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

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 24 May 2019
06:28:51 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 23 May 2019
06:52:56 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-20 22:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You understand that the Gateway isn't in an orbit around the Moon,
right? It's in a LaGrange halo orbit.

Was not aware of that. I was under the impression it was in lunar orbit.

Orion has nowhere near the delta-V capability of the Apollo CSM.


True, but I don't see why it matters since the CSM had about twice as
much delta-v as required. Orion has about a third less than the
Apollo CSM, so it still has enough to do the missions that Apollo did.
And I'm not sure that getting into an L2 NRHO is that much 'cheaper'
when it comes to delta-v.

Orion simply does not have the delta-V to enter a low lunar orbit and
then get back to earth and have the margins that NASA requires. This
fact is all over all of the online space forums. But I've done a quick
search for an actual NASA study. This looks promising:

Options for Staging Orbits in Cis-Lunar Space
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0150019648.pdf

LEO was ruled "infeasible" for use by Orion by NASA. See Table 6 on
page 8 of the above document.


Note that the figures they used to rule out LLO underestimate the
capability of the Orion/SM combination. It has about 12% more fuel
than they state (9 tonnes vice 8 tonnes) and more delta-v than they
say (1800 vice 1650). Note that with 1800 m/s delta-v LLO changes
from infeasible to feasible.

You'll need to tell that to NASA because they're not changing their
minds about this isuse.

And you'll need to tell every space publication out there like this one:

Does the Gateway make sense?
by Eric R. Hedman
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3502/1

From above:

Orbit
The proposed orbit for LOP-G is a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit
(NRHO). A NASA paper on the rationale for selecting the orbit
includes a table on page 8 that spells out the reasoning
behind the choice. The ideal choice, if the only factors for
landing and returning to lunar orbit were delta-V
requirements for the lander and access to any landing site,
is a polar low lunar orbit. This is ruled out because the
Orion spacecraft and service module can?t reach it due to
the limited delta-V capability of the service module. Given
the constraints of requiring the use of SLS/Orion the NRHO
is the only feasible choice for now.

Of course if you look at the table in the paper, there are other columns
in RED for low lunar orbit. So there is that.

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.

In article ,
says...
Agreed. What's not clear to me is what happens when they run out of SRB
segments. The press hasn't reported on this much.


I think the original plan was that they'd switch to 'advanced
boosters' at that point, but I think those may be too far out now to
make the timeline. Also the original plan was to have a Block 1A
vehicle that got the new 'advanced boosters' before the Block 1B EUS
milestone (which at that point would have been Block 2). Block 1A was
cancelled, adding EUS became Block 1B, and Block 2 was moved to after
that.

A little poking around tells me that there is enough SRB hardware for
8 SRB sets, which will carry them through 2027 or so. They currently
have 4 RS-25 engine sets and contracts for another set and a half of
'new' RS-25 engines. This gets them into 2026. Another half engine
set (2 more engines) would get them through 2026. There are
apparently 3 AJ10-190 engines available for use on the Orion Service
Module. That gets them through 2024 and the first landing, at which
point they'll have to change engines. There are engines currently in
production that they could use, like the AJ10-118k used on Delta II.

Nit: Delta II stopped flying last September.

https://aerospace.org/article/final-...elta-ii-rocket

From above:

The end of an era arrived Saturday morning, September 15, 2018
with an Earth-shaking roar and a brilliant flash of light as
the world?s last Delta II rocket rose into the morning sky
above Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Still, it hasn't been out of production for very long. And I'm sure
Aerojet Rocketdyne would be more than accommodating when it comes to
building new engines. For a price, that is.

So in summary the real long pole is the SRB hardware. There are
contracts and contingencies in place for the other two pieces of the
system that are limited by availability of old Shuttle hardware, but
once those SRB components are gone, they're GONE and the program to
replace those boosters is way out there.


I'm still betting on composite wound casings that have been developed
for Omega. I believe that the segment casings are at least the right
size.

A bit of poking around turned up this:


https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...synergy-omega-
sls-solid-boosters/

From above:

"What we've done [with OmegA's CBSs] is we've turned [the booster
casing] design into a composite, much lighter, much more
efficient from a production perspective, case then what's used in
those large, heavy steel cases. So we can, through the use of
some automated fiber placement tools and winding machines,
produce segmented cases far more efficiently than what we could
previously."

"So these are our manufacturing process efficiencies that at some
point could very well benefit SLS if they were able to adapt some
of these. And there's talk of that happening at some point in
time."

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.

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 24 May 2019
16:40:45 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 24 May 2019
06:28:51 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 23 May 2019
06:52:56 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-20 22:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You understand that the Gateway isn't in an orbit around the Moon,
right? It's in a LaGrange halo orbit.

Was not aware of that. I was under the impression it was in lunar orbit.

Orion has nowhere near the delta-V capability of the Apollo CSM.


True, but I don't see why it matters since the CSM had about twice as
much delta-v as required. Orion has about a third less than the
Apollo CSM, so it still has enough to do the missions that Apollo did.
And I'm not sure that getting into an L2 NRHO is that much 'cheaper'
when it comes to delta-v.

Orion simply does not have the delta-V to enter a low lunar orbit and
then get back to earth and have the margins that NASA requires. This
fact is all over all of the online space forums. But I've done a quick
search for an actual NASA study. This looks promising:

Options for Staging Orbits in Cis-Lunar Space
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0150019648.pdf

LEO was ruled "infeasible" for use by Orion by NASA. See Table 6 on
page 8 of the above document.


Note that the figures they used to rule out LLO underestimate the
capability of the Orion/SM combination. It has about 12% more fuel
than they state (9 tonnes vice 8 tonnes) and more delta-v than they
say (1800 vice 1650). Note that with 1800 m/s delta-v LLO changes
from infeasible to feasible.

You'll need to tell that to NASA because they're not changing their
minds about this isuse.


Gee, a bureaucracy that doesn't want to reevaluate a decision once
it's in train. I'm surprised!


And you'll need to tell every space publication out there like this one:

Does the Gateway make sense?
by Eric R. Hedman
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3502/1

From above:

Orbit
The proposed orbit for LOP-G is a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit
(NRHO). A NASA paper on the rationale for selecting the orbit
includes a table on page 8 that spells out the reasoning
behind the choice. The ideal choice, if the only factors for
landing and returning to lunar orbit were delta-V
requirements for the lander and access to any landing site,
is a polar low lunar orbit. This is ruled out because the
Orion spacecraft and service module can?t reach it due to
the limited delta-V capability of the service module. Given
the constraints of requiring the use of SLS/Orion the NRHO
is the only feasible choice for now.

Of course if you look at the table in the paper, there are other columns
in RED for low lunar orbit. So there is that.


I don't need to go back and tell anyone anything. In fact, 'going
back' is likely the root of the problem. I only need to make note of
two facts:

1) The paper (which is what everything else is based on) was no doubt
written using the original Constellation SM data, which is NOT what
we've got. What we've got is a new design with a ton more fuel and a
lot more delta-v.

2) Bureaucracies, particularly risk-averse bureaucracies like NASA,
will virtually never go back and reevaluate decisions once they're
headed down a path, particularly if they've already arrived at the
conclusion they wanted going in, which is to justify Gateway.

What next? Are you going to start using data from Altair to describe
Blue Moon?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 24 May 2019
16:50:06 -0400:

In article ,
says...
Agreed. What's not clear to me is what happens when they run out of SRB
segments. The press hasn't reported on this much.


I think the original plan was that they'd switch to 'advanced
boosters' at that point, but I think those may be too far out now to
make the timeline. Also the original plan was to have a Block 1A
vehicle that got the new 'advanced boosters' before the Block 1B EUS
milestone (which at that point would have been Block 2). Block 1A was
cancelled, adding EUS became Block 1B, and Block 2 was moved to after
that.

A little poking around tells me that there is enough SRB hardware for
8 SRB sets, which will carry them through 2027 or so. They currently
have 4 RS-25 engine sets and contracts for another set and a half of
'new' RS-25 engines. This gets them into 2026. Another half engine
set (2 more engines) would get them through 2026. There are
apparently 3 AJ10-190 engines available for use on the Orion Service
Module. That gets them through 2024 and the first landing, at which
point they'll have to change engines. There are engines currently in
production that they could use, like the AJ10-118k used on Delta II.

Nit: Delta II stopped flying last September.

https://aerospace.org/article/final-...elta-ii-rocket

From above:

The end of an era arrived Saturday morning, September 15, 2018
with an Earth-shaking roar and a brilliant flash of light as
the world?s last Delta II rocket rose into the morning sky
above Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Still, it hasn't been out of production for very long. And I'm sure
Aerojet Rocketdyne would be more than accommodating when it comes to
building new engines. For a price, that is.

So in summary the real long pole is the SRB hardware. There are
contracts and contingencies in place for the other two pieces of the
system that are limited by availability of old Shuttle hardware, but
once those SRB components are gone, they're GONE and the program to
replace those boosters is way out there.


I'm still betting on composite wound casings that have been developed
for Omega. I believe that the segment casings are at least the right
size.

A bit of poking around turned up this:


https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...synergy-omega-
sls-solid-boosters/

From above:

"What we've done [with OmegA's CBSs] is we've turned [the booster
casing] design into a composite, much lighter, much more
efficient from a production perspective, case then what's used in
those large, heavy steel cases. So we can, through the use of
some automated fiber placement tools and winding machines,
produce segmented cases far more efficiently than what we could
previously."

"So these are our manufacturing process efficiencies that at some
point could very well benefit SLS if they were able to adapt some
of these. And there's talk of that happening at some point in
time."


Note that this is very like the ATK 'Dark Knight' proposal for
'advanced booster', but it uses a more energetic propellant.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-24 06:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

Because if you look at the damn picture of the proposed time-line that's
all over online, *none* of the stages of the lunar lander are launched
by SLS. They're *all* launched on *separate* commercial launch
vehicles.

Are the separate launches all going to "Gateway" to deliver their
hardware, or would there be LEO dockings involved before the combined
parts get to Gateway ?

Everything possible goes to Gateway in order to justify its existence.
The only exception would be uncrewed landers with surface instruments,
robotic rovers, or modules/supplies to be prepositioned on the surface
for longer term crewed missions.

Could they get the Europeans to build a service module that supports
Dragon2, and be launched on Falcon or Falcon Heavy?

No one is seriously considering something like this at this time. And
if they were, SpaceX could build its own augmented service module for
Dragon 2. SpaceX doesn't need ESA to do it for them. I wouldn't expect
something like this to happen until after SLS is canceled.

And even if SLS were canceled, I'd expect NASA to come up with a way to
launch Orion and a TLI stage on separate commercial launches in order to
duplicate the functionality of SLS/Orion. That's pretty much what
Bridenstine was looking into to accelerate EM-1. But, that was more a
tactic to "light a fire" under Boeing to get SLS back on track than it
was a serious proposal, IMHO. I personally don't think Bridenstine took
that option very seriously.

While Falcon9 or Falcon Heavy don't have the "oumph" to launch crewed
vehicle to Gateway, it would have the capability to launch modules and
fuel separately to LEO after which, the stuff going to Moon would have
plenty of fuel.

I'd think Falcon Heavy might be able to launch a Dragon 2 to Gateway,
but I seriously doubt that would ever happen, because it would destroy
the illusion that SLS and Orion are both necessary. Remember, NASA is
the one in charge here and they're still quite beholden to the
SLS/Alabama mafia, like it or not.

The NASA plan is to launch everything for the crewed landers to Gateway
and assemble. That's why the plan is to use a three stage lander:

1. Transfer stage to get the other stages from Gateway to LLO
2. Descent stage to get to the surface of the moon
3. Ascent vehicle (crewed) to get from the surface of the moon back to
Gateway

Some of the parts of the lander could be reusable (likely both the
transfer stage and the crewed ascent vehicle). The transfer stage and
crewed ascent vehicle would both go back to Gateway to be refueled and
reused on subsequent crewed landings.

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.

On 5/20/2019 12:56 PM, wrote:
Developed by the agency's senior human spaceflight manager, Bill
Gerstenmaier, this plan is everything Pence asked for—an urgent human return, a
Moon base, a mix of existing and new contractors."

See:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...lunar-outpost/


Given the current political climate in DC I'd say this plan is even more
still-born than was Constellation and President Bush's VSE a decade + 5
years ago.

I agree with VP Pence's sense of urgency but it is disingenuous at best
to think that the DC establishment and NASA in particular has the means
or skills today to drive this effort. Making SLS a key component of this
plan just exposes it as the fantasy it is.

I know this is harsh. Too bad. I feel sorry for the senior leadership at
NASA. Their hearts are in the right place, they are good people. They
just don't realize that their methodology belongs to a long lost past
that will not return.

We'd be better served if NASA acted like an investment bank and Congress
gave it the funds necessary to buy the desired end goal with as little
micro-management as possible. That has not been the established paradigm
and is not evident in this work of fiction either.

Dave

Jeff Findley wrote on Sat, 25 May 2019
08:47:58 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-24 06:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

Because if you look at the damn picture of the proposed time-line that's
all over online, *none* of the stages of the lunar lander are launched
by SLS. They're *all* launched on *separate* commercial launch
vehicles.

Are the separate launches all going to "Gateway" to deliver their
hardware, or would there be LEO dockings involved before the combined
parts get to Gateway ?

Everything possible goes to Gateway in order to justify its existence.
The only exception would be uncrewed landers with surface instruments,
robotic rovers, or modules/supplies to be prepositioned on the surface
for longer term crewed missions.


Well, there's that and there's the problem that if you combine
everything in LEO now you need an upper stage with enough grunt to get
the whole works to where it's going all at once. Sending little
pieces is easier. That's one of the 'justifications' for doing a
Gateway is to give an 'assembly area' to send pieces too without
having to send them all at once.

Could they get the Europeans to build a service module that supports
Dragon2, and be launched on Falcon or Falcon Heavy?

No one is seriously considering something like this at this time. And
if they were, SpaceX could build its own augmented service module for
Dragon 2. SpaceX doesn't need ESA to do it for them. I wouldn't expect
something like this to happen until after SLS is canceled.


This isn't a path that SpaceX is interested in pursuing, since their
intended path forward is to use Starship and Falcon Super Heavy for
everything.


And even if SLS were canceled, I'd expect NASA to come up with a way to
launch Orion and a TLI stage on separate commercial launches in order to
duplicate the functionality of SLS/Orion. That's pretty much what
Bridenstine was looking into to accelerate EM-1. But, that was more a
tactic to "light a fire" under Boeing to get SLS back on track than it
was a serious proposal, IMHO. I personally don't think Bridenstine took
that option very seriously.


Given that they'd need a high energy upper stage to use 'commercial'
launchers I don't see the 'commercial' path gaining them lots of
schedule. After all, the high energy upper stage for SLS (the EUS
that gets them from SLS Block 1 to SLS Block 1B) is way behind
schedule.

While Falcon9 or Falcon Heavy don't have the "oumph" to launch crewed
vehicle to Gateway, it would have the capability to launch modules and
fuel separately to LEO after which, the stuff going to Moon would have
plenty of fuel.

What Mayfly doesn't realize is that just getting things to LEO doesn't
solve the problem. You still need some sort of high energy upper
stage and, in the case of his 'plan' that stage needs to be refuelable
on orbit and you need a tanker that can go up and refuel it.


I'd think Falcon Heavy might be able to launch a Dragon 2 to Gateway,
but I seriously doubt that would ever happen, because it would destroy
the illusion that SLS and Orion are both necessary. Remember, NASA is
the one in charge here and they're still quite beholden to the
SLS/Alabama mafia, like it or not.


You could probably get it out there but you probably would want a real
service module with fuel, which might make you too heavy to get the
excess mass there.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 25 May 2019
14:50:39 -0400:

After the Lionair 737 crash, it was quickly found out that the MCAS
system forced the plane to head down and crash. Sales and deliveries of
737s continued so Boeing didn't put priority on fixing the software.


False.


That changed after 737s were grounded following 2nd crash. Now, Boeing
saw revenus cut, and potential for huge sums of compensation for
airlines who paid for their 737s and can't use them. There is no string
incentive to fix it ASAP.


No, it didn't change. In fact, the software update was already well
in work and close to done. What 'changed' was that it could no longer
just be released like a 'normal' update and instead is requiring all
sorts of extra 'touching' with various regulatory bodies.


Back to SLS: is it fair to state that until Pence set a 2024 deadline,
there was no penalty for SLS contractors to be late, and being paid
cost+, they would benefit from stretching the project as long as
possible?


Wrong. First, Pence didn't set that date. Trump did. Second, 'cost
plus' contracts don't work like you appear to think they do. In fact,
what I think you're thinking of when you say 'cost plus' is legally
prohibited.


If you assign 20 engineers to scrw in a lightbulb, being cost+, you get
more profits, so very little incentive to be fast and efficient.


Wrong.


If everyone knows this SLS thing is just a demo thing without long term
potential, woudln't contractors prefer to stretch development over as
long a period as possible so they get profit during that time?


No, because they don't get profit during that time.


In that point of view, Pence imposing a 2024 deadline to deliver
something (even if unrealistic deadline) is likely a warning to the
suppliers that they now need to deliver something. And if they fail to
deliver, project gets cancelled.


Trump is imposing the deadline. Pence is just the messenger in this
case. He's imposing it because he wants a landing while he's still
President. The date is about politics, not profits. The concerns
about cancellation are also about politics (look at what each
successive President did to the manned space program).


Would it be correct to state that Rocketdyne has completed the SSME
refurbishement of the 16 engines? I take it they are now working on
building tooking to allow building more SSMEs when NASA triggers that
option the contract?


No, it would not be correct. You've been corrected on this over and
over and over and over again, Mayfly. WRITE IT DOWN.


WOuld building 4 SSMEs per year be considered a worthwile endeavour for
Rocketdyne? Or is the money being made before they start to build them
(design, build tooking etc)?


Jesus but you're ignorant about how government contracting works! Yes,
it would be worthwhile (and they'll have to build more than 4 per
year) and you don't get fee until you hit a milestone, so no, all the
money is not made before you deliver anything.


SpaceX was able to lower costs by going with mass production of engines.
Building 4 per year doesn't seem like something that would lower costs much.


Costs are purportedly lower because the engines are 'single use'.


hat about the SRBs? Has ATK/Grunman finished the 10 5 segment boosters?
or has it done 1 and very very slowly building the second one?


You don't want a bunch of multi-segment solids sitting around in a
parking lot somewhere. I'm sure they assemble them as they're needed.


Is Boeing the critical contractor that is causing delays? Or are they
all late?


Boeing.


If some benefit from delays but others are hurt by it, eventially the
others will statt to lobby govt to tell the one laggard to fix its
problems and get on with the job.


Nobody 'benefits from delays' other than in having more time to do the
work (which leads to less profit per amount of time).


Wondering if this is what happened to cause Pence to set a 2024 deadline.


No. What happened to cause Pence to set a 2024 deadline is Trump
telling him "I want a landing before the end of 2024". And Pence
doesn't set deadlines or cancel programs (neither does Trump). That's
CONGRESS.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In article , says...

On 5/20/2019 12:56 PM, wrote:
Developed by the agency's senior human spaceflight manager, Bill
Gerstenmaier, this plan is everything Pence asked for?an urgent human return, a
Moon base, a mix of existing and new contractors."

See:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...lunar-outpost/


Given the current political climate in DC I'd say this plan is even more
still-born than was Constellation and President Bush's VSE a decade + 5
years ago.

I tend to agree. Such a plan involves increasing NASA's budget
significantly in later years. But the actual increase is a huge unknown
to Congress. So they're likely to take whatever number NASA gives them
and multiply it by 2x to 5x, depending on their faith in the estimating
capabilities of NASA. That faith will be low, considering the massive
burning dumpster fire that are the SLS/Orion programs. SLS in
particular is years behind schedule and many billions of dollars over
budget.

I agree with VP Pence's sense of urgency but it is disingenuous at best
to think that the DC establishment and NASA in particular has the means
or skills today to drive this effort. Making SLS a key component of this
plan just exposes it as the fantasy it is.

Agree with the SLS point. At $2+ billion a year, SLS is a financial
drag on any program that aspires to send crews beyond LEO. It's also a
drag on the schedule since EM-1, the first crewed Orion mission, was to
have flown on SLS in December 2017. It remains to be seen when EM-1
will fly, but my guess is NET 2021. At $2+ billion a year, that would
project SLS to be at least $8 billion over budget. And if you added in
the delays for the Exploration Upper Stage, that number would easily
climb to over $10 billion.

To put that into perspective, just the $10 billion that's over budget
would buy 66 expendable Falcon Heavy launches. Just imagine what NASA
could do with 66 expendable Falcon Heavy launches. Add in the rest of
the money spent on SLS and it becomes clear that SLS is an absolutely
insane waste of money.

I know this is harsh. Too bad. I feel sorry for the senior leadership at
NASA. Their hearts are in the right place, they are good people. They
just don't realize that their methodology belongs to a long lost past
that will not return.

We'd be better served if NASA acted like an investment bank and Congress
gave it the funds necessary to buy the desired end goal with as little
micro-management as possible. That has not been the established paradigm
and is not evident in this work of fiction either.

Agreed. But the fact is that NASA is beholden to the SLS/Alabama mafia.
Until that hold loosens, SLS will continue to be the keystone in the
NASA plan of record to return a crew to the lunar surface.

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.

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Sat, 25 May 2019
08:47:58 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-24 06:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

Because if you look at the damn picture of the proposed time-line that's
all over online, *none* of the stages of the lunar lander are launched
by SLS. They're *all* launched on *separate* commercial launch
vehicles.

Are the separate launches all going to "Gateway" to deliver their
hardware, or would there be LEO dockings involved before the combined
parts get to Gateway ?

Everything possible goes to Gateway in order to justify its existence.
The only exception would be uncrewed landers with surface instruments,
robotic rovers, or modules/supplies to be prepositioned on the surface
for longer term crewed missions.


Well, there's that and there's the problem that if you combine
everything in LEO now you need an upper stage with enough grunt to get
the whole works to where it's going all at once. Sending little
pieces is easier. That's one of the 'justifications' for doing a
Gateway is to give an 'assembly area' to send pieces too without
having to send them all at once.

NASA is trying its best not to need LEO refueling. But, if they ever
get to the point where they're reusing crewed lander ascent stages and
transfer stages (Gateway to LLO), they'll need to be doing similar
refueling at Gateway.

Ultimately, we need in orbit refueling to perform missions that are
bigger than Gateway/lunar surface. Whether that first refueling happens
in LEO (likely with cryogenics) or at Gateway (likely with hypergolics),
it's got to happen sooner or later. One of those approaches gets us
ready to go to Mars while the other simply doesn't.

NASA is making all the wrong long term investments in order to justify
SLS/Orion to the greatest extent possible. So that means delaying the
development of refueling and descoping that development to hypergolics
instead of cryogenics. NASA is deliberately choosing a path which
delays any "exploration" beyond the moon.

Gateway and its transportation architecture limits us to lunar
exploration at best. This whole plan stinks of the SLS/Alabama mafia.

The "accelerated schedule" thing doesn't really change NASA's plan by
much. It mostly, unrealistically, slides SLS launches to the left on
the schedule to please Trump/Pence. I have zero faith that Congress
will go along and provide the funding necessary to accelerate this plan.
And even if Congress did provide the funding for this accelerated plan,
I have little faith that Boeing will be able to pull the burning SLS
bacon out of the schedule campfire and get it actually flying in time
(before the 2024 election).

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.