"That level of openness and transparency is exactly what should be expected of NASA."
See full article...
See full article...
NASA chief reviews Orion heat shield, expresses ‘full confidence’ in it for Artemis II
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
On Artemis IV, Orion will be docking with Gateway (per the existing plan, at least.) So, unless you're suggesting that Gateway be the active partner in that instance as well, you'll have to concede that Orion has to feature the active partner capability.
With regard to testing the docking mechanisms, that's perfectly feasible on the ground. Indeed, it has already been completed, on the ground, for Starship HLS. The only part you can't fully test on the ground, is the fine maneuvering in microgravity using a spacecraft's RCS thrusters: this is what will be getting tested relative to the ICPS during Artemis II.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Maybe. But if we reduce it down to one journalist, saying “Isaacman invited 1 journalist, myself”, doesn’t exactly sound that smooth to me.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The main reason Starliner's thrusters overheated during approach to the ISS was that Butch was (unintentionally) over-driving them, during a manual approach exercise. Automated approach wouldn't have fired the thrusters as much, and thus likely wouldn't have manifested that problem. This is an example of why it's desirable to test the manual approach procedure, even if in reality it's only a backup for fully automated RPOD. (Another reason would be to collect feedback on actual handling of the spacecraft.)
Neither of the HLS designs is capable of returning back to LEO from the lunar surface. So nope, unfortunately you couldn't "just"...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Welp, you could instead say "Isaacman invited 3 journalists: me, myself, and I."
That covers all the bases, and should make everyone happy, I guess.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
That's because you insist on greatly overstating the heat shield risk, despite the information that has come out since Artemis I. (Maybe you should go back and reread TFA...)
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Yeah, there's a thing called management reserve, part of the budget set aside for risk mitigation. I cannot imagine a full SLS flight would be coverable by such.
The contractors would definitely 'demand' more funding, they're working on a cost basis. That's how cost- plus works.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Active vs. passive on the docking port is a reference to the soft capture system. The active side is powered and articulated, and aligns the vehicles for hard capture. The passive side remains retracted and stationary throughout the procedure. It has nothing to do with which vehicle is maneuvering prior to soft capture.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
My understanding is that it should be "me" in this case based on the ever dubious "how it sounds test" and this citation online:
I think this is due to myself being a reflexive pronoun and how those should be used in English. But I could not find a definitive example that directly matches the same structure.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
But, "I could not dress I" is also perfectly cromulent - at least if you don't mind sounding Jamaican...
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
That's not what the OP had in mind when talking "active" vs. "passive". So, don't read my response as specific to docking ports - but rather, read it in context.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
It’s unclear what stefan_lec was referring to, but EllPeaTea and SpikeTheHobbitMage were very clearly responding based off the mode of the docking system.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
He was questioning the proximity operations exercise included into the Artemis II mission plan. He was objecting to the need for Orion to actively maneuver in for docking. He'd rather have Orion sit still and inert, while HLS Starship approaches and docks with it...
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The IDSS standard seems to say that active and passive refers both to the action of the docking ring, and also which craft is maneuvering. The active one has an extended capture ring, and is also maneuvering. The passive one has its capture ring retracted, is stationary, and also has the docking targets.
https://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/download/IDSS_IDD_Revision_F.pdf, page 15.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I had to check this, and it is indeed true: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2610tothemoon.html
Apollo 6, the second and final uncrewed test of the Saturn V had multiple failures. Per Wikipedia:
Nevertheless, they proceeded with Apollo 8 after making fixes and without another test. Can you imagine the outrage today if Artemis I had suffered failures similar to the above? They didn't even meet the test objectives (trans-lunar injection) but still sent people on the next flight.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
They had a reason to do it exactly that way. A lot of research went into that.
NASA today: "too expensive. Let's use a simpler design".
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I legitimately feel better about Artemis II after reading this article. Best of luck to everyone that we see an amazing mission.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Section 3.1.1.1 separately lists active/passive vehicle (maneuvering and targets), active/passive docking mechanism (SCS), and active/passive hooks (HCS). The HCS is permitted to be active on both sides, but not required. Figure 3.3.1.1-2 shows the active vehicle and active SCS to be the same side of the interface, but I can't find anything in the text that specifically requires that to be the case.
Per Redwire:
So that means that for at least Artemis IV onwards, Orion will need an active NDS. I can't find any details for Artemis III beyond some low resolution artists rendering that don't display articulation on either side. One of them will either need to be passive or androgynous. Polaris III is supposed to test a (presumably active) Dragon docking to a Starship, to be funded and flown by the now-NASA Administrator, so that could be interesting.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Nope.
You only use “myself“ when you are also the subject of the sentence, e.g. “I invited myself to the meeting.” The correct form here is “…invited two journalists, Micah and me.”
Reference: https://wmich.edu/writing/myself
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Sorry for the confusion, was kinda brainstorming out loud, and not being very clear.
I meant which vehicle was actively moving, vs which vehicle was sitting still. I was more thinking of guidance and maneuvering to get to the docking port. I agree that the docking mechanism itself is probably well tested on the ground. The docking hardware by itself wouldn’t be terribly difficult to test on orbit with just a Starship either, if you had to.
I remember there being a lot of issues with docking guidance due to sensor behavior the first time Dragon tried approaching the ISS way back in 2012 - that was covered in Eric’s second book. I was questioning whether the environment around an ICPS was similar enough to a Starship to make that an adequate test, given how huge and shiny Starship is. Depends on what sensors Orion uses for docking, I guess.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Starship certainly could, why do you think it couldn’t? I’m assuming a scenario where orbital refueling is working well enough to successfully perform Artemis III as currently planned.
If you’re able to reliably do a dozen refueling launches or whatever to send one HLS to LLO, it’s not a significant additional technical risk to do it two dozen times instead, and either send two HLS’s, or one HLS and a tanker.
- Dragon transfers crew to HLS in LEO
- HLS proceeds to lunar surface, then comes back up to LLO.
- Two options at this point:
- Crew transfers to a second HLS that was sent LEO->LLO
- Crew vehicle returns LLO->LEO
- Dragon picks up crew from LEO and returns to surface
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Yup, correct.
Well, obviously doing it with the smaller vehicle actively maneuvering would be better. But since we can’t actually test a maneuvering Orion docking with a Starship before Artemis III, was thinking maybe you could do it the other way around with a mock-up of Orion, since you’d at least be able to test the heck out of it.
Don’t know enough about docking to know how feasible that is, but they’re gonna have to solve a variation of this problem anyway, if they actually go through with gateway (ugh).
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The positioning target must be on the passive vehicle so that the active vehicle can use it for coarse alignment. The active SCS then performs fine alignment using the same target. Ergo, the active SCS must be on the active vehicle. Active hooks are required on the active vehicle so that it can disengage while undocking. Active hooks are permitted on the passive vehicle so that an androgynous port can act in that role without breaking mechanical compatibility.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Artemis isn't just Starship. It's meant to also work with BO's lander system. And possibly other lander systems in the future.
And here's the other set of issues.
Firstly, you now have one more (3rd) RPOD in your mission architecture, whereas before there were just 2. Every RPOD after the first one adds risk of losing the crew (in case the process can't be completed, for any reason.)
Going from TEI to LEO adds another critical series of maneuvers and burns that, if can't be completed successfully, likely results in crew loss.
Moreover, in one of the scenarios you're doing microgravity cryopropellant transfer with crew aboard, which is - at least to begin with - a bit cringe.
Next, Dragon can't loiter unaided that long in LEO, so looks like you're going to be using two separate Dragons, launched separately, per lunar landing mission.
And lastly, there's still no great certainty as to how many propellant launches would be needed per HLS - on either system. For Starship specifically, both risk and cost might start to really add up if it turns out to be 25 instead of 12.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
The alignment target has a high-visibility reflector on it, similar to the reflective tape on a safety vest. I believe they use a laser to detect it but any bright light would do. ICPS is painted white so it's actually brighter than the bare steel Starship is made of.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
NaSA has never been good at self investigation and being all that open with the public where things are not sunshine and rainbows. Beyond the Shuttle losses (which NaSA dragged its feet on and thankfully there were independent investigations)X-59 is a good example. There were many costly and time consuming issues during that aircraft construction and ground testing but all the public heard about were technical issues and long delays while the project went way over budget and behind schedule. Good luck getting that culture to ever change.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Seems Camarda has changed / revised / rewritten his position.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/char...s&rcm=ACoAAADIH0oBcBcXNlredS5TCvDZj58E_9xKmQ4
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/char...s&rcm=ACoAAADIH0oBcBcXNlredS5TCvDZj58E_9xKmQ4
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This is one of the reasons I keep saying the manned program needs to be put on hiatus; not shut down completely, but we need to take a step back for a while and ask why we still have one and what its goals should be. I get that managing big programs with lots of moving parts that are pushing multiple envelopes is hard, but ... it's not like we're breaking any virgin ground, here, not really. We've done this mission. We've done vehicles like this (we're literally reusing parts from a previous vehicle). There's nothing truly exotic going on here. Nobody was charged with coming up with an entirely new combustion cycle burning a new fuel, or radically rethinking rocket construction techniques.
And it's still a cluster. Less of a cluster than CxP was, but ... I don't feel like our children is learning.
It isn't just SLS/Artemis; JWST got bit by this along with some other big programs. For whatever reason, NASA's lost its project management mojo (assuming it ever had any; it's easy to manage big projects when whole-number percentages of the federal budget go to a single program). Political infighting, institutional paralysis, malaise, contractor consolidation (everything being owned by Boeing/LockMart/GD/NG), I dunno, but we've been throwing good money after bad for decades and it needs to stop.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Had the true damage to space shuttle Columbia’s left-wing been known in advance, one of the mitigation strategies was to alter the reentry approach through the atmosphere to reduce the heating directly on the TPS. That final approach would’ve reduced temperatures and extended the time before cataclysmic disintegration (which occurred only 16 minutes before touchdown at KSC). The Aretemis 2 strategy seems to be the opposite. Steepen the reentry profile, increase the heating to reduce the time in the worst phase of the reentry. Seems to me one bad scenario is being exchanged for another.. Steepening the reentry profile was judged to safe during these meetings. The question is how safe and what is the margin and what could possibly go wrong.?Anyone familiar with Reentry profiles knows this—too shallow and you skip off and too steep and you burn up. How much is too much and was that studied and proven beyond any reasonable doubt that that is the best strategy to take here?
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
There are two factions within NASA: The 'doing things in space' faction and the 'throwing money at prime contractors' faction. The latter group enjoys full bipartisan support from Congress while the former fights for scraps. Artemis is the brain-child of the 'throwing money' faction and from their perspective it is working as intended. The only reason the 'doing things' faction is getting anything out of it is because some enterprising soul convinced Trump last term that he'd get the credit for their work.
JWST got hit by the same mismanagement pattern that the Ford-class aircraft carriers have struggled with: Congress won't fund critical R&D without a large sunk-cost to justify the expense. This results in the lowest TRL components being left until last when they should be prioritized from the start. For JWST it was the heat shield, for the Ford it was electrification (not just the catapults). In both cases considerable work was invalidated and had to be redone.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
They aren’t steepening the entry profile. The profile angle is unchanged. All they’ve done is put a limit on the distance between first entry and the subsequent final entry (aka the skip).
Using the skip technique allows them to target a fixed landing location from various different original entry positions. This then allows for multiple day launch windows each month. And because the skip duration is now limited, the launch windows are now about half the size.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
It doesnt really matter exactly how many launches it takes to fill a depot. Under nominal Artemis you need one. SpaceX only you need two: one for the HLS lander and one for the HLS LEO LLO shuttle. You have full depot(s) before you launch HLS either way. Fewer launches is better but if it takes a few months to fill them so be it.
Yes you need two Dragon launches to go with the two HLS launches. I see that as a benefit that massively derisks Artemis. Reentry is very dangerous and it's very important to use a well tested system. Dragon is, Orion isn't.
Other landers can use whichever rockets they want. They'd be better off using HLS plus Dragon to get people back to earth as well rather than using Orion. Honestly I'd rather see people riding back from LLO on HLS shuttle plus Starliner than using Orion. It's just better to stop in LEO on the way back if you have the energy budget (which HLS shuttle does).
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Not quite. Under nominal Artemis, you need two Depots: one in LEO, and a second one in HEEO. For a LLO-LEO shuttle, you'd be adding a third one, at a minimum.
At some point, the number of propellant launches starts to become a problem: the cadence needs to be high enough to compensate for boiloff; any launch or docking/prop-transfer or controlled deorbit/reentry mishaps that pause the program mean you'll probably have to start all over upon resuming; the more pieces you have participating, the greater the odds that something goes wrong; overall costs go up.
Doing an LLO-LEO transfer for a Dragon rendezvous is more dangerous, IMHO. If anything prevents this from completing successfully, the crew is left to a slow death in high Earth orbit.
As for being well tested, Orion is well-tested enough. Let's not lose track of the fact that the Artemis 1 capsule completed its reentry and landing successfully (and without ever exceeding any crew-rating limits), despite the unexpected char spalling. NASA's alarm came from not understanding the root cause (and models not aligning with observations), rather than from having discovered a fatal flaw...
Last edited:
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Looking at what is in front of us for crewed lunar access and assessing risk, I found myself asking this question: What is less risky? The SLS/Orion config which will not need fueling, or Starship HLS wiith 12-20 refuels?
Multiple propellant operations to get there gives multiple independent events for complex failure & need of development.
SLS is one and done to get close.
Both crewed capsules will have reentry risks getting back.
Not convinced yet that Starship for a full crewed flybyand return is less risky vs what we have been discussing.
With this comparison in mind,what do. folks think?
Multiple propellant operations to get there gives multiple independent events for complex failure & need of development.
SLS is one and done to get close.
Both crewed capsules will have reentry risks getting back.
Not convinced yet that Starship for a full crewed flybyand return is less risky vs what we have been discussing.
With this comparison in mind,what do. folks think?
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
It’s fun to compare costs between the two, too.
SpaceX is charging NASA $1.15 billion for their second HLS mission (includes a bit of dev costs for some upgrades). That provides an upper bound on what SpaceX would probably charge to add a second HLS or tanker to the existing Artemis III mission. (It’d probably be cheaper than that, actually, especially if they did the tanker option).
Cost of a crew dragon mission is a bit less than $300 million (ref). So with two of those, we get a total of $1.75 billion. These would be fixed-price contracts, so the price stays the same regardless of when the mission happens.
This would completely replace the SLS/Orion portion of the mission. At their current burn rate of $4.5 billion / year, the cost to keep SLS/Orion going through a 2028 Artemis III launch would be about $10 billion. If it gets pushed back to 2030, it’d be $19 billion.
There you go, you can save up to $17.25 billion dollars, and end up with a safer, better tested system that can be used for all sorts of other useful things. Not too shabby, given that NASA’s whole budget is only $25 billion.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I think it's a safe bet at this point, that SpaceX is going to lose a ton of money on Artemis 3 and 4 - similar to how Boeing wound up deep in the red with Starliner. Subsequent bids from SpaceX are going to be priced a lot higher, to compensate.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
Based on …?
I mean, they’re definitely not making back their overall Starship development costs just on Artemis, but they were already developing starship anyway for multiple other purposes.
What makes you think they’re losing money outside of dev costs? Especially since they have booster reuse working?
Heck, if they did the all-SpaceX with tanker option, they’d even be able to reuse the HLS if they wanted.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)