Author
|
Topic: [Discuss] Politics of Artemis moon missions
|
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2020 01:07 PM
The mission schedule under the FY2021 NASA budget proposal calls for: - Artemis I uncrewed orbital test flight in 2021
- Artemis II crewed orbital test flight in 2022
- Artemis III crewed landing in 2024
Followed one crewed mission to the surface of the moon each year through 2030 (fixed and mobile lunar habitats would be deployed in 2028). The Gateway will be deployed in lunar orbit in 2023.![](http://www.collectspace.com/review/nasa_artemis_mission_schedule_021020a.jpg) |
Headshot Member Posts: 1221 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-11-2020 10:10 AM
Wasn't yesterday the day NASA/Bridenstine promised to provide a detailed budget breakdown of the Artemis Program total cost (from now until its first lunar landing) to Congress? Does any cSer know if that goal was met? If so, when will it be released to the public? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-11-2020 11:31 AM
The detailed plan and the budget are separate reports. The budget request called for $35 billion to be spent through 2024 to land Artemis III on the moon.The detailed plan will be released in about six weeks, when Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Doug Loverro testifies before Congress. |
Headshot Member Posts: 1221 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-11-2020 12:42 PM
Thanks Robert. I knew that the 2021 budget and Artemis cost breakdown were two different animals. Somehow I had gotten the impression that both were to be submitted on Feb. 10. So we must wait six weeks for the detailed Artemis cost breakdown. Can't wait to look it over. |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3604 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-15-2020 05:05 PM
Personally, I can't see a landing on the third flight (Artemis 3). There must be a good argument for doing an Apollo 10-type dress rehearsal mission. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that puts the first Artemis landing back to 2025 or 2026.That leads on to my question: would Christina Koch be available for selection? She would be roughly the age Alan Shepard was when he landed on the Moon. Has she given any indication of her medium-term intentions? Does her record-breaking flight make her more likely (experience) or less likely (long-term physical/optical/radiation effects) to be selected for a lunar landing mission? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-15-2020 05:33 PM
It is probably too early to begin speculating about crew assignments.Koch was asked about flying to the moon, to which she said: Of course, me or anyone in our office would be honored beyond measure to be a part of that mission and again carry people's dreams even farther into space exploration to contribute to future missions to go even deeper. So I like to say that I am just excited that I'll probably know the first woman and the next man to walk on the surface of the moon, but any of us would be ready and honored to accept that mission if it were offered to us. |
Delta7 Member Posts: 1733 From: Bluffton IN USA Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 02-16-2020 08:43 AM
quote: Originally posted by Blackarrow: She would be roughly the age Alan Shepard...
Alan Shepard at 47 would be considered a youngster in today's Astronaut Office, with the prospect of at least another decade of eligibility for flight assignment. |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3604 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-16-2020 11:49 AM
...any of us would be ready and honored to accept that mission if it were offered to us. This is typical "corporate-speak," designed to sound gushing and excited but with the specific purpose of not answering the question. I assume someone anticipated the question and told Ms Koch: "if you get asked this question, we suggest you give this answer." Yes, it probably is a bit premature to be talking about crew names, but my question actually sought to establish (a) whether she wishes to retire and does not plan any future missions; and (b) whether anything about a 328-day mission might either make her a great choice for a Moon landing crew; or (on medical grounds) a poor choice. The only conclusion we can draw from her answer is: "I am not ruling myself out at this time." By the way, I agree with Delta7 that 47 is certainly not "too old" these days for a Moon landing astronaut (unless that astronaut has possibly spent so long in space already that there are physiological contra-indications such as radiation exposure or eyesight deterioration). |
Delta7 Member Posts: 1733 From: Bluffton IN USA Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 02-18-2020 07:37 AM
When the announcement was made that NASA was going to land the first woman on the moon, I recall they said she will be someone who had served aboard the ISS. So Koch has that box checked off. Personally, I think Koch, Anne McClain and Nicole Mann are the leading candidates. |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3604 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-18-2020 04:28 PM
I don't disagree, but I still wonder — and I see no-one has tackled this — whether a long-duration orbital mission might actually create medical barriers to a future, physically arduous, mission. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-18-2020 04:51 PM
A single mission, even one nearly a year in length, shouldn't be an issue — at least not due to radiation exposure. Like Koch, Mike Fincke currently has spent 381 days in space and he will spend another five to six months on the space station when Boeing's Starliner crew flight test launches. The first Artemis flights are expected to be two to four weeks in duration (including transit time). |
oly Member Posts: 1450 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 02-18-2020 10:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by Blackarrow: I still wonder — and I see no-one has tackled this — whether a long-duration orbital mission might actually create medical barriers to a future, physically arduous, mission.
Orbital missions of long duration have been flown on the ISS for many years now and some interesting medical discoveries have resulted so far.The unknown issue is with missions beyond orbital distances where the crew and spacecraft go beyond the protection of Earth's Magnetosphere. There are also questions about possible issues working within the Earth's Magnetotail whilst in lunar orbit or on the lunar surface. There have been several hypotheses or theories that the magnetotail could provide protection, or, that it could present hazards or problems that may occur on longer duration missions. |
Delta7 Member Posts: 1733 From: Bluffton IN USA Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 04-30-2020 01:45 PM
From NASA's release: NASA announced that three U.S. companies will develop the human landers that will land astronauts on the Moon beginning in 2024 as part of the Artemis program. I'm cautiously optimistic, however I worry that if Trump is not reelected that Artemis will be either dead-in-the-water or die on the vine from underfunding and neglect. Am I wrong? |
perineau Member Posts: 368 From: FRANCE Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 04-30-2020 02:17 PM
I don't think the question is whether or not Trump is re-elected,but rather what will happen now with the COVID-19 virus and the across-the-board cuts in the federal budget that will follow. |
328KF Member Posts: 1388 From: Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-30-2020 05:28 PM
Make no mistake. If Trump isn’t re-elected, Artemis is canceled. Budget considerations in this current crisis is a different argument, but Bridenstine has shown himself to be quite adept at negotiating the pitfalls of Washington’s establishment. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-30-2020 06:01 PM
Artemis has bi-partisan support in Congress. The architecture began under both Republican and Democratic administrations and now that all of the major contracts have been awarded, it will be difficult for any government to back out (both politically and legally).The 2024 deadline could slip back to 2028 (depending on how far along NASA is by the time Biden, presumptively, has time to look at NASA) and Jim Bridenstine might even be asked to stay on as administrator (as he has avoided being overtly political since taking the office). To say anything is definite at this point is without evidence, in my opinion. |
jimsz Member Posts: 644 From: Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 04-30-2020 09:42 PM
Whether the President is reelected or not I don't think is the issue. Can anyone name one medium/long term plan/goal for flight that NASA has met in the last 30 years? I want to see men on the moon again but I honesty do not think NASA will do so in the next 10 to 15 years.The fact that they are pushing for a female instead of simply setting a rotation procedure and letting it fall where it may is worrisome. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-30-2020 10:06 PM
They aren't pushing for a female; they are including a woman and it would be more of a forced action to keep a woman off the first mission than it would be to include one (or more). Medium to long term goals achieved within the last 30 years: A mission to Pluto. Landing a rover on Mars. Completing the space station. Operating a space telescope. Orbiting an asteroid. |
Headshot Member Posts: 1221 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-01-2020 10:58 AM
Putting a spacecraft into orbit around Jupiter (Juno), putting another spacecraft into orbit around Saturn (Cassini), impacting a comet (Deep Impact). |
jimsz Member Posts: 644 From: Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 05-01-2020 11:38 AM
Except for the ISS which is of questionable use — there are no manned accomplishments. NASA in my view is bogged down being a government bureaucracy that spends money, not much else. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-01-2020 11:49 AM
For some, the only spaceflight activities that interest them are "boots on the ground" firsts. And that's fine, but that opinion does not reflect the reality of the work needed to make humanity a spacefaring civilization.It was only aboard the space station that we have learned that long duration spaceflight poses a significant issue for the eyes (primarily among men, for reasons still unknown). There are also early indications of issues with blood flow and brain activity. Those are not discoveries you want to make when you are on Mars, not only millions of miles away from Earth, but 45 minutes out of direct communication with anyone but your crew. Beyond physiological concerns, the space station has also provided our first experience of operating contained life support systems for extended amounts of time, an experience crucial before any spacecraft can leave for any long duration missions beyond low Earth orbit. As for robotic exploration, every one of those missions involved hundreds of humans, from their planning and assembly to launch and operation in space. They may not interest all, but they are no less an achievement than putting humans on the surface of another celestial body. |
Kite Member Posts: 1082 From: Northampton UK Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 05-01-2020 05:18 PM
Very well said Robert. True on every point. |
ManInSpace Member Posts: 303 From: Brooklin, Ontario Canada Registered: Feb 2018
|
posted 05-01-2020 07:33 PM
While the UserName I use for this site reflects my personal priorities; your last post Robert, is dead on!Without the programs you referenced (and the respective dedicated personnel) space exploration manned and unmanned would be a shadow of it's present state. |
taneal1 Member Posts: 274 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 05-01-2020 08:37 PM
This is an interesting question from an earlier post that was not answered: quote: Originally posted by 328KF: While [a polar orbit] would allow exploration of countless locations, what implications does this have for upmass from the surface?
If you launch due east from an equatorial site on Earth, the "upmass" is already traveling eastward at the full rotational velocity of the Earth (about 1,000 mph or 450 meters/sec) as measured in inertial space. Thus, the required delta V is the difference between required orbital velocity and 1,000 mph.However, for a launch due north or south, your trajectory is perpendicular to the Earth's rotational vector and your velocity in that direction is zero. An additional delta V of 1,000 mph is now required. Using the same launch vehicle you can only achieve that same required orbital velocity by reducing your payload. The Moon however has a rotational period of about 29 days compared to the Earths 24 hour rotation and its rotational velocity is about 10 mph or 4.6 meters/sec at the equator. Now, it you are thinking of a launch from KSC into a lunar polar orbit that is a bit more complex... |
perineau Member Posts: 368 From: FRANCE Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 11-11-2020 04:42 AM
This comes from SpaceNews: A Senate appropriations bill would provide NASA with only a small fraction of the funding it requested for lunar lander development, putting any chance of returning humans to the moon by 2024 in jeopardy. I thought the majority in the Senate was pro-space! |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-11-2020 08:47 AM
As cited in the article, the statement accompanying the bill explains: In a fiscal environment that is extremely challenging, the Committee must weigh and prioritize funding across all of NASA's activities, as well as important priorities throughout the bill. To that end, the Committee has provided significant funding toward the missions and exploration goals across NASA. However, the shortfalls of NASA's fiscal year 2021 budget proposal make it impossible to fully fund all of NASA's proposed activities. Going forward, NASA should refrain from requesting only part of the funding it requires to accomplish all of its missions. With regards to the funding for the human landing system specifically: While the Committee supports the mission of returning U.S. astronauts to the surface of the Moon, the lander element represents the largest remaining cost, schedule, and technical risk, and has yet to be selected. This uncertainty makes it difficult to analyze the future impacts that funding the accelerated Moon mission will have on NASA's other important missions, not to mention the programs, projects, and activities funded elsewhere in the bill. In order to facilitate forward movement in the Artemis program, the Committee has provided funds to allow for NASA to advance its human exploration program, including the development of landers, and awaits further definition of the program and a refined cost estimate. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-04-2021 11:26 AM
Biden Administration press secretary Jen Psaki said today (Feb. 4): Kristin (Fisher) asked a great question about the Artemis program, which I dug into and I am very excited about it now to tell my daughter all about it.For those of you who have not been following it as closely, through the Artemis program, the United States government will work with industry and international partners to send astronauts to the surface of the moon — another man and a woman to the moon, which is very exciting — conduct new and exciting science, prepare for future missions to Mars and demonstrate America's values. To date only 12 humans have walked on the moon — that was half a century ago. The Artemis program, a waypoint to Mars, provides an opportunity to add numbers to that, of course. Lunar exploration has broad and bicameral support in Congress, most recently detailed in the FY2021 omnibus spending bill. We certainly support this effort and endeavor. |