NASA's Predecisional Notional Plan For The #Moon2024 Thing
Larger view
NASA’s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost, Ars Technica
“Last week, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a Moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency. A graphic, shown below, provides information about each of the major launches needed to construct a small Lunar Gateway, stage elements of a lunar lander there, fly crews to the Moon and back, and conduct refueling missions.”
This is getting a little surreal. Regardless of the total number of launches, the phasing and ramp up look dubious. That plan calls for four launches before 2024, and then four per year from 2024 onward (and six in 2028.) That’s a big, abrupt jump in the pace of activity. And those high flight rates are all in the out years, when the schedule would be hard to estimate and probably “aspirational” (as Mr. Musk would put it.)
The only thing that seems semi-realistic is the relatively slow ramp up in SLS/Orion launches. The problem is going to be developing all of the other hardware necessary for all of the commercial launches. The launches themselves ought not be a big deal in terms of schedule, IMHO.
Yea. The commercial launches could handle it, if they are, technically, commercial. Something like a Delta IV Heavy couldn’t ramp up like that (although the Vulcan should have replaced it by then…) But the payloads, as you note, are an issue. So is the fact that the pre-2024 launches don’t seem to be connected. They look like more-or-less independent missions. From 2024 onward, it looks like four launches (an SLS and three commercial ones) as part of one, single mission. That implies timing and coordination between the launches, and that’s actually not trivial. I don’t know. It just feels like a somewhat accelerated version of the old plan through 2023, then hitting a brick wall in 2024. I’m not getting a warm, comfortable feeling.
With that quantity of commercial launches, I wonder it commercial lifts more mass to orbit under this plan.
The article says that the 2024 + launches are the Block 1b which was supposed to be 105 tons so about 630 tons for the SLS (assuming a full use of the capacity) and about what 240 tons for the falcon 9’s ?
Pretty much, assuming the 3 launches for lunar lander uses Falcon Heavy, it can put 45t to TLI in total. SLS Block 1B can only put 36t or so to TLI.
If testing goes well then SpaceX may also have the uncrew satellite launcher version of the Starship to use to deliver elements to lunar orbit.
Generally speaking I like this plan, but they are hell bent on an SLS Block 1B.
However, it does move more commercial launches.
I look at the quantity of activities associated with the staging base in orbit around the moon and wonder what that is all about since the goal is delivering people and hardware on the moon, and construction and assembly on the moon. Devoting so much time, attention and resources to an orbiting base doesn’t seem to focus on the goal. Other than Orion capsules, what exactly needs to be staged in a distant lunar orbit? In fact if they really want to get on the job, you assemble a minimal outpost on the surface before testing manufacturing processes using in si tu materials.
NASA makes pretty charts while SpaceX and Blue Origin bend metal. I think that sums it up.
Such hatred…smh
No, just cynical after seeing one NASA viewgraph after another for decades. And spare me saying it’s Congress’ fault, their staffers don’t act in a vacuum, they work with their NASA counter parts. The problem is NASA has simply never got over the Apollo model of one massive “National” goal driving everything and just drifts when there isn’t one unlike NACA. The result is decades of charts like this one that are only fantasy.
Blue Origin and SpaceX by contrast are improving their capability one rocket, and rocket engine, at a time. Soon they will cross the cost point where private funding is sufficient and NASA will cease to be relevant to America’s future in space.
and who put the managers in place who hire the NASA personal? From the top down NASA is an animal of the congress. Bought and paid for with 50+ years of funding. You think personal at NASA doesn’t know how their bread gets buttered? They don’t know “the game” ? How many personal have been willing to fall on their sword at a congressional committee meeting? Go on record to the press?
Personal at NASA could blow a hole in the agency tomorrow if 5,000 of them walked off job AS OUTRAGED TAXPAYERS and went to press and complained about the way things are done.
Get a load of this from only 2 years ago
https://www.nasaspaceflight…
Including this blurb:
The first SLS mission, EM-1, according to the HEOMD 28 March 2017 presentation, shows an uncrewed EM-1 mission launching on an SLS Block 1 vehicle in 2018.
Certainly Gerst knew when that document came out that it was impossible to meet the 2018 launch.
Lots of the smaller companies that NASA picked to to lander studies/prototypes actually bend metal. All it takes is one look at who’s producing hardware versus PowerPoints to tell me all I need to know. One inspires confidence in a company’s ability to be agile and actually build, test, and fly things. The other impresses upper management with pretty pictures.
It seems to be missing unmanned test of the lunar lander before 2024, otherwise in 2024 they’d have to put humans on untested EUS then land them on the moon using untested lander, that doesn’t seem to be wise…
The don’t mention flights to low Earth orbit, and that’s the only place where they did unmanned tests of the Apollo lunar lander. Of course, they also did a couple of serious, manned tests of the lander, both in LEO and all the way to within 16 km of the lunar surface, before actually landing. And the first Shuttle flight had astronauts on it. Ok. That decision has been criticized. But as far as testing before putting people onboard, this plan isn’t _unprecedented_ stupidity.
Remember the ‘flight simulators’ showing some poor astronaut trying to make sense of a gizmo supported in all directions by bungee cords? Those guys worked so hard to see every contingency. And it worked!
They really did fly into the unknown.
In retrospect however they did not foresee every contingency, not Apollo 1, or Apollo 13, or Apollo Soyuz, or the lost shuttles. Probably they were lucky they did as well as they did. Most major launch vehicle contingencies are the result of unanticipated failure modes.
“Predecisional Notional Plan”
I’m not actually sure how to react when I read a phrase like this: on the one hand it’s belly-bustin’ gubermental malarkey, knowwhatImean?
Wait. I’m still laughing. This is weaseling, with a huge exponent!
On the other hand, it’s expected. Why? Because this Agency is a victim of unabated thuggery and humiliation. It is consistently second-guessed every single damn time any decision is offered. This linguistic fetal position – that’s what we have here, after all – is normal and expected.
Expected, too, is seeking a dark corner. A very dark corner.
Darkness isn’t available in the public realm, though. Decisions must be made. Ensconced in that imagined dark broom closet, an ever-wary Agency meekly authors a collection of words that might resemble an idea while at the same time offering the respite of ambiguity.
That’s what we get: just the right words, in just the right order. A phrase that can mean precisely anything. Which, of course, is perfect for every single flinching Agency: “No, that’s not what we meant at all!”
Shame on us. Our servants behave this way because they are afraid. Capable folks wanting to do a good job have become tremulous, fearing creatures.
We’ve got exactly the government we deserve.
Pretty much every government agency exists for one reason: to perpetuate the existence of that government agency.
Knee-jerk dismissal isn’t very useful.
To a certain extent, your observation is correct: every single agency that I’ve ever contacted [perhaps a dozen or so] is populated by True Believers. Isn’t this what we want?
Agencies are populated by folks who want to do a good job. Is this universally true? Hell no, it isn’t.
My applications are therefore aggressive. I expect and receive agency push back having nothing to do with perpetuation and everything to do with applying the rules in favor of the general population.
(My experience is over nearly 40 years and with perhaps 15 agencies, all in the realm of land use or environmental rules).
Unfortunately, True Believers who want to do a good job can be a problem. Sometimes the True Believers get too focused on their part of the puzzle and get in the way of prioritizing resources. They’re fighting to do whatever it takes to do the job they consider so important. Arguably, that’s why the Commercial Crew program has gotten so much resistance from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. They truly believe NASA should assure astronaut safety by sticking to proven processes and procedures. I’ve also seen a desire to do a good job cause trouble. Sometimes people who are proud of their work take offense at constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. It’s seen as a statement that their past work was flawed and that they haven’t been doing a good job.
Gosh lets all go live in caves…. safe from the big bad government snowplows.
Why would we need to live in caves?
I wouldn’t be too harsh about that wording, but we do get what we deserve. They have to slap “predecisional” on everything like this. If they don’t some idiot could invest a lot of money on the assumption it would happen, lose it when the plan changes (or goes away) and sue NASA. Actually, for all I know, some idiot has tried something like that at one point or another. “Notional” rather than “draft” is the sort of language I’d expect from NASA, but it’s accurate. Until it gets approved at the associate administrator level, I think it’s still a draft and not the official plan. Actually, I’d rather have the author’s name on it instead, as in “so-and-so from JSC’s plan,” but lots of people might be uncomfortable with that.
why it’s marked “predecisional” – from DoJ website:
“FOIA Exemption Five covers internal communications in the Executive Branch that are legally “privileged.” The most commonly encountered privilege under Exemption 5 is the “deliberative” privilege, which covers “predecisional” materials written as part of the decisionmaking process in federal agencies”
I think there are other reasons as well. I see “predecisional” slapped on all sorts of NASA presentations at open, public meetings. And meetings which then put all the presentations online. I have trouble seeing how that relates to establishing an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.
There are two thing about this chart I would like to point out.
1. If you erase that orange thing and paint a silver thing with windows on top of it it should improve the plain.;)
2. Isn’t Space X phasing out Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy when BFR and Star Ship come out.
Just a thought.
SpaceX is planning on building enough Falcon 9/Heavy first stages to keep flying as long as there are customers. With reuse, they can build a whole bunch, close the production line, and keep flying them for some time. How long depends on how many flights each Falcon 9 first stage can manage. Even if the claims about normal use are correct, some customers will have missions which require expending the stage, and some flights will not be recovered due to accidents (like the recent loss of a Falcon Heavy core.)
I have a bridge over the South Platte River that I’ll sell for billions and billions! Or a thousand miles of shoreline in the middle of Arizona. By the time NASA actually gets around to implementing any of this, SpaceX, Blue Origin, et al will be on the Moon’s manned base!
The biggest problem is that we have no clue where to land to access any resources. This is an unknown in both volume (quantity) and our ability to extract anything. In that light, every landed mission will be a one off just like Apollo and no infrastructure can be built up and every piece of metal left on the surface is wasted. What is needed is a thorough “prospecting” campaign, with probably 4-5 missions a year to 2024 in order to actually find a landing site that will support any semblance of ISRU. I don’t understand why they don’t understand that. The probability or likely result of the path demonstrated here is that we will land at several sites, find there is nothing there (i.e., drilling a dry hole) and will waste time and money before an appropriate location is found; and by that time all commitment and money will have wavered and the combined drain on resources due to conflicting events on Earth will end this program. This is called pragmatism; and we might only get one chance to get this right.
Oh, and then no one wants to talk about what humans will do on the ground once there. Will they all be geologists with a couple maintenance/IT folks and a doc? What other professions could possibly be needed there given, whatever, we are supposed to be doing there?
Don!
You are
harassingharshing my vibe, man! Like get on the boat because everyone is grooving the Moon!LOL. Sorry. But the truth often hurts as they say.
And my whole intent and purpose is to get large populations of humans off Earth in my career time and the way we keep proceeding, that will never happen. And that sucks the most.
Sadly large numbers isn’t going to happen IMHO but would you be satisfied with virtual robotic lunarnauts. Tele-operating their way across the maria. The only reason for a lunar base, as I see it, is as an emergency shelter in the case of a bad proton storm. Gateway doesn’t look like it has much in that regard. So landers. Lots of landers! That said I would robotically build the shelter first then deploy Gateway. But then IANARS
FYI “The Third Way”
Or where we should be going.
My response to Augustine!
https://brobof.wordpress.co…
Sigh
Moving on to your next point. Long term viability studies. “(White) Mice on the Moom [sic].” If they breed true then a honeymoon hotel become viable. Otherwise not so much.
Mars and .3g probably sufficient But the peroxides: aplastic anaemia etc etc.
Alternate plan which is quicker and much cheaper: Wait until two of Space X’s Starships are ready. (Two are now being built and Musk says there is a 60% chance one will fly by the end of 2020.) One could refuel another in earth orbit. Then the Starship fully fueled could land on the moon and return without refueling. Musk has already said this is doable. Sure there would be delays and setbacks, but it would be a hell of a lot faster, a hell of a lot cheaper, and a hell of a lot more of a sure thing than the SLS/moon orbiter monstrosity will ever be.
Unfortunately the two vehicles being built are prototypes and don’t appear to be intended for human flight. SpaceX was not approved for DOD study funding for the Starship, maybe it is too advanced to meet DOD needs.
Don’t get me started on why these don’t show EMUs. We are not going to go out on regolith with orange suits (MACES). We aren’t going to dust off (pun-intended) the Apollo EMUs to use those either.
Disclaimer: I work on xEMU, so we’re getting there, just throw us more money and a mandate for Lunar EMU.
How would it take to design and manufacture suits?
Could you copy edit that. “How would it take to design…” doesn’t make sense to me. How _long_ would it take. Or how _much_ would it _cost_. Those are sensible questions. But I think you left out a critical word or two.
Sorry, yes, should read “how long”.
Of course, cost should be a question too.
I’m not sure about the numbers, but there was a Office of the Inspector General report on the subject last year. From my reading of it, I think the real problem is money and focus. They have identified and are working on most of the things I’d call important issues. The problem is that the work is going in a bunch of different directions. There isn’t any mandate to provide hardware by a specified date, for a particular application.
If someone told them “Moon. Support eight, eight-hour EVAs on the surface over the course of a 10-day mission, assume major maintenance after being returned to Earth, and keep EVA supplies below X kg per EVA.” I suspect they could start work as soon as someone signed the check, and have hardware ready in five years. No one’s provided that direction (as of last year’s OIG report) and no one’s written the check.
I agree, although I’d like to hear more about the plans for the next generation EMUs. Especially when it comes to a sustainable presence, the current ones have some real problems. LiOH for carbon dioxide scrubbing is a one use thing. Sublimating water for cooling consumes a whole lot of water. And the current suits aren’t what I’d call field maintainable. That sort of thing puts serious, logistical limits on the number of EVAs the astronauts would be able to do.
But as a trivial note, orange suits aren’t a bad idea. I know you didn’t mean the color; you were just using it as shorthand for the in vehicle pressure suits (which are traditionally orange.) But the white Apollo suits, on a largely grey background, aren’t ideal for astronauts who may need to easily look around and see where each other are. I know that could cause some thermal complications. However easy visibility would address some potential, operational issues.
Current development is learning from both Apollo EMU and Shuttle/Station EMU.
No Metox or Li-OH. Using amine to capture CO2 (exposure to vacuum releases it). Still using evaporative cooling (not sublimation, like current EMU). Most of PLSS is an ORU.
NASA has a moderately decent space suit (EMU) site here: http://www.nasa.gov/suitup
The Workshop charts from last year are a good starting place for details on the new EMU.
https://nvite.jsc.nasa.gov/…
Thanks for the references, and knowing you’ve got an alternative to metox and LiOH is good to know. Thermal control is something I can’t see a good solution to. Back around 2000, some of us in the Mars Underground came up with something to minimize water use. But it only works on Mars, where the temperature range is smaller. Those ideas won’t work for the much wider range of temperatures in space or on the Moon.
Could have *some* orange, to make it more visible, and not compromise thermal properties too much.
That might work. But when I combine it with some other ideas I’ve seen, I get a really scary image. There are some CubeSat designs that get the thermal properties they want by covering a surface with small squares with different albedos or IR emissivities. Even if there isn’t one surface material which does what you want, you can mix and match so the average of all those small squares is what you want. Now applying that to spacesuits, accounting for visible colors as well as thermal requirements. And I get… plaids.
Space pants:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/f…
I was thinking about effort to build the Apollo suits by first teaming ILC with Hamilton Standard leading to lots of drama, tensions, etc. I read the book “Space Gear” and it seems the whole spacesuit development could have easily ended without delivery of working suit by 1969. And a recent documentary of ILC manager recalling watching Neil and Buzz on the moon and was thinking, “hurry up! get back inside!” since he was familiar with all the things that could go wrong with the suit.
For your work, keep a good diary for history and documentaries.
Only three miracles required.
If NASA could get into space using nothing but PowerPoint…we would be terraforming Proxima Centauri b by now.
The graphic puts more emphasis on robotic exploration for science objectives and commercial launch vehicles than was the case in the past, both changes would reduce cost. As far as I can remember the US has never landed a robotic rover on the Moon.
The United States has never landed a robotic rover on the Moon. There have been two Soviet ones in the 1970s and two Chinese ones in the 2010s (one still operating.) The US lunar program really was focused on Apollo, and once Apollo ended, we sort of lost interest in the Moon and didn’t go back for 22 years. And then, so far, only with robotic orbiters.
Maybe that should be discussed before we actually land.