Home / Science / NASA's full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

NASA's full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

 A Blue Moon lander, built by Blue Origin, with ascent vehicle (built by another company) on top.
Enlarge / A Blue Moon lander, built by Blue Origin, with an ascent vehicle (built by another company) on top.

Blue Origin

Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return to the Moon by 2024, space agency engineers have been working together to develop a plan for leveraging existing technology commercial rockets to bring this about.

Last week, at 2024, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency. Lunar Gateway, stage elements of a lunar lander there, fly crews to the Moon and back, and conduct refueling missions.

This decade-long plan, which entails 37 launches of private and NASA rockets, as well as a mix of robotic and human landers, culminates with a "Lunar Surface Asset Deployment" in 2028, likely to be the beginning of a surface outpost for long-duration crew stays. Developed by the agency's senior human spaceflight manager, Bill Gerstenmaier, this plan is everything

 NASA's "notional" plan for a human return to the Moon by 2024, and an outpost by 2028. "src =" https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/201<div class="e3lan e3lan-in-post1"><script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Text_Display_Ad -->
<ins class="adsbygoogle"
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></div>9/05/Photo1-Copy-2-980x552.jpg "width =" 980 " height = "552
Enlarge / NASA's" notional "plan for a humane return to the Moon by 2024, and an outpost by 2028.


[19659006] One thing missing is its cost. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine has asked for an additional $ 1.6 billion in fiscal year 2020. But all of the missions in this chart would cost much, much more. Sources continue to tell Ars that's the internal projected cost is $ 6 billion to $ 8 billion per year on top of NASA's existing budget of about $ 20 billion.

The plan so misses what is likely another critical element. It's not clear what role it would take on these charts for international partners, as nearly all of the vehicles could and probably would come from NASA or US-based companies.

Although the plan is laudable in that it represents a robust one human exploration of deep space, scientific research, and an effort to tap water resources at the Moon, at least three major problems.

The first issue is funding and political vulnerability. One reason Bridenstine has not shared the full cost of the program as envisioned is "sticker shock" that has been doomed other previous efforts. However, NASA is proposing a moon landing with this specific plan-rather than a radical departure that relies on smaller, reusable rockets-the agency wants a lot more money.

So far, the White House has proposed paying for this with a surplus in the Pell Grant Reserve Fund. But this appears to be a non-starter with House Democrats. "The President is proposing to further reduce the benefit of a low-income students," or "The Pell Grants Program," in order to pay for the first year of this initiative-something that I can not support, " House science committee chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has said.

NASA at unlimited authority to reprogram funds, with an open-ended time frame, which Bridenstine has sought.

A second problem is that NASA's current plan relies on its contractors to actually deliver hardware. Boeing's work on the core stage of the Space Launch System is emblematic of this problem. The company has been working on the core stage for eight years, and it is unlikely to be ready for another year or two. Boeing's management of the contract has been harshly criticized by NASA's Inspector General. After all this, can Boeing be counted on to deliver to SLS core stage in 2020, then again in 2022, and six more between 2024 and 2028?

The big SLS is rocket, which is expected to develop, as it relies on space shuttle components, as well as its main engines and solid rocket boosters. By contrast, the three-stage, reusable lunar land envisioned by NASA to get humans from the gateway to the lunar surface wants to require new engines and systems, including fuel management at very low and high temperatures. NASA, Boeing, and the rest of the SLS contractors to deliver the rocket?

Finally, NASA's architecture for a lunar return requires completion of a more powerful version of the space Launch rocket, known as Block 1B, to be ready by 2024. In the new architecture, the SLS Block 1B booster carries a crewed Orion spacecraft to the Gateway along with "surface logistics" -likely air, water, food, and other consumables needed

The new technology in the block 1B is rocket at upper stage, known as the Exploration Upper Stage, for which Boeing is also the contractor. In recent months, NASA has urged Boeing to complete the initial version of the SLS's Rocket and Halted Work on this New Upper Stage. Given Boeing's performance on the core stage, it is possible to seek out an alternative provider, as Blue Origin with its existing BE-3U upper stage engine, to build the Upper Stage Exploration. This is a big ask for Boeing, Blue Origin, or anyone by 2024.

Three outcomes

So what happens next? NASA took a key technical step Thursday in awarding contract for two of the three elements of its proposed lunar lander design. The more dicey questions will come in the political arena.

NASA is in danger of becoming a political football. The grants are unlikely to support Pell Grants as a source of funding, and some space industries have speculated that this may have been a "poison pill" from the White House's Office of Management and Budget to long term, costly program. NASA's lunar landing with Department of Defense funds earmarked for the "Space Force." If democrats wanted to push back in a political way, they could tell President Trump they will only support NASA's lunar landing. Under what a scenario, the politicization of NASA would be bad for an agency that has mostly flown over the partisan fray.

And what happens if President Trump loses reelection in 2020? By early 2021, when a new administration moves in, it will not see much tangible evidence of a lunar return. On Lunar Landers, the Lunar Gateway wants to stay one year or two away from launch. This would make the lunar program very vulnerable from a funding standpoint, especially if the future is over.

Finally, if the Trump administration wins, and truly cares about the 2024 landing-given the anemic $ 1.6 billion budget supplement and tapping of Pell Grants, it is far from clear. With a more robust expenditure in the financial year 2021 and some successes with the SLS rocket, it's possible that the agency could remain on a plausible path back to the moon with this plan. It probably will not happen in 2024, as two sources are told.

But at least, finally, there's a plan to record debate.

Source link