mass is a problem SpaceX could always send a Starship to the Gateway....

$150m for a new dispensed Falcon Heavy + launch services (range fees, props, fuelling & integrating payloads, etc). Launch services usually run $25-30m, sometimes less.

The USAF STP-2 mission cost $165 million, which was because the USAF demands a boatload of $$ services NASA doesn't. "Mission Assurance" plus the costs of qualifying a new launcher's first USAF launch.

$95 million for a Flight Proven Falcon Heavy with only booster recovery (splashed center core) gives you 90% of the fully dispensed new FH's performance.

Add a STAR-48 kick stage to FH (as analyzed by JPL for Europa Clipper) and you get absolutely beastly performance.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...-not-right-now

The breakthrough referenced by Goldstein involved the addition of a Star 48 "kick stage" to the Falcon Heavy rocket, which would provide an extra boost of energy after the rocket's upper stage had fired. With this solid rocket motor kick stage, Goldstein said Clipper would need just a single Earth gravity assist and would not have to go into the inner Solar System for a Venus flyby.

"Nobody is saying we're not going on the SLS," Goldstein said. "But if by chance we don't, we don't have the challenge of the inner Solar System. This was a major development. This was a big deal for us."

[docmordrid]

NASA's Ken Bowersox in Space News. 2022 is a timetable given by SpaceX.

https://spacenews.com/senate-passes-...priations-bill

"I dont want to just give up on 2024 yet because I haven't seen the proposals from our contractors," he said. "I might have a contractor out there, or a commercial partner out there, that has a 2022 readiness date. They might be able to handle it."

[docmordrid]

NASA CLPS commercial lunar landers, and one is huge...

https://youtu.be/Rxd8gT5oZHU

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...rtemis-program

New Companies Join Growing Ranks of NASA Partners for Artemis Program

NASA has added five American companies to the pool of vendors that will be eligible to bid on proposals to provide deliveries to the surface of the Moon through the agencys Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative.

The additions, which increase the list of CLPS participants on contract to 14, expand NASAs work with U.S. industry to build a strong marketplace to deliver payloads between Earth and the Moon and broaden the network of partnerships that will enable the first woman and next man to set foot on the Moon by 2024 as part of the agencys Artemis program.

American aerospace companies of all sizes are joining the Artemis program, said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. Expanding the group of companies who are eligible to bid on sending payloads to the Moons surface drives innovation and reduces costs to NASA and American taxpayers. We anticipate opportunities to deliver a wide range of science and technology payloads to help make our vision for lunar exploration a reality and advance our goal of sending humans to explore Mars.

The selected companies are:

* Blue Origin, Kent, Washington

blueorigin_bluemoon.jpg

* Ceres Robotics, Palo Alto, California

ceres_0.jpg

* Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colorado

snc_stp_lunar_lander_clps_013a.jpg

* Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems Inc., Irvine, California

tyvak_clps_lunar_lander.jpeg

* SpaceX, Hawthorne, California

post-10859-0-19338200-1574116783_thumb.jpg
>
>

[Van Rijn]

One of these things is not like the others.

Well, that’s good to see. Looks like NASA really is getting serious about going back to the moon. Hopefully, Starship will work out, but if not, there will be alternatives. Nice to see competition.

I wasn’t sure I would be able to watch people on the moon again, but now I am getting much more optimistic. I said “There are people up there” in 1969 while looking at the moon. I am looking forward to being able to say that again, and hopefully this time it will always be true.

[Van Rijn]

I was just thinking about watching the next lunar landing. If the U.S. does it, I expect there will be high definition video coverage during flight and on landing. Astronauts during EVA will have continuously running cameras running to digital storage for later viewing. When the spacecraft launch again, a computer controlled camera will be able to track them easily.

And the hoaxers will still claim it is fake.

[Swift]

I was just thinking about watching the next lunar landing. If the U.S. does it, I expect there will be high definition video coverage during flight and on landing. Astronauts during EVA will have continuously running cameras running to digital storage for later viewing. When the spacecraft launch again, a computer controlled camera will be able to track them easily.

And the hoaxers will still claim it is fake.

They will claim that the fact that it is in high-def, streaming live with Tweets, etc. is proof that it is fake, because NASA couldn't do that if they were really on the Moon.

[bknight]

They will claim that the fact that it is in high-def, streaming live with Tweets, etc. is proof that it is fake, because NASA couldn't do that if they were really on the Moon.

Or any number of other factors that have no evidentiary basis, just the strong distrust of government especially NASA part of the government.

[KaiYeves]

I have seen people online say okapis and narwhals are “fake animals” because they only learned about them as adults and not as kids. If that’s someone’s response to learning about a species they never knew existed before instead of wonder and fascination, then I don’t know what can be done to help them.

[bknight]

I have seen people online say okapis and narwhals are “fake animals” because they only learned about them as adults and not as kids. If that’s someone’s response to learning about a species they never knew existed before instead of wonder and fascination, then I don’t know what can be done to help them.

Those individuals should be directed to the nearest large zoo and see them in real life, not a CGI image, but as you indicate there isn't a lot that educate these willful individuals.

[selvaarchi]

"NASA CubeSats play big role in lunar exploration"

https://www.moondaily.com/reports/NA...ation_999.html

They might be small, but they're also mighty. Very small and innovative spacecraft called CubeSats are poised to play a role in NASA's Artemis program, which will return humans to the Moon by 2024.

Advancements in consumer electronics and miniaturized sensors enable small spacecraft to be powerful tools for space exploration.

"A number of things have coalesced to create what is termed the SmallSat and CubeSat revolution," says Christopher Baker, Small Spacecraft Technology program executive within NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate. "Part of it has been the availability of commercial, off-the-shelf components that have incredible processing power, are very small and function on low electrical power."

CubeSats also offer frequent, flexible, low-cost access to space, while the schedule from conception to launch of these diminutive spacecraft can be fast-paced. They allow you to do things that previously would not have been possible with a large, monolithic spacecraft, Baker observes.

[Roger E. Moore]

The schedule is getting tighter for a 2024 landing on the Moon by Artemis. Still not sure what the price tag will be.

https://www.space.com/nasa-2024-moon...et-delays.html

[Roger E. Moore]

Lunar South Pole Atlas is online, have a look. However, I don't think we can compare lunar massifs to Earthly mountains. Your ability to distinguish distances is messed up on the Moon, massifs are very rounded off because of micrometeorite erosion, and look at what happened to Apollo 15, when the astronauts on the rover almost fell down Mount Hadley because they couldn't tell how tilted it was.

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-mounta...rth-peaks.html

[bknight]

The schedule is getting tighter for a 2024 landing on the Moon by Artemis. Still not sure what the price tag will be.

https://www.space.com/nasa-2024-moon...et-delays.html

The price target will be large of course and is dependent on the next administration support.

[schlaugh]

I think the current administration is only interested in this program if it can be done by 2024. If it looks like the program will slip my hunch is funding will vanish.

[Garrison]

I think the current administration is only interested in this program if it can be done by 2024. If it looks like the program will slip my hunch is funding will vanish.

There's also the question of what happens in November, a President Biden for example is unlikely to follow the Trump plan. What is most likely unfortunately is that NASA is instructed to pivot back to a Mars landing at some date for which little funding will actually be provided. Unless there's a concrete prospect of someone else getting people on the moon I doubt Congress is going to really get behind any program.

[selvaarchi]

There's also the question of what happens in November, a President Biden for example is unlikely to follow the Trump plan. What is most likely unfortunately is that NASA is instructed to pivot back to a Mars landing at some date for which little funding will actually be provided. Unless there's a concrete prospect of someone else getting people on the moon I doubt Congress is going to really get behind any program.

Congress might provide more funds if China keeps to their current plans - A Mars mission this year, start the construction of their space station and successfully complete the Chang'e 5 mission.

[KaiYeves]

I think the current administration is only interested in this program if it can be done by 2024. If it looks like the program will slip my hunch is funding will vanish.

Well, if we can wait them out we may then get this in order and quite a lot of other things as well.

[7cscb]

Why would NASA want to develop a manned mission to Mars? SpacedX is doing this. NASA could and should hitch a ride.

Should NASA not concentrate on facilitating this and others' commercial efforts? Like working on rotationally generated gravity and radiation shielding?