I assume you're probably familiar with this old saying, BOHICA. If not, it's an acronym for Bend Over, Here It Comes Again. You're about to get something shoved up your ass.
In this case, it's the Space Launch System, or SLS, the extremely overpriced
rocket system that is the launch vehicle for NASA's Artemis program to return
to the moon. I've basically been a one note song on getting rid of SLS since I
first started studying it. A
recent example here
has leapt up my list of most read posts in the last year.
They're talking about launches that cost $4.1 billion each, and a system that couldn't launch more than (maybe) twice a year even if we could afford it. It turns out that practically every date associated with Artemis and returning to the moon slides farther into the future every time they update the schedules, and in step with that, every cost estimate goes up every time the question gets asked.
Why talk about this again? Where is this going? Eric Berger, the senior space correspondent at Ars Technica has put up a post today about rescuing the Artemis program, "The politically incorrect guide to saving NASA’s floundering Artemis Program." In it, he modifies SLS somewhat, but mostly attacks the needless complication of the moon landing program. In doing so, he concedes we're stuck with the SLS. His main target is getting rid of the needless complication of the Lunar Gateway (some background info) but his overall plan is:
- Cancel the Lunar Gateway
- Cancel the Block 1B upgrade of the SLS rocket
- Designate Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.
The Block 1B SLS is the largest version, which is dependent on getting the Exploration Upper Stage running. My first link (2nd paragraph) concentrates on what a hideous mess the EUS has been and continues to be. Eric envisions using the Centaur upper stage in place of the EUS.
Essentially, Block 1B of the rocket exists solely to build out the Gateway. There is no need for this new SLS stage for human landing missions. Nor is it needed to deliver material to the Moon. NASA’s two largest lunar landers under contract, SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin's Blue Moon, plan to use their own large rockets. Far from needing the expendable SLS rocket, NASA will have two reusable means to deliver large cargo to the Moon.
By canceling Block 1B, NASA would not only save billions of dollars in yet-to-be-expended development costs but also significantly reduce the per-launch cost of the SLS rocket. That’s because the cost of a single Exploration Upper Stage is likely to be around $1 billion, which is ludicrous for just a rocket’s second stage.
Time for some tough truths. We're currently in 1960s-style "moon race" and
we're headed for a loss. Everything has been sliding farther out; nothing is
ahead of schedule.
-
The first crewed flight on the Orion spacecraft, a vehicle that has been in
development for two decades, remains in doubt due to concerns with the heat
shield.
- The first lunar landing mission has no reliable date. Officially, NASA plans to send this Artemis III mission to the Moon in September 2026. Unofficially? Get real. Not only must Orion’s heat shield issue be resolved, but it's unlikely that both a lunar lander (SpaceX’s Starship vehicle) and spacesuits (built by Axiom Space) will be ready by this time. The year 2028 is probably a realistic no-earlier-than date.
- The space agency’s plans after Artemis III are even more complex. The Artemis IV mission will nominally involve the debut of a larger version of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a new launch tower, and a stopover at a new space station near the Moon, the Lunar Gateway.
- There is increasing evidence that China is pouring resources into a credible lunar program to land two astronauts on the Moon by 2030, seeking a geopolitical “win” by beating America in its return to the Moon.
The way to get back to the moon isn't with the sort of needless complication
shown in this GAO illustration. It's more like we did it in the 1960s:
concentrate on getting there and landing, not all this other stuff.
The big problem here is that there are no immediately ready replacements
for SLS, the Orion capsule or Starship HLS (Human Landing System). There's no
existing way to put an Orion capsule on anything besides the SLS. Could SpaceX
design an improved Crew Dragon with a heat shield designed for the higher
temperatures of lunar re-entry? Has anyone asked?
Closing words to Eric (and go RTWT)
Proponents of the Lunar Gateway argue that it adds sustainability to the Artemis Program by providing a way station. The problem is that this way station, in an orbit far from the lunar surface, really isn’t on the way to anywhere.
To get somewhere, Artemis must avoid going nowhere.
The simple answer, of course, is to launch the HLS from SpaceX with it crewed, have it refuel, go to the Moon, land, take off, return to Earth orbit, meet a Dragon or a landable Starship, transfer crew and cargo back and forth, refuel, head back to the Moon, wash, rinse, repeat.
ReplyDeleteNo Lunar Gateway. No Dragon XL. No need for anything else.
Okay, maybe a Falcon Heavy mission to launch a constellation of satellites for the Moon that are both moon-surveillance and communications-relay-repeaters.
Maybe a special Starship that serves as a manned lunar orbit waystation/emergency shelter/Moon traffic monitoring station. Make sure it has all the various airlocks in use by everyone including whatever the PRC uses, that way everyone has a safe place to stop by and hang for a while.
Be funny to make a space station of one-way Starship hulls (dismount the engine section and return to Earth orbit or keep for use in engine-ing made on Moon ships...)
I could go on, but the SLS has peeved me off totally.
I've been that way about SLS for a few years. The problem is that we're stuck with it.
DeleteThe cruelty of living in a gravity well like ours is a stumbling block. Since the best it seems that can be done is to put 2% of your liftoff weight into cargo, it will take a lot of traffic to move that much fuel into orbit. This affects things like the Orion heat shield issue. Orion can't do it, but a way to make that problem simpler is to burn fuel to slow down the returning capsule from the moon (or wherever). Starship might be able to do that.
If the decision maker's metric of success is money siphoned, regardless of achievement, and no accountability and punishment for failure whether by incompetence and/or malice, then the status quo will remain.
ReplyDelete(a)greed! I'd like to know whose pockets are getting stuffed with greenery.
DeleteYou can bet that it ain't the workers getting the job done!
DeleteIt's time for NASA space exploration to end. The Space Force and private enterprise can handle it now.
ReplyDeleteIt will have to happen soon anyway. Eventually they'll *have* to deal with .gov debt. Moving NASA assets around is best done when the money is flowing, not in the middle of a financial meltdown. If the next President wants budget reform, it's a tiny first step.
I don't think China will want to recreate our triumph of 60 years ago. I think they'll try either planting a commercial facility on the moon all at once, or try directly for Mars for a real win over the U.S.
Although...I can't stop wondering whether the hundreds of Chinese satellites and the thousands to come have heat-shielded nukes and enough fuel to de-orbit. How much warning would we have?
The problem with NASA stepping aside in manned flight is that does nothing to any other agency that is using lawfare and regulations to slow or stop SpaceX.
DeleteLike the FAA. And the EPA. And the Labor Relations Board, which still is trying to sue SpaceX for not hiring illegals and asylum seekers, which is a clear violation of ITAR. Funny, Boeing and LockMart and every one else isn't getting the same treatment and isn't hiring illegals and asylum seekers.
Even without launch dates, this seems ... ambitious. It also sounds like Rube Goldberg in space, but that's beside the point.
ReplyDeleteThis all reminds of, The Pentagon Wars, a satirical look at the development of the Bradley.
I truly wonder if someone got the idea of using a moonshot to also demonstrate how to get to Mars or beyond.
My question is while SpaceX is involved with this, how it affects Elon's desire for a 2026 launch for Mars?
My WAG is that the only effect we'll see is that his NASA ("paying customer") tasks get the most attention. He'll still try for those launches to Mars, but the contracted stuff for NASA like HLS and testing refueling on orbit will attract the emphasis. Which means they might push those tests out.
DeleteThere also appears to be an inter-agency fight brewing between the FAA and NASA. Not sure how much it involves, but some group seems adamant about shutting down Starbase Boca Chica, and even reducing operations at the CCAFS/KSC. Funny I don't read anything about them trying to shut down Blue Origin or ULA.
Government keeps telling you "no", only because you keep accepting it when they do. As we saw with the fall of the Berlin wall, political improvement comes from raised expectations.
ReplyDeleteGuns have a funny way of enforcing government "no".
ReplyDeleteAnd government courts have a funny way of lawfare to those that rock the boat.
Easy to keyboard about ignoring the government, not as easy doing it.
Excellent analysis.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later Starship will become SLS II.
ReplyDelete