NASA's Artemis Moon missions take a rain check until 2025 and beyond
- Reference: 1704885197
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/01/10/nasa_artemis_delays/
- Source link:
NASA announced on Tuesday it had pushed back the dates for the first crewed test flight of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft, Artemis II, and the crewed South Pole lunar landing Artemis III – the one where astronauts will actually land on the Moon – citing safety concerns.
"Safety is our top priority, and to give Artemis teams more time to work through the challenges with first-time developments, operations, and integration, we're going to give more time on Artemis II and III," [1]explained [VIDEO] NASA boss Bill Nelson.
[2]
"As we prepare to send our friends and colleagues on this mission, we're committed to launching as safely as possible and we will launch when we're ready," added Associate Administrator Jim Free.
[3]
[4]
A number of systems and technologies were named as requiring more development or refinement.
For Artemis II, Deputy Associate Administrator of the Moon to Mars Program Amit Kshatriya identified some of those as the new facilities at Kennedy Space Center that will enable rapid turnaround for propellant loading, crew ingress and egress, a new launch vehicle abort system, and a new life support system.
[5]
Furthermore, Artemis I revealed some unexpected behavior from the heat shield. Although the specification adequately protected Orion, it underwent unexpected charring. Some charring was expected, but charring that was "liberated" or flaked from the spacecraft was not anticipated. An investigation into the heat shield is [6]expected to conclude by spring.
"We understand perfectly the lessons of our history and even though we believe we understand and that our hardware is performing according to requirements, we have to be absolutely certain that we understand the integrated performance of that system when there are excursions from that performance," reasoned Kshatriya.
While the heat shield issue was discovered during a previous mission, component testing has also revealed challenges.
[7]
Acceptance of Artemis III life support system components revealed a failure in some motor valve circuitry that drives valves on the spacecraft. The components passed acceptance for Artemis II but not III so NASA stopped to have a more detailed look and found a design flaw that could result in a problem with the CO 2 scrubbing system.
There is also concern over batteries used in Orion's abort system during its separation from the SLS. While Orion is proven to withstand the harsh environment of space, NASA is not yet convinced the batteries can do the same.
Even beyond components and heat shields, there's a lot that needs to be done.
"We must be realistic," Free said of Artemis III. "We're looking at our Starship progress, and need for propellant transfer, the need for numerous landings. We're looking at our spacesuits that we're acquiring in a different manner than we've done before, and developing the new spacesuits as well. It's an incredibly large challenge and a really big deal."
[8]India to launch with SpaceX's Falcon 9 for the first time
[9]America's first private lunar lander suffers 'critical' fuel leak en route to Moon
[10]NASA science bound for Moon after successful Vulcan Centaur launch
[11]Swarms of laser-flown bots visiting a planet light years away – and more NASA-funded projects revealed
That propellant transfer will present some challenges. The landing craft for Artemis III is slated to be a larger version of the Starship, supplied by SpaceX, and will require multiple refuelings to make it to the Moon.
SpaceX's Jessica Jensen was on the call to answer how many refueling flights it would take to get from low Earth orbit to the lunar surface.
"I will say it will roughly be ten-ish, that would be my rough guess right now, but it could be lower depending on how well the first flight tests go – or it could be a little bit higher," approximated Jensen.
As to whether the projected dates would be pushed back again, Free answered that there were 11 industry partners with signed contracts to meet the dates, with the commitment based on technical details.
Meanwhile, Kshatriya also stressed flexibility. "This is a long-term exploration campaign and what that means is that we're working on all these missions essentially simultaneously, we need flexibility in our manifest, we need resilience in our manifest and that is the commitment we have from all of our NASA programs and all of our industry partners."
NASA was quick to play up its partners – both international agencies and industry. It's a sign of the times as the agency continues to rely on companies like SpaceX.
"This is a team effort an international effort that involves our government, our international partners, our industrial partners, collaborating to achieve new milestones in human lunar exploration," said Free.
Earlier this week, NASA [12]announced its latest international partnership with the United Arab Emirates' Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre.
"NASA and the Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre (MBRSC) have entered into an agreement for MBRSC to provide the Crew and Science Airlock module for the Gateway Space Station. As part of the agreement, NASA will fly a United Arab Emirates astronaut to Gateway on a future Artemis mission," said a NASA news release. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJVa0z5kZAk
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZZ7NO0-sXZ8HhC9tuKBqzAAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZZ7NO0-sXZ8HhC9tuKBqzAAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZZ7NO0-sXZ8HhC9tuKBqzAAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZZ7NO0-sXZ8HhC9tuKBqzAAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-shares-progress-toward-early-artemis-moon-missions-with-crew/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZZ7NO0-sXZ8HhC9tuKBqzAAAAYU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/09/india_to_launch_with_spacexs/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/08/astrobotic_lunar_lander_failure/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/08/vulcan_centaur_launch/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/06/nasa_futuristic_technologies/
[12] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-united-arab-emirates-announce-artemis-lunar-gateway-airlock/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: No need to rush
Agreed - although for unmanned tests etc, I'm quite happy for ready to be a "we've got some hardware, let's see what breaks"
Re: No need to rush
Very concerned by the line "our hardware is performing according to requirements". No - you did not expect the charred heat shield to flake. It has now flaked. Must I recall (again) the minority report of a certain R Feynman?
Let SpaceX do it!
As Reuters documented pretty well, at SpaceX "Safety is job none."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/
They don't have a clue
Or are not talking to each other.
"I will say it will roughly be ten-ish, that would be my rough guess right now, but it could be lower depending on how well the first flight tests go – or it could be a little bit higher," approximated Jensen.
This is information that had to be pushed for an answer by a YouTuber giving a talk to the Artemis engineers. Destin of Smarter Every Day was asked to talk to them. One of the points he raised is that they didn't know how many refueling trips it would take. Joking that initially it was 4 trips, then 8, then potentially 12 or more. This was then 1 year out from launch! And their own NASA engineers didn't know.
Only after this did they actually look at how many it will take and the answer is a minimum of 12 all going perfectly, possibly 15 with losses... 12 is more than 11 you might note, and that the spokes person for this from.SpaceX does not know that calculation took place is worrying.
They are either willfully unaware, or they do not talk to each other. Which is not a good look on top of all.of this.
This is also for a single trip, 12 to 15 launches, for one trip. Extrapolated out to Artemis IV that's 36 launches minimum, more likely 45 or more and that's assuming zero are lost completely,
Video for those interested. Its an hour long. Its light hearted mostly but it really put it into view how not ready we are for this.
https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU?si=xGVfkDB0Cpo1zmBl
Re: They don't have a clue
In a previous comment section for the last Artemis update, I was downvoted for suggesting that this whole programme is a mess, and SpaceX just going along with it - hang the consequences.
It seems that for some, SpaceX can do no wrong...
Re: They don't have a clue
"It seems that for some, SpaceX can do no wrong..."
They can - as their HR fiascos clearly show.
When it comes to rocket engineering, they do seem to produce results.
Even when they get something wrong ("We think the fondag will survive one launch") they work to repair the damage and improve systems far faster than most people would guess.
Yes, I know they nearly went under with the F1, but the F9 has given them a ridiculous share of the market (80% of mass to orbit in 2023, after ~50% in 2022Q4), and they are applying many of the same lessons to SS/SH.
They really don't look all that far away from orbit... reentry is clearly an unknown at this point, but that's not technically required for Artemis - though they'll clearly be wanting to emulate their F9 success.
Re: They don't have a clue
It's a significant number of launches, but it's also not unreasonable.
The whole design ethos of the SS/SH stack has been rapid reuse. Heck they want to literally land the booster on the launch pad so it's ready to go* again a few minutes after launch.
Have a look at the F9 recovery success - the last time they failed to land a booster was back in February 2021 (flight 108), and other than two flights with no attempt made we're past flight 288 with a 100% record, that's 180 F9 flight as well as a handful of FH flights with successful landings of the side boosters (one flight had no attempt, and none of them tried the land the core).
I'm sure SS/SH will take a few losses early on, but I wouldn't bet on many failures after they start launching regularly.
* And by 'go' I mean: be restacked and then refuelled, not ready to launch in a few minutes.
Re: They don't have a clue
Yeah that's true for space X rockets.
From the way the video described it, its not using SpaceX for refueling, they are using the Space Launch System. All non reusable.
I could be wrong but that's what was talked about.
Re: They don't have a clue
If you look at the graphic at 29:57 in Destin's video it's pretty clear that it's starship launches all the way down.
I'm pretty sure that the only refueling is for the starship lander, which will all be starship tankers.
Orion and SLS are one shot disposable devices.
Re: They don't have a clue
Ah okay. That's not as bad.
Still worryingly interesting that the math has been done though and the people with the rockets in question seem still not to be aware of the results. Unless its that they know but can't say the total number for fear of public ridicule.
Re: They don't have a clue
I would imagine that part of the uncertainty is down to the Raptor engines still being development articles - they are still pushing the chamber pressures higher, which increases the overall efficiency (and impacts payload to orbit). Similarly, there is a lot of effort going into weight reduction that will affect payload capability.
Re: They don't have a clue
That all makes sense, but it seemed, or at least seemed, to be on a pretty short time frame to figure all this out and have it ready.
While they say safety is the cause of the delay, I have my own feelings it may be that part and or the engineering and calculations behind them are just not ready for the full thing yet.
Its good they are taking the time to.do.it right, but their talking like its a sure thing and they have it worked out. I always get worried when engineers run on what amounts to "trust me bro" that comes undone when basic questions are asked, like how?
Re: You don't have a clue
SpaceX's original proposal included up to twelve retanking flights and NASA accepted it a reasonable - with the bonus that it is a fixed price contract and any extra flights would be at SpaceX's expense. (SpaceX's proposal was by far the most detailed of the three.) The performance of next year's Starship is unknown because it keeps on improving. Raptor 1 engines were 1.81MN of thrust. Raptor 2's were 2.53MN. Raptor 3's are 2.64MN. Hot staging adds about 10% extra payload.
Someone at NASA came up with 19 retanking flights. Presumably they used old Starship performance data. The payload user guide gave conservative figures and has not been updated. Likewise boil-off figures are currently unknown so a large number can be selected without risk that anyone can prove otherwise. The 19 figure came out at about the same time as it became clear to some of the public that reusing components from the Artemis I Orion on Artemis II would push Artemis I delays onto Artemis II beyond even the delays from SLS. 19 retanking flights was a good distraction.
The parts of NASA concerned with HLS do not give a damn how many flights are required. It is not their problem. Announcing the final number of required flights now would be just as daft as promising that the long pole for Artemis III will not be SLS/Orion. It could be Starship, the space suits, SLS/Orion or something else. One of the interesting figures is that Starship is required to be able to hang around near the Moon for up to 100 days to accommodate delays to the SLS/Orion launch.
You have convinced me that Destin of Smarter Every Day has not put much effort into understanding which issues matter. SpaceX has strong commercial incentives to making Starship extremely performant that dwarf their share of Artemis. There are plenty of issues that will delay Artemis III. I think the biggest is that the FAA is not adequately staffed and resourced to keep up with licensing launches from all the new space companies. They were OK with one company that made changes when there was no other choice. They have stepped up considerably but cannot deal with multiple companies making many changes on each launch.
Re: You don't have a clue
The number of refuels required depends on the efficiency of the Raptor engines, not how much thrust they produce. I'm sure the efficiency has been increasing, but probably not linearly in-line with the thrust produced. And it doesn't just depend on the engines. If the design of Starship has to change to add (eg) one kilo of extra self-destruct equipment, that's a kilo of fuel they won't be able to carry (on every single trip). Currently the design of Starship is very much in flux, let alone the currently non-existent lunar variant.
It's just too early to say how many refuelling trips will be necessary right now.
Re: You don't have a clue
I am glad we agree that It is too early to say how many refuelling trips will be necessary.
Let's test your efficiency claim by replacing the raptors on the booster with Hall thrusters. That can easily improve efficiency (effective exhaust velocity) by a factor of ten - at the expense of trashing the thrust to weight. Such a rocket would never lift the weight of its engines off the pad let alone the propellant and tanks.
My thrust figure is a poor choice for the middle of the mission where effective exhaust velocity has more value. The figure we want is $/kg to the required orbit. That is not something I could find with a quick wikipedia search and even if I could it would be based on so many controversial assumptions that it would be useless.
The important bit is all the numbers are changing while payload to orbit is improving.
No need to rush
I approve the stance of "it'll be ready when it's ready".
We've had enough demonstrations of what happens when manglement doesn't listen to engineering. Space is hard enough as is, doing it right is the only way to go forward.