Back on Tuesday the 9th, there was a story that NASA had formally announced that both Artemis 2 and 3 - a lunar flyby and the first actual Artemis lunar landing mission - would be delayed. Artemis 2 was moved from "late this year" to September of '25 while Artemis 3 was moved from "late in '25" to September of '26. In both cases, preface the date with "No Earlier Than."
Both schedule slips may be excessively optimistic.
At a hearing on Wednesday, according to a report on the Payload website,
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, asked a government auditor and NASA’s acting inspector general whether they thought the new plan to delay Artemis II and III was realistic.
The answer was no, especially for the Artemis III mission to put human boots on the lunar surface.
The area of concern appears to be the one year between Artemis 2 and 3, and the concern is that it won't be enough time to implement any corrective actions to anything that may come up in the flyby mission. A quick look at a calendar seems to verify that. Artemis 1 was 13 months ago (the mission ended Dec. 11, '22), and they're saying that it will take them another year and a half to understand everything that was considered a problem in that first mission, modify everything that needs to be addressed, and be ready to launch by September of '25. What if Artemis 2 uncovers more or more severe deficiencies, and they have one year to resolve them instead of 2-1/2 years?
Then there's the matter of the cost of the Artemis missions. The General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended NASA come up with an "official" cost estimate back in 2019, but they never published an answer. In March of '22, NASA's inspector general said the operational costs alone for a single Artemis launch—for just the rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems—will total $4.1 billion. A problem is that the number keeps creeping up while everyone insists it's already unsustainably high and defying the people imagining it getting lower over time.
Artemis 1 on Pad39B, August of '22, during one of its trips to the pad and then back to shelter before its late November launch. NASA Photo
While he has no authority in NASA at all, former Administrator Michael Griffin also spoke to congress on Wednesday, and while he said things that I like; things that seem objectively true, he also said some things that are so far from truth as to be easily dismissed. Let me start out with the money quote that I like. Well, most of it.
“I will be direct," Griffin said. "In my judgment, the Artemis Program is excessively complex, unrealistically priced, compromises crew safety, poses very high mission risk of completion, and is highly unlikely to be completed in a timely manner even if successful.”
Since he's been out of the agency for a long time, it's hard to say that he represents current thoughts - except that we've heard similar things from Jim Free arguing that NASA needs to get rid of commercial space and just go with cost plus contracts. And that's what Griffin is arguing for. Because having SpaceX launch astronauts and cargo (along with Northrop Grumman) to the ISS has been so disappointing. Gee, Mr. Griffin, did you happen to watch the AX-3 mission today? What exactly was wrong about that?
Griffin points out these problems and then says the answer is to go with Yet Another Version of the SLS, which has never met one schedule or one cost bid. He wants
- Two launches of the Space Launch System Block II rocket
- A Centaur III upper stage
- An Orion spacecraft
- A two-stage, storable-propellant lunar lander
Which is pretty much the Constellation Program that Griffin helped create in 2005 and 2006.
The spacecraft (Orion) is the same, and the rocket (SLS Block II instead of Ares V) is similar. The proposed lunar lander looks somewhat like the Altair lunar lander. He is trying to put the band back together, relying on Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman to get astronauts back to the Moon in a quick and efficient manner.
I can see no reason to put any trust in the contractors that have screwed the pooch so badly with SLS and Artemis. It's all fucked up so let's have the same companies start over and it'll be all wonderful.
Ought to ask SpaceX to do it.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to trust ANYone's opinion/statements , past or preset, that has anything to do with NASA - they are a large part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteCost plus is a helluva way to run a railroad, much less a space program. You get overruns EVERY time. Absolutely the worst way to try to get results, absolutely the best way to pour money down a rat hole.
Just hand the money to SpaceX, you'll get results much quicker with a helluva lot less money spent.
Saw a YouBoob today with Angry Astronaut suggesting they throw SLS into the toilet and go with the Alpaca lander. It has its good points, I must admit.
Sigh.
Yeah, let's launch a Starship HLS with crew, refill in orbit, head to the Moon, land, futz around, come back, transfer crew to another Starship, refuel, restock, recrew, reload, continue again and again.
ReplyDeleteMaybe leave a Starship station and use that for crossloading personnel and equipment.
Now that's an idea... SpaceX develops their version of shipping containers for to do crossloading from Earth orbit to HLS or Lunar orbit shuttles to ease loading.
Seriously, screw NASA and legacy aerospace. Let the real space race companies compete and let them rapid test and we'll be on the moon in less than 3 years.
This thought has to be in the back of Musk's mind.. NASA & the establishment keeps fiddling around with their "cost plus" go into space with one use model and Musk just keeps pushing forward.
DeleteWell his goal (as I heard it) was Mars, maybe he can do a side project and send a tunnel machine to the moon to get a good start on a moon base?
That is why the government is slow rolling SpaceX on launches. The government along with the "elites" do not want commercial interests to succeed in space; they want control of it to prevent progress as it threatens their control of everything.
DeleteSpaceX can make the first Lunar Cycler. Then do the same for Mars!
DeleteI've said here before that I think the role for cost-plus contracts is for something no one has ever done before. Not for something like SLS - the Shuttles' Leftover Shit - or Vulcan, but more like Starship. Not just the biggest rocket ever flown but designed to be reusable in the same sense as a Boeing 747 or A380. As in reusable in the same day. SLS/Artemis and the bunch is designed to carry a couple of people and something like 400 pounds of instruments, cargo, etc.. Starship will carry tons.
ReplyDeleteBut they didn't sit there with their hands out saying give us a contract to develop it. They did the things Boeing or Airbus did; they raised capital and sold F9 flights to pay for it on their own.
SpaceX is upsetting a lot of rice bowls...
DeleteActually wonder why someone doesn't propose an orbital bus system - put multiple units of a cargo truss in earth-lunar orbit, each swinging past the earth on a daily/every-other-day basis. As it flies by either the earth or moon, dock/un-dock the item/payload in question. I realize there would be issues of adjusting orbital parms due to mass changes and timings to make the link up. If something didn't make it on 'this' bus, there's another one coming in a day or two.
ReplyDelete