Podcast Ep.3 | Second Human Lander for Artemis

Episode 3 of the Apogee Podcast about NASA media briefing on HLS March 23, 2022
Watch briefing here: • Media Briefing: Sustai...
Read about NextSTEP 2 Omnibus: www.nasa.gov/content/nextstep...
Want to support Apogee? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter and earn access to exclusive live-streams and patron-only discord channels - / apogeespace
Checkout the official Apogee Website for awesome merch! - www.apogeechannel.com/
Join in on the discussion on the Apogee discord server, open to all - / discord
Follow me on Twitter for updates - / apogeespace

[@devindykstra]

I really hope we don't abandon the moon again! We really need to establish continuous human presence on the moon.

[@richardanderson1988]

Hopefully, Nelson knows the limitations Congress has placed on NASA and is getting what he can, when he can. Just as the next space stations will be mostly privately owned and maintained with NASA and others just contracting for their use, there will be demand for private lunar transportation options that are cheaper and available more often than Artemis opening the floodgates for more lunar surface exploration from either static bases or rovers .

[@jasonwalker9471]

It isn't just Nelson and other higher ups at NASA. I've talked to a few people working on Artemis, and they don't understand - literally don't understand - why SLS is suboptimal. They're so deep into the work of getting the Artemis program to work that they can't see past the end of their own nose. Just one example: I recently chatted with one of them, and at the mention of using a private replacement for SLS, he went into a huge rant about how it would take dozens of launches by Starship to land a Starship directly on the moon. But... SLS doesn't land on the moon? It doesn't launch anything that lands on the moon? It has nothing to do with going to the lunar surface? When that was pointed out, he ranted about how many refueling flights it would take to fuel the HLS Starship. He still couldn't comprehend that SLS *doesn't have anything to do with the actual lunar landings*. He's a smart guy, and he works on the HLS program. Scary. When I finally managed to get through to him that SLS doesn't land on the moon, so he needed to stop talking about landing on the moon, he said, "but it will take 5 Starship launches to replace 1 SLS". I said "and that will be way cheaper". And he said "but we don't know how much Starship will cost!" And I said "will it cost a billion dollars a flight? Because if it doesn't, it will be cheaper than SLS + Orion". He then just clammed up and refused to talk about it anymore. The people at NASA are almost universally extremely conservative by nature, and they have shockingly little ability to look outside of their little box of expertise and ideas, and see what other people are doing. There is a very certain type of person who is both smart enough to work at NASA, but enough of an idiot to be capable of surviving in NASA's backwards looking culture. Forwards looking people, big thinkers, they don't survive at NASA long. And you can *really* see the unfortunate result of that cultural paradigm.

[@fabiogentile53]

That guy is actually right though imo

[@brokensoap1717]

SLS could send a lander that does a job equivalent to HLS (2-4 people on the Moon for about a week or so) in a single Block 1B launch. Using Starship or Starship+Dragon to replace SLS/Orion would probably nearly double the total launch count from 16, which is already far too much and might not even work to that extent. Depending how expensive Starship is per flight, how expensive an HLS is, and how expensive 2 F9+Dragon missions are, this scheme could easily end up as expensive, if not more, than a single SLS/Orion mission, especially as those get cheaper on future flights.

[@jasonwalker9471]

@@brokensoap1717 Wow, old thread. Cheers! Remember, most of the refueling flights for Lunar Starship will be to get it from high Lunar orbit (where Gateway is situated, because SLS doesn't have enough Delta-V to get Orion to low lunar orbit) to the surface and back. Using Starship to get back and forth between LEO and high Lunar orbit is a 1 refueling flight problem. So you can replace 1 SLS with 2 starship flights. Also, the federal government's auditors recently said that NASA is full of crap if it thinks SLS will get cheaper over time. They project it will get at least 20% more expensive.

[@khaccanhle1930]

You have an exceptional channel. No one else goes through the details in such a careful and clear way. Most other space channels are either just dreamy speculations or a mere repeating of official press releases.

[@Raptor2]

If NASA had contracted Boeing and SpaceX to modify their capsules for the moon just a few years ago, Artemis would look so much more sustainable. It seems engrained at NASA that Orion is THE crew transporter for Artemis.

[@steveaustin2686]

Modifying Crew Dragon and/or Starliner to have the capabilities of Orion, would likely make them as heavy and as large as Orion. Then you likely end up needing SLS to launch them anyway. Former NASA admin Jim Brindenstine discussed using the Delta-IV Heavy and/or Falcon Heavy (FH) to get the Orion and the European Service Module (ESM) to the Moon. Delta-IV Heavy would have to lift the Orion and ESM separately from the Interim Cyrogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) that will get them to the Moon and dock them in space. There are only 3 Delta-IV Heavies left and they are already claimed for other launches. FH can lift the Orion, ESM, & ICPS if it is fully expended, but the aerodynamics of such an arrangement were in question. Brindenstine said that they were looking at that, but since nothing came of it, it MAY be a problem. So SLS looks to be it for Orion, ESM, and ICPS. Later the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) will replace the ICPS. Until something can replace SLS/Orion, they are the only way to get crew to the Moon right now. Per the GAO report on denying the HLS complaints, Starships will launch once every 12 days for Artemis III. With Musk's ~150 tons to LEO for Starship cargo and the GAO report on how the [DELETED] propellant depot, Starship Tankers, and Lunar Starship will work, it takes up to 10 flights to refill Lunar Starship. So that is at least 108 days from the launch of [DELETED] to when a Starship could head to the Moon. So for a Starship Shuttle to bring the crew, they would go over the 100 day loiter window of Lunar Starship. So Starship needs to mature to about a launch a week before it could replace SLS/Orion.

[@alrightydave]

@@steveaustin2686 lunar starship only needs 5 refuelings for the 6 crew 4 month config that NASA will use for SLS/Orion early Artemis missions Launching every 10 days means only about 50 days in LEO Other than that I agree with everything else

[@steveaustin2686]

@@alrightydave Not according to the GAO report that looked at SpaceX's plan and Musk's response to the GAO report. Page 10 of the GAO report listed the 12 days between flights of Starship. Page 27 of the GAO report listed 16 flights to get Lunar Starship to the Moon and 14 of them were Tanker flights. Musk said after the report came out that with ~150 tons to orbit, that it would be a max of 8 flights instead of 14 flights for the Tankers. So that is where I got the up to 10 flights from. First, the [DELETED] propellant depot launches. Then up to 8 Starship Tanker flights refills [DELETED]. Once [DELETED] is full, then Lunar Starship launches to refill from [DELETED] and Lunar Starship heads to lunar orbit to wait for the crew to arrive on Orion. With 12 days between flights, that puts Lunar Starship refilling around 108 days after [DELETED] first launched.

[@jonbong98]

@@steveaustin2686 you make some very pertinent points, however SS HLS will be 4 tanker flights as per current data. HLS 2 propositions should be targeting launcher neutrality imo.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@jonbong98 Musk said after the GAO report came out, that the 14 Tanker flights in the GAO report would be a max of 8 Tanker flights with ~150 tons to orbit. 8 * 150 tons is the 1,200 tons of propellant that Starship (second stage) has. If you only use 4 Tanker flights, then that's 600 tons of propellant, instead of the full 1,200 tons of propellant, which would give you half the dV to get to the Moon. Doesn't seem likely that that would work.

[@davidb3559]

I could hardly wait! Apogee is so good.

[@LKLIII]

Three points: 1) It isn’t that Nelson or NASA “don’t understand” the question RE: lack of redundancy for SLS. It’s that they DO but they don’t want to provide an honest answer, so they play dumb. Reminds me of androids in WestWorld: “doesn’t look like anything to me.” Answering honestly would force them to either: A) admit to being rank hypocrites themselves or, B) declare open warfare w/ Congress by publicly admitting that making SLS use a requirement for Artemis is beyond dumb & that they’re going to try to rid themselves of the albatross around their neck as soon as possible, and they don’t want to do either of those at this point. 2) I really do hope that the “lifer”/“Team Space” powers that be at NASA are just being shrewd political operators paying lip service to SLS & have a strategic plan to drop SLS like a hot rock as soon as it’s feasible to do without jeopardizing everything else. (Namely, making sure the SS/SH platform is capable of doing 100% of the Artemis mission architecture on its own). Kind of like how a smart person lines up an iron clad job offer for a new company before submitting a letter of resignation to an old job. 3) If (big if) this “Appendix P” phase isn’t merely a cynical play to throw some extra cash Old Space’s way to placate Congress, this is what I hope Artemis will look like: Basically what you have in mind: an ISS type of base/research station permanently crewed on the Moon. Ideally, more tonnage b/c it’d have some additional capabilities (telescope, light industrial capacity & landing/launch infrastructure, etc). Break free from the SLS requirement & allow all cargo/crewed landers to use any platform they want to arrive on the surface. Use SpaceX HLS (crewed or cargo variant) for the VAST majority of tonnage & trips. Use the smaller “Appendix P” lander as an on site emergency evacuation vehicle. Also use it to provide regular crew rotation redundancy in case SS/SH ever goes out of commission for a period of time. Also use it to increase crew rotation cadences by enabling it to piggy back & “split mission” off any non-HLS variant SS/SH launches that might be transporting modules/crew/goods directly to the Lunar Gateway. (i.e., SS/SH docks w Gateway to unload a bunch of stuff; Appendix P lander is on the manifest & lands on moon once unloaded.)

[@steveaustin2686]

I believe Appendix P is just replacing the second lander that NASA wanted for HLS Option A in the first place. IF the 2020 Congress had given NASA the HLS money they asked for (instead of 1/4 the money), then the Blue Origin led National Team would already be the second lander. NASA really liked the Dynetics Alpaca, but being over weight and having a bad plan for maturing the lander were big problems. If Dynetics has worked those out, they may be the favorite going to the Appendix P competition. Both the ILV and Alpaca were going to use Vulcan Centaur for launching to the Moon as there really were not going to be SLS available for that. So SLS wasn't really in the cards for the landers I understand. It is going to be used for Orion and with the Block 1B, Lunar Gateway modules. A Starship Shuttle could do the LEO to lunar orbit and back to LEO trip, but the launch cadence is not there for Artemis III. Per the GAO report and Musk's ~150 tons to LEO, it will take up to 10 Starship flights to get a mission Starship to the Moon. With a Starship launch every 12 days, that is just too long for a Starship Shuttle to make the 100 day Lunar Starship loiter window. The ILV and Alpaca had shorter windows of 90 days. So SLS/Orion are needed until Starship can get to around a launch a week cadence.

[@LKLIII]

@@steveaustin2686 All reasonable points. To clarify: I didn’t mean 100% cancel SLS/Orion immediately. All I’m hoping NASA does is structure the program architecture so that they wean themselves from the NEED to use SLS/Orion ASAP. Namely: wherever they reasonably can, indirectly facilitate alternative launch platforms (StarShip/SuperHeavy, etc), and then make sure other components like Gateway, both HLS landers (SpaceX & Alpaca or whoever), etc., and CAN integrate & use those alternative launch platforms if/when they are up to speed. Bottom line: IF/when SpaceX HLS is up & running, the major bottleneck in the Artemis program will be SLS/Orion cost & launch cadence. It’s crippling, but unfortunately right now a necessary component. If they REALLY wanted to make human presence on the non consistent & sustainable, they should be proactively looking to remove obvious bottlenecks (both cost drivers & logistical) ahead of time.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@LKLIII I agree with you that SLS should be cancelled, but just can't be at first. Well for Dynetics' Alpaca and the Blue Origin led National Team ILV, both were already planning to use the ULA Vulcan Centaur instead of the SLS. The HALO and PPE modules are planned to launch on a single Falcon Heavy launch in late 2024 to 2025, so I'm sure the rest could launch on Falcon Heavy as well.

[@edwinjodan9234]

Waited for a long time for this

[@Harrysreptarium]

Oh gosh Apogee Uploaded!

[@dansmith3vdhrj]

Starship could make any of these options redundant. If the competition doesn't go fully, rapidly, reusable, assuming SS lives up to this, Starship will own space... $5M per launch, 150T mass to orbit. Game over.

[@jasonwalker9471]

SpaceX isn't aiming for 5 million per launch for Starship. That's based on a misreading of one of Musk's tweets. They're aiming, aspirationally, eventually, for a per launch sales price of about 70 million per launch (about the same as F9, but with much greater payload). That's not SpaceX's *cost*, but rather the price they're hoping to be able to charge customers once the Starship program is more mature. Depending on what Starship's payload to LEO ends up being, that might be as low as 500k per tonne to LEO, which is insanely cheap by today's standards. It also means that to be competitive on a price per kilogram basis, Neutron will have to charge ~4 to 6 million per launch, which is probably a fair bit lower than Rocket Lab will be able to go. 5 million is not a reasonable price for a launch purchase. Just the fuel on Starship will cost a couple of million per launch. That ignores the cost of actually building Starship, the cost of building and maintaining the massive amounts of infrastructure it takes to support even one Starship launch a month (more launches mean more oxygen farms, more methane purifiers, more cryogenic tanks, etc). If SpaceX gets the sale price of Starship down to 70 million, I'll be happy. If they get it down to 20 million, I'll be stunned.

[@dansmith3vdhrj]

@Jason Walker Well, those are some words you wrote. We'll see, but I was being conservative with 5 million a launch. I actually think It'll be far less. One, because they will make their own fuel, two because of the insane amount of these things they are going to make. Think Jumbo Jet with rockets. They can charge whatever the market allows, but their costs, factoring out the infrastructure and development?? What does the launch license cost? What do the maintenance crew and flight support staff cost? Insurance? I'm talking 15 years from now when the program is mature. Beans. It'll cost beans. He wants 3 flights a day. A day.

[@jasonwalker9471]

@@dansmith3vdhrj I don't know what to say, other than that you're wrong. You read a few twitter threads and reddit comments, and have decided you know what you're talking about. SpaceX is not aiming to charge customers 5 million dollars for a Starship launch. Full stop. That is the truth of the matter. Shotwell herself says that their long term aspirational goal is to try and match the customer pricing of the Falcon 9, but with a much more capable launcher that can throw more into orbit. If you want to argue that your internet theory succeeds what the president of SpaceX says, then... go ahead I guess?

[@dansmith3vdhrj]

@@jasonwalker9471 It's clear you don't know what to say, so perhaps you shouldn't. I have been following this industry and indeed SpaceX for 20 years. I don't know what throw away line Shotwell gave or when, but if you aren't going to address what I posted before, you are just trolling. If you really want people to think you are right, then forget the bs and bring the data. How much does it cost a passenger jet to operate? For an A380 it's like $30k an hour, $45 mile. That's the competition. Why?? Because they are going to do site to site transport on Earth!! They (Musk and Shotwell) have repeatedly stated this!! Because, unlike some other rockets, they are not going to be blowing up their transport craft every launch. Starship will be Fully Reusable!! And I was always talking about SpaceX's cost. You are living in the past, and can't see the future, because perhaps you are either a Bezos or SLS fluffer, or you just don't like Elon Musk (who I do not deify, btw, guy is frequently out there.) But, the Starship Concept, fully realized, as I said in 10 to 15 years, will change the whole paradigm! Especially once the competition (Rocketlab's Neutron, even ULA's Vulcan Centaur if B.O. can produce the engines!!, is already going in the same direction, albeit only trying to emulate Falcon 9), really catches on and attempts to do the same, which will push the cost to consumers down. The only real reason that Rockets have been so expensive, is the insane amount of money Govt's have put into the industry in an attempt to keep the talent from leaving and the fear of the tech falling into the hands of groups that might use it militarily. SLS. however, is a jobs program, Full Stop (had to.) P.s. If your next post contains no new, relevant data, I will not respond, I don't need "the last word." Trolls should live under rocks, not on the internet.

[@THUNDERSHOCKR]

APOGEE VIDEO HYPE

[@danaen803]

Good breakdown of Artemis, Thanks.

[@evil0sheep]

Great video as always, one thing I would recommend is to not be afraid to put yourself on video instead of just showing the logo. If you're gonna do a video that's just you talking it makes sense to have the video content be a video of you talking.

[@shpratbananas7897]

Love the videos!

[@Grig9700]

loving the breakdown as always, thanks for the vid mate, and keep up the good work! ^^

[@comediehero]

Thx for the video!

[@gregwmanning]

Excellent analysis!

[@JeremyIson]

Awesome video!

[@caitlinshelby3155]

Love your stuff❤️

[@OndrejFindejs]

Great video!

[@Billy_Annizarry]

"it is for our mission to mars *in the future*." You can turn up the phrase.

[@danmosenzon1477]

"We should have a Moon program that just goes to the Moon because the Moon is cool" very weird take. Who lost their car keys on the Moon? We must go to Mars because Mars is where the challenge is, it's where the science is and it's where the future is.

[@andriinaum1411]

Moon is better than Mars at least because we can fly there anywhen and theoretically with high frequency. We can create a science hub on the Moon with a replaceable crew like ISS. We can create big stationary telescopes as we have on Earth and even bigger due to low gravity also there isn't an atmosphere that can interfere with research. Another good idea is to use Moon as a transit spaceport for further travel: ships can refuel there and fly to their destination. There're lots of things we can do on the Moon and we should have a temporary base on it to increase our space travel and space research abilities.

[@rexmann1984]

We need an Orbital Ring. Not another planet. What are we going to do with it when it costs astronomical amounts of money to get people there. 1. Build moon mining base 2. Build Lunar Orbital Ring 3. Build Earth Orbital Ring

[@richardmalcolm1457]

"We must go to Mars because Mars is where the challenge is, it's where the science is and it's where the future is." Unfortunately, NASA cannot afford to go to Mars - save possibly as a passenger on anything SpaceX gets around to sending there. NASA shifted to the Moon because it's actually a practical and achievable objective - and even that, just barely.

[@Apogeespace]

I think the future can be on the moon as well. My point is, that if we want to have a Mars program, awesome. Let’s do it. But Artemis has always been pitched as “a return to the moon” “this time to stay” “twin sister of Apollo” “goddess of the moon” etc… but it’s becoming more about Mars than it is about the moon.

[@richardmalcolm1457]

@@Apogeespace Just so. And after all - let's be honest - the overlap between capabilities for exploring the Moon and those for Mars is limited. If you want to go to Mars, *go to Mars*. The Moon's utility to that end is not only quite limited, it's actually a distraction and a delay. But it's clear we are seeing a shift in language because we have a different set of leadership now. Nelson, Melroy and Free are locked into Artemis in a way Bridenstine was not locked into ARM/#JourneyToMars, so they can't *abandon* it. But it's clear that the Mars impulse of the Obama Administration has returned - to the extent they can indulge it. For now, that indulgence seems to be just rhetorical. Will that change?

[@summerbeemeadow]

Good work.

[@generalrendar7290]

The Dynetics lander is the best 2nd option for HLS. It is light, exit portal is located closer to the ground than any other lander, has the same human containment space as the original moonlander, and is years ahead of any other possible designs. The "National Team" is splitting up and submitting their own builds. Seeing how the big players see space as an afterthought and pork money, I doubt that they will come up with a sustainable and revolutionary lander.

[@infinitehonkworks195]

The purpose of SLS is embezzlement, their owners would immediately burn their careers to ash if they dared suggest dropping it, as well as ensuring they're blacklisted from ever holding a job in the space industry again to send a message to anyone else with similar ideas

[@brandonhuala2747]

Love your content

[@makespace8483]

The rich fabric of NASA history is being shredded by background politics. No doubt much of the politic-ing has evolved out of national embarrassments such as the shuttle disasters. I worry, though, that the zero-risk mindset is going to leave NASA in sackcloth while the risk-takers end up in silk.

[@tommes8590]

Could NASA be expecting a smaller version of Starship HLS that just is used for just crew transport, along with the other entries of appendix P substainable landers. Leaving the Lunar starship for equipment transport for base modules and exploration vechiles. just a thought but could NASA be turning over control of moon base operations to the US space force in the future. I expect USSF to be paying to use lunar starships or buying some for their own for use in the future

[@curtisquick1582]

Politics being the mover of NASA here, it is best if SpaceX continues to develop Starship/HLS to support a lunar base, regardless of SLS plans. Sure, play along with NASA and say that HLS will support Artemis, but make sure you can do it just fine and in a timely fashion without NASA, because it might just be too expensive and too delayed to wait for SLS. No need to let NASA/Congress sink Starship by tying an SLS ring around its neck. SpaceX should support Artemis, but also build HLS to work without Artemis.

[@steveaustin2686]

Lunar Starship can't do the mission on its own as it is bascially out of propellant after getting back to lunar orbit. You need something like a Starship Shuttle to do the LEO to lunar orbit and back to LEO portion for the crew. Elon Musk has said that it would take hundreds of successful, operational flights before you could put people on board Starship launching from and landing on Earth in a CNBC Sep 2020 article. So you need two capsules to get crew to and from LEO and something to support the capsules during the lunar mission. That is why I think SpaceX had the GAO redact the info on the [DELETED] propellant depot as I think it is a crew transfer station to support the capsules. So a Starship Shuttle to an from lunar orbit and a Crew Dragon and Starliner to and from LEO would be around $2.12B. A Starship Shuttle would not likely be ready in time for Artemis III as SpaceX's plan for Artemis III is one Starship launch per every 12 days per the GAO report denying the HLS complaints (pg 10). With it taking up to 10 Starship flights to fully refuel a Starship is LEO per the GAO report and Musk, that would take 108 days to fully refuel a Starship Shuttle and Lunar Starship only has a 100 day loiter capability. So Starship has to mature to the point where they can do a launch about once a week, before it can replace SLS/Orion. So SLS/Orion are needed for the early Artemis missions.

[@ccib00]

NASA under Nelson seems to have a lack of definite goals and have vague plans compared to the last administration. For me, it's not good. Ultimately it could end up canceling the program.

[@rorykeegan1895]

The same way the last Admin cancelled the re direct mission? Or the one before that cancelled Constellation? And the one before that cancelled .... you get it, yet?

[@nisenobody8273]

11:40 They probably have confident in Starship as a completely human rated rocket by the end of the program, and a good part of the most fundamental elements of the program will be much cheaper than now, comercial rovers, habitats, and space station for the moon looks possible after a program motivating the development of so many new technologies of the private sector. If that is the case, a relativetly small public funding could mantain a growth human presence on the moon. (Sorry for my stark english, I'm still learning)

[@theshyguy3269]

Hey, it seems like your discord invite link is invalid, could you check that

[@Apogeespace]

Will look into this. Thanks!

[@Apogeespace]

Just updated the description! Thanks for the heads up. This link should work discord.gg/KzYr99NRgv

[@2nd3rd1st]

Hoping it's a crewed moon landing, not a crude moon landing.

[@ramodejulio9124]

SpaceX has already build the elevator for the lander, the pressure lock and has a virtual mock up of the interior that the astronauts have been using to work out the design.

[@kenhelmers2603]

Something people forget, Congress mandated Orion & SLS.... It is a jobs program. Sadly

[@lukerobson3043]

Is Artemis the mercury or gemini for a mars mission or a program on its own like appolo

[@asura0028]

AFAIK Artemis is a Mars program that has a step for developing Moon infrastructure.

[@adriank8792]

I think that it's good that NASA is already laying the groundwork for a mission to Mars and making sure that everyone is aware that this is where the program is heading. And it's not really a new thing. They've been prepping the public for a long time now. I don't want to wait another 20 years to see humans land on Mars. Artemis is nice but the private sector should focus on the Moon. NASA's eyes should be focused on Mars

[@angelikikapoglou8700]

But no matters what NASA says about 1 mission per year, if the Starship works, I think SpaceX will be on the driving seat not NASA

[@jeffreywitt7086]

👍

[@mc-zy7ju]

Probably doesn't matter, the SpaceX lander with refueling basically bypasses any need for sls or gateway. SpaceX will either end up offering regular service to the moon or embarrassing sls with its capabilities.

[@ramodejulio9124]

Polaris Dawn, SpaceX has there own plans for the moon that have nothing to do with NASA. SpaceX will be using the moon to try out and improve the technology for Mars.

[@snuffeldjuret]

congress wouldn't give a bleep about competition if the national team won the hls contract :P

[@karlhans8304]

Cant ESAs contributions and needs keep the lunar moon base afloat in combination with NASA?

[@alrightydave]

I agree lunar starship will be pushed to 2026 on Artemis IV for first landing. Might have sustainability pushed forward to enable long duration crew surface stays at 4 months for 6 crew instead of 3 weeks for 2/4 crew as originally planned which is just a waste of money and capabilities As for the second sustainable lander, it’s just a no brainer to me that Dynetics ALPACA will finally see its glory days. There’s a big catch for this though, which is they need their own Dynetics base camp or some surface habitat to enable long duration stays like lunar starship, will take time to develop so I really hope this is announced sooner than later and the importance of it is recognized ALPACA to me is a 4 astro NRHO-surface taxi for crew to spend 20 days, whereas lunar starship is a 6 astro surface base for crew to spend 4 months As for Mars vision from NASA. It makes sense for them from an SLS/Orion perspective. Those vehicles are purpose built to enable a crewed Mars mission sometime in 2035 with evolved capabilities of SLS, whereas commercial systems are not, but they’ll be a good complement to SLS/Orion at the moon for Artemis in 2030’s As for the SLS/Orion redundancy question on that call, the guy asked if there were any changes to crew NRHO delivery, Nelson correctly said EUS would be a change on Artemis IV But yeah, I get that we didn’t get much of a juicy response, since he bent the meaning of the question a bit My take on crew NRHO delivery and NASA’s focus on Mars is that commercial systems will take over in late 2030s, maybe 2040s now and let SLS/Orion fly the first few missions to get Artemis up and running in the first 10-15 years to a sustainable point, but they’re not being announced now because they’re not ready and now isn’t the time. It would be like saying let’s have a commercial crew program in 2000 at beginning of ISS instead of 2020 Good analysis overall and predictions for what you think might be the future, have to say after watching you for a year exactly to the month since your first video, I love your intro music and it makes me feel quite nostalgic about my life this time last year - not only watching your first video/s but other stuff

[@livefromhollywood194]

I don't think this should be called a podcast, because I almost didn't click on it. This clearly was more of a presentation/news update, since you had a general script, specific quotes and visuals, and it was much more formal than a podcast. I probably wouldn't listen to a podcast. Just a thought.

[@Apogeespace]

You may be right. I will put some thought into this

[@SunSun852]

Huh, KZbin unsubscribed me, odd

[@wingsley]

Well, that was bizarre. Maybe it's NASA's way of pressuring Congress for more funding to make a more sustainable lunar presence possible.

[@damitcam]

I disagree that the lander will be the holdup i personally think the spacesuit will be the holdup

[@steveaustin2686]

The NASA IG expects both the xEMU and Lunar Starship to be ready for 2026. Of course, one or both could slip.

[@waynzignordics]

I don't understand your confusion about the lack of redundancy for SLS. If it's the only portion of the entire Artemis project the Senate benefits directly from, why would they risk introducing competition? Their benefactors failed to block SpaceX from winning the HLS competition, yet you're surprised they won't let SpaceX compete against SLS. Nelson is a former Senator. Anyway, this "new" competition (phase) is merely a cover for granting Blue Origin the backup contract they were refused in the previous competition. Now they can claim BO beat out the competition instead of giving them a first-loser contract worth more than the winner was awarded. You're great at breaking down the numbers and contracts, but you're naive about the politics.

[@wingsley]

Having listened to this podcast episode a few times, the message that I walk away with is "where is the sense of purpose". Why are we going to the Moon? Why is NASA preparing an Artemis program in the first place? You alluded to past agency rhetoric about establishing a permanent (or semi-permanent?) sustainable presence on the lunar surface. You suggested the construction of a base, perhaps like an I.S.S.-on-the-Moon. Given NASA's past rhetoric, that image makes perfect sense. NASA has SpaceX contracted to prepare a BFR/Starship lander, dedicated to landing astronauts safely on the Moon, and also serving as a mobile Moon base. But now the tone and the rhetoric have changed. Smells like politics. I don't think this is all anti-SpaceX blowback, either. I strongly suspect this has to do with long-term commitment. Building a sustainable presence on the Moon (essentially building and operating a sustainable Moon base) strongly implies a long-term financial committment. A Moon base would no doubt require extensive set-up, protection (against meteors, solar wind, cosmic rays), a regular stocking of personnel (astronauts visiting at and living on the base), maintenance, repairs, possible replacement of parts, and, of course, reliable power and life support. This will mean that Uncle Sam must guarantee that whatever personnel, equipment, supplies and robotics are going to be reliably available to establish, power, maintain and effectively operate the Moon base in perpetuity. That's not just a short-term commitment. That's a long-term commitment that will demand reliable Federal (if not international) support for more than just ferrying astronauts and cargo to the Moon. It will require the development and perfection of new systems (not necessarily new technology) that will be needed to make the establishment of a safe, reliable and human-rated base a long-term reality. This will definitely include at least one power source to keep the base operating, long-term. This will also mean the deployment of substantial habitat modules and robotics to possibly safely bury said modules in lunar regolith for substantial protection for the astronauts and their equipment from the harsh lunar environment. These new modules and new systems, will require extensive testing, engineering, fabrication, maintenance and possibly even replacement. I suspect that it isn't just the cost to build, operate and maintain these systems that will turn Washington off. It's also the political implications that systems will have here on Earth. If NASA starts deploying sustainable power systems for use on the Moon base, that implies these systems will have uses here on Earth. All NASA has to do is deploy one power satellite in lunar orbit to reliably power a Moon base via WiFi beam-relay, 24/7/365, and you have a direct threat to the fossil fuel and terrestrial nuclear power industry on Earth. Something tells me Sen. Manchin will join a chorus of other senators to shut that system down. So, "let's go to Mars" is probably a distraction to make NASA look like they're doing something when in reality the entire Artemis program could be a victim of its own success before a single ship gets off the ground. I know this sounds very cynical, and I hope I'm wrong, but after reviewing Issac Arthur's science and futurism channel episodes on Power Satellites [ kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3Omk5eKna59hKc ] and Colonizing Cislunar Space [ kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYDVXnqaap2tq5o ], it should be very clear that if the Artemis program is to live up to it's original stated mission (returning to the Moon "to stay"), NASA will have to deal with these politics eventually.

[@dawson1071]

❣️ 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘮

[@Jerew]

FAA IS CAUSING DELAYS CANT DO ORBITAL TEST SO THEY MOVE ON TO NEWER PROTOTYPES

[@steveaustin2686]

While the FAA is the lead agency in the review, NASA, National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, cooperating agencies have all been a part of the review from the very beginning. Reportedly, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has issues and the consultations that the FAA has mentioned are almost certainly resolving any issues the US Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency has.

[@almafuertegmailcom]

As long as senator administrator ballast is at the helm, Artemis will go nowhere. He's just as bad as Shelby, if not worse.