3 ms·

Related shameless plug: I've been tracking the progress of NASA's Artemis plans to return humans to the Moon on my one-of-a-kind, technical newsletter Moon Mond

Related shameless plug: I've been tracking the progress of NASA's Artemis plans to return humans to the Moon on my one-of-a-kind, technical newsletter Moon Monday https://blog.jatan.space/s/moon-monday https://blog.jatan.space/s/moon-monday It also covers global lunar exploration, science and commercial developments to show that our return to the Moon this is truly worldwide and how valuable each vertical is. Thoughts?

ncmncm 4y ago
They are going about the Artemis program in about the worst way imaginable. The lunar gateway notion is about as terrible as I have ever heard of.
- uncertainquark 4y ago
  The lunar gateway has largely independent goals to the crewed landing missions part of Artemis. IMO only the legally mandatory use of SLS+Orion part is a screw up for Artemis but most of the rest of the hardware and infrastructure will be on commercial models extended from successful ones at LEO, including the at least two spacecraft capable of landing humans on the surface.
- colineartheta 4y ago
  May you please elaborate on why you feel this way? I think statements like these would be very valuable to casual observers (i.e. 'me') of the Artemis program if you could provide some more detail that possibly counters the relatively successful Artemis PR.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The "lunar gateway" has no legitimate technical purpose, beyond that it is an orbit that SLS can get to, but Falcon can't. It is not an orbit that is favorable for moon landing: first you need to get from there to "low lunar orbit". And stopping there on the way to another planet would be hugely wasteful. Essentially, its only purpose is to ensure there is something SLS will be needed for.
    - WorldMaker 4y ago
      My understanding is that the "lunar gateway" is a politically expedient chance to get an ISS replacement on the budget ledgers. It has good technical reason to exist just as an ISS replacement (which must deorbit a lot sooner than we'd all like; some of its warranties are "coming due" as they say). > And stopping there on the way to another planet would be hugely wasteful. My understanding is that the scientific missions are less what they'd "stop there on the way" and more what they could eventually consider to "start there". At least some of the "lunar gateway" plans I heard had some complex "fabricator" goals, to assemble and build bigger modules in a "cheaper" in orbit than if they built it on the ground and shipped it all at once straight to the moon. I don't know how many of such plans remain on the books and I don't know enough of the science behind some of the proposals to know how viable they are (I do know that the growing body of inflatable modules research on ISS was pretty neat and supposedly related).
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        There is literally nothing that could done in high moon orbit that would not be overwhelmingly better done in low earth orbit. The only reason to even consider using the high moon orbit is to have something, anything for SLS to do. Every conceivable mission scenario is better staged from low earth orbit, but they wouldn't need SLS for that. And the whole point of SLS is so they can hand out $2B in plums to mil contractors for every mission, that they couldn't for a measly LEO launch.
        WorldMaker 4y ago
        I'm very willing to believe SLS itself is mostly a political boondog, but I'm also still willing to give Nasa the benefit of the doubt that they're trying their best to get useful science/engineering out of projects like the Lunar Gateway. My understanding is that the lunar orbit they want would give a lot of interesting science opportunities and technical opportunities (simpler communications versus the "tin can on a string that blacks out for worryingly large periods of time" of Apollo communications). If anything the Lunar Gateway sounds to me a lot like "classic" Nasa risk aversion and over-preparedness. It isn't strictly necessary, probably, but it sounds like it makes lunar projects overall safer (in communications access at the very least, but also reusing ascent stages, and providing more backup habitat space in cases of disaster readiness) and that's still good science to prepare for risk. (They don't want a second Apollo 13, and who can blame them for that?) > The only reason to even consider using the high moon orbit is to have something, anything for SLS to do. It seems like that is already disproven. The first few missions to setup Lunar Gateway modules have already been scheduled on SpaceX Falcon Heavy launches (in 2024) so clearly even Nasa understands they may have to rely on SpaceX even for access to Lunar Gateway orbits because the SLS has already missed deadlines. The "traditional" flipside to political boondoggle politics is "standard" commercial bids and contracts, and Nasa is far too pragmatic to rest important pieces of a scientific mission waiting for the SLS as the "only option".
- jabl 4y ago
  It's producing $$$ for the 'old-school' space companies, which seems to be the whole idea. The more elaborate they can make it and the longer they can drag it out and suck up taxpayer money the better.

ncmncm 4y ago

They are going about the Artemis program in about the worst way imaginable. The lunar gateway notion is about as terrible as I have ever heard of.

uncertainquark 4y ago
The lunar gateway has largely independent goals to the crewed landing missions part of Artemis. IMO only the legally mandatory use of SLS+Orion part is a screw up for Artemis but most of the rest of the hardware and infrastructure will be on commercial models extended from successful ones at LEO, including the at least two spacecraft capable of landing humans on the surface.
colineartheta 4y ago
May you please elaborate on why you feel this way? I think statements like these would be very valuable to casual observers (i.e. 'me') of the Artemis program if you could provide some more detail that possibly counters the relatively successful Artemis PR.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The "lunar gateway" has no legitimate technical purpose, beyond that it is an orbit that SLS can get to, but Falcon can't. It is not an orbit that is favorable for moon landing: first you need to get from there to "low lunar orbit". And stopping there on the way to another planet would be hugely wasteful. Essentially, its only purpose is to ensure there is something SLS will be needed for.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    My understanding is that the "lunar gateway" is a politically expedient chance to get an ISS replacement on the budget ledgers. It has good technical reason to exist just as an ISS replacement (which must deorbit a lot sooner than we'd all like; some of its warranties are "coming due" as they say). > And stopping there on the way to another planet would be hugely wasteful. My understanding is that the scientific missions are less what they'd "stop there on the way" and more what they could eventually consider to "start there". At least some of the "lunar gateway" plans I heard had some complex "fabricator" goals, to assemble and build bigger modules in a "cheaper" in orbit than if they built it on the ground and shipped it all at once straight to the moon. I don't know how many of such plans remain on the books and I don't know enough of the science behind some of the proposals to know how viable they are (I do know that the growing body of inflatable modules research on ISS was pretty neat and supposedly related).
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There is literally nothing that could done in high moon orbit that would not be overwhelmingly better done in low earth orbit. The only reason to even consider using the high moon orbit is to have something, anything for SLS to do. Every conceivable mission scenario is better staged from low earth orbit, but they wouldn't need SLS for that. And the whole point of SLS is so they can hand out $2B in plums to mil contractors for every mission, that they couldn't for a measly LEO launch.
      - WorldMaker 4y ago
        I'm very willing to believe SLS itself is mostly a political boondog, but I'm also still willing to give Nasa the benefit of the doubt that they're trying their best to get useful science/engineering out of projects like the Lunar Gateway. My understanding is that the lunar orbit they want would give a lot of interesting science opportunities and technical opportunities (simpler communications versus the "tin can on a string that blacks out for worryingly large periods of time" of Apollo communications). If anything the Lunar Gateway sounds to me a lot like "classic" Nasa risk aversion and over-preparedness. It isn't strictly necessary, probably, but it sounds like it makes lunar projects overall safer (in communications access at the very least, but also reusing ascent stages, and providing more backup habitat space in cases of disaster readiness) and that's still good science to prepare for risk. (They don't want a second Apollo 13, and who can blame them for that?) > The only reason to even consider using the high moon orbit is to have something, anything for SLS to do. It seems like that is already disproven. The first few missions to setup Lunar Gateway modules have already been scheduled on SpaceX Falcon Heavy launches (in 2024) so clearly even Nasa understands they may have to rely on SpaceX even for access to Lunar Gateway orbits because the SLS has already missed deadlines. The "traditional" flipside to political boondoggle politics is "standard" commercial bids and contracts, and Nasa is far too pragmatic to rest important pieces of a scientific mission waiting for the SLS as the "only option".
jabl 4y ago
It's producing $$$ for the 'old-school' space companies, which seems to be the whole idea. The more elaborate they can make it and the longer they can drag it out and suck up taxpayer money the better.