In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-04 10:53, Jeff Findley wrote:

Again, I disagree completely. Zero work at NASA is happening to send
people to Mars. However, NASA is actively working on both Gateway and
on procuring crewed lunar landers for a lunar mission.

Is there a budget for gateway?

Yes. NASA has already issued a contract for the first module. Cite:

NASA Awards Artemis Contract for Lunar Gateway Power, Propulsion
May 23, 2019 - RELEASE 19-042
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-contract-for-
lunar-gateway-power-propulsion

Is there a budget for a lander?

For crewed landers, that remains to be seen, but NASA has already issued
contracts for the precursor uncrewed landers. Cite:

NASA picks three companies to send commercial landers to the moon
June 4, - 2019 Stephen Clark
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/06/0...-companies-to-
send-commercial-landers-to-the-moon/

One of the contractors backed out, so there are now two active
contractors for this part of the return to the moon. Cite:

NASA terminates lunar lander contract with OrbitBeyond
July 30, 2019 - Stephen Clark
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/07/3...-lunar-lander-
contract-with-orbitbeyond/


If it is all at the "thinking about concepts" stage, isn't that too
different than thinking about concepts to Mars?

Yes, because NASA is actively working on contracts and funding for
sending crew to the moon. They are *not* doing that for Mars. They're
paying lip-service to Mars (i.e. spin by the marketing people). Part of
this is the typical HLV type justification for SLS, whose role in the
crewed return to the moon has already been minimized to simply launching
Orion.

Commercial partnerships are being forged to build and launch Gateway as
well as uncrewed and crewed landers. So, the SLS folks are getting
justifiably worried that they simply aren't needed anymore (they're
not).

Here's a cite that includes a "time-line" for Artemis. Note that all
the crewed flights "planned" are to the moon. The notional "to Mars"
mission isn't until the 2030s. Cite:

NASA - Explore Moon to Mars
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/moon2mars/

If a politician has stated that we should go to the Moon by 2024, but
budgets have not been allocacated for more than the on-going SLS work,
can NASA really actively woirk on landing on moon? pay to have suits
developped beyond marketing prototype ?

No bucks, no Buck Rogers. But do note that applies to Mars too. Money
has been allocated to start building Gateway (i.e. moon). Absolutely
zero has been allocated towards any crewed Mars mission.

Again, this Administration's actions speak louder than Trump's words
when it comes to NASA. Mars simply isn't a priority outside of Trump's
word salad he spewed during the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11.

While I agree that NASA has changed fron advertising SLS/Orion as being
part of a plan to go to Mars to being part of a plan to get to the Moon,
and the branding has changedf to Artemis to further focus on Moon,
having a tight deadline without additional budgets seems to point to
politicial PR speak without NASA having the means to actually get it done.

Exactly. It's all marketing branding in an attempt to make Artemis look
bigger than it really is. Nothing about Artemis would help send crew to
Mars. Everything about Mars is different than the moon, so the
solutions to get there, land there, make propellant there, perform EVAs
there, and get back to earth are *all* different.

Things that are different just aren't the same. This whole "moon to
Mars" is simply marketing bull****, IMHO. The evidence is in where the
money is being spent (and where it is not being spent).

What Artemis does is make it more politically acceptable to keep dumping
money into SLS by painting SLS as key part of some (virtual) plan to get
to the Moon, knowing full well that SLS will be canned at an opportune
time. And to me, opportune time is after SLS has done its test flights
and does a final spin around the Moon with someone in it.

Exactly. It's an act of desperation to justify SLS, even though the
only payload designed to be launched on SLS is Orion. Well and possibly
the Congressionally mandated Europa probe. Cite:

Europa or Enceladus? If NASA switches from SLS to Falcon Heavy, it won't
have to choose - by Mark Whittington ? October 10, 2018
https://spacenews.com/europa-or-ence...s-from-sls-to-
falcon-heavy-it-wont-have-to-choose/

In terms of the lander, how does this work? Does NASA decide on the
concept and overall design, and then ask for bids to exceute this? or
does it just ask for bid for *any* design for a Mars Landder giving only
"must fit within X kg mass and such and such size requirements" ?

They're seeking proposals from contractors. It remains to be seen what
the contracts will look like. But given what I've read about NASA
Administrator Bridenstine, the contracts are far more likely to be a
public/private partnership or a "commercial" contract than they are to
be "cost-plus" contracts.

And at what point would NASA have to go to RFP and decide on a
contractor? Is it allowed to do this if no budget has been set for this?

Ultimately, Congress has to allocate funds to pay the bills.

If NASA were to go to RFP today and gets answers tomorrow, can it go to
COngress next week and says "landing on moon will cost $X" and get that
budget allocated? (akaL money shifted around) or must it wait full
budget cycle to get approval?

You really need to read up on the current news. Cite:

NASA?s Budget Gets a Boost for the Artemis Moon Initiative
By: David Dickinson - May 22, 2019
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astr...-budget-boost-
artemis-moon-initiative/

NASA administrator says it will cost an extra $20 to $30 billion to send
astronauts back to the Moon - Jim Bridenstine finally dished on the
details - By Loren Grush @lorengrush - Jun 14, 2019, 8:11am EDT
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/14/1...rator-artemis-
moon-return-cost-estimate-20-30-billion-dollars-bridenstine

Wishful thinking. Since we're spouting wild-assed guesses, at this
point I think SLS has the political inertia to fly at least three or
four times.

The have enough SSMEs for that. But how many centre stages and SRBs have
been built?

One core stage has been built. As for SRB case segments, Google is your
friend:

SLS requires Advanced Boosters by flight nine due to lack of Shuttle
heritage components - by Chris Bergin May 8, 2018
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...osters-flight-
nine-shuttle-heritage/

After that, NASA would presumably be paying for "advanced boosters" for
SLS Block 2. Likely based on the composite wound (expendable) booster
casings that Northrup Grumman Innovation Systems has developed for
OmegA.

Make no mistake, Starship isn't even a sure thing.


Which is why there is *some* logic in continuing SLS/Orion in case
SpaceX doesn't deliver, so NASA still has something, anything to play
with in space.

IMHO, there is no logic in continuing with SLS. We'd be far better off
adapting Artemis to use existing launch vehicles. If they're good
enough for DOD, they're good enough for NASA. And considering DOD
always wants two providers, NASA gets two "certified" providers too.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.