NASA's moon mission - ARTEMIS

[DavidLondon]

ESA to support the mission with its contributions.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-moon-properly

The hope is that exploration will be fully under way by the end of the decade, said Parker. “By then, we will have had 30 years working on the International Space Station. We’ll get back to the moon during this decade and spend 15 to 20 years doing everything that needs to be done to explore the moon. Then we can think about the next step: going to Mars.”

This sounds increasingly like a substantial ongoing presence on the moon over the next 20 years.

Important milestones for the long term development of an emerging space economy will be:
(1) when the first in situ resources, such as power from moon based solar panels or water ice from lunar craters for water or rocket fuel, are produced to help development of the lunar base and
(2j in situ resources are exported for use elsewhere outside earth’s gravity well, such as to supply space tourism or other activity in close earth orbit.

Both of these milestones could provide significant momentum and dynamism for the emerging space economy as the the idea of in situ resources utilisation from a source beyond geosynchronous earth orbit becomes a reality for the first time.
Has anybody seen timelines for when these milestones could be reached?

[DavidLondon]

Water on the moon could sustain a lunar base

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54666328

...this could "broaden the list of places where we might want to build a base".

[kzb]

Water on the moon could sustain a lunar base

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54666328

I'm a bit surprised about this to be honest. It was also on BBC TV News all day yesterday (I'm working at home).

All previous work concluded that the moon is bone dry, with the exception of the ice deposits in shadowed craters. This includes the actual physical samples brought back for analysis by the Apollo missions.

So now an instrument mounted in a plane flying in Earth atmosphere detects water on the moon when much closer space probes have not, and the Apollo missions also did not.

As an added irritation, the TV discussions kept on about the water being "on the sunlit side" of the moon.

Is it just me?

[bob1609]

Sounds great, looking forward to this moment. But there is even better piece of news. As far as I know NASA are working in partnership with SpaceX and Boeing for the manufacturing of space craft to carry NASA astronauts to the ISS. But i want to know why NASA have decided to build the space craft "orion" and "gateway" them selfs in order to get to the moon in 2024. How come they chose to sub-contract out the designing and manufacturing of space craft to fly to the ISS but have opted to go to the moon alone and design and manufacture space craft them selfs?

[7cscb]

Sounds great, looking forward to this moment. But there is even better piece of news. As far as I know NASA are working in partnership with SpaceX and Boeing for the manufacturing of space craft to carry NASA astronauts to the ISS. But i want to know why NASA have decided to build the space craft "orion" and "gateway" them selfs in order to get to the moon in 2024. How come they chose to sub-contract out the designing and manufacturing of space craft to fly to the ISS but have opted to go to the moon alone and design and manufacture space craft them selfs?

Hello bob1609 and welcome to the forum,

I didn't quite get the better piece of news.

Cheers,

[DavidLondon]

I'm a bit surprised about this to be honest. ...

All previous work concluded that the moon is bone dry, with the exception of the ice deposits in shadowed craters. This includes the actual physical samples brought back for analysis by the Apollo missions...

It’s a good point 7cscb in post#95, and worth exploring. Below is the more detailed NASA explanation, which suggest that there have been relevant observations.

SOFIA’s results build on years of previous research examining the presence of water on the Moon. When the Apollo astronauts first returned from the Moon in 1969, it was thought to be completely dry. Orbital and impactor missions over the past 20 years, such as NASA’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, confirmed ice in permanently shadowed craters around the Moon’s poles. Meanwhile, several spacecraft – including the Cassini mission and Deep Impact comet mission, as well as the Indian Space Research Organization’s Chandrayaan-1 mission – and NASA’s ground-based Infrared Telescope Facility, looked broadly across the lunar surface and found evidence of hydration in sunnier regions. Yet those missions were unable to definitively distinguish the form in which it was present – either H2O or OH.

It can be found at:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...rface-of-moon/

But it is still a bit surprising that Sofia has found out more than any of the other observations, including those orbiting the moon.

It suggests that there is a lot more still to learn about the moon In the future than many of us realise...

[Van Rijn]

I'm a bit surprised about this to be honest. It was also on BBC TV News all day yesterday (I'm working at home).

All previous work concluded that the moon is bone dry, with the exception of the ice deposits in shadowed craters. This includes the actual physical samples brought back for analysis by the Apollo missions.

On the samples, IIRC there was a very small amount of water (or at least hydrogen) detected, but combined with other evidence, scientists assumed it was due to contamination after they were gathered. Later evidence suggested it wasn’t just contamination. It also matters what samples are checked. I think the evidence is that the Moon can still be considered bone dry, just not quite as dry as previously thought.

As an added irritation, the TV discussions kept on about the water being "on the sunlit side" of the moon.

Heh, yes, I saw that and rolled my eyes.

[DavidLondon]

On the samples, IIRC there was a very small amount of water (or at least hydrogen) detected, but combined with other evidence, scientists assumed it was due to contamination after they were gathered. Later evidence suggested it wasn’t just contamination. It also matters what samples are checked. I think the evidence is that the Moon can still be considered bone dry, just not quite as dry as previously thought.

Heh, yes, I saw that and rolled my eyes.

Thanks Van Rijn. So still a role for bringing water from asteroids.

The NASA press release also referred to the sunlit side of the moon. Maybe NASA likes to observe at full moon - but most of us prefer to observe when there’s some dark and a terminator visible...!

[Van Rijn]

Thanks Van Rijn. So still a role for bringing water from asteroids.

You’re welcome. Sure, I can see a role for water from asteroids but it would depend on the specifics - ease of access, where it is going to, etc. On the Moon, the darkened polar craters would probably remain the richest sources for water and other volatiles, but this could suggest more flexibility for where habitats go. It’s possible there might be reasonably rich sources of water in some locations underground on the Moon not at the poles. Some types of regolith will likely be better than others for availability and ease of extraction too.

[kzb]

It’s a good point 7cscb in post#95, and worth exploring. Below is the more detailed NASA explanation, which suggest that there have been relevant observations.



It can be found at:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...rface-of-moon/

But it is still a bit surprising that Sofia has found out more than any of the other observations, including those orbiting the moon.

It suggests that there is a lot more still to learn about the moon In the future than many of us realise...

Ta, I've looked at that link now, and some things have occurred to me:

#1 the water was detected in Clavius crater and not widely distributed across the moon, as was implied by the media reports.

#2 Clavius is way down south on the moon and I bet the sun never gets much above the horizon (can anyone put a number to this?)

#3 Clavius itself is 4 billion years old and is peppered with smaller, less-old craters.

So, could it be there are small craters within Clavius whose floors never see direct sunlight, and it is ice in those that SOFIA has detected?

[DavidLondon]

The NASA press release also referred to the sunlit side of the moon....!

I may have misunderstood the reference to the ‘sunlit side‘ of the moon.
It seems that, while the South Pole could be a good location for an early research outpost and possible eventual water supply depot for a fuel, it may not be great for longer term habitats. This is not least because the sun is always low in the sky - even during the lunar day - so it’s likely to be very dark with temperatures rarely over minus 160 degrees C most of the time around the habitats.
So the sunlit reference is more to locations at latitudes where there is more sunlight, at least during the lunar day. The recent discovery of the presence of water molecules on the sunlit part of the surface are in Clavius crater (always a joy to look at through a scope) which is 75 degrees south of the equator.

The M3 Moon Minerology Mapper was able to detect infrared light at three microns absorbed by the surface in 2009 - which suggests either water or hydroxyl. To tell the difference you need to look for a signal at six microns as well - which only Sofia was able to do. Hence the significance of the latest find in Clavius. How useful the water in Clavius is depends on whether it is in the form of ice crystals (easy to liberate by heating the regolith) or in glassy beads (not straightforward to extract the water).

So a lot more to learn about accessing water on sunlit areas away from the poles of the moon. Maybe underground sources are more promising for these areas as Van Rijn suggests...

[schlaugh]

The actual press release says "sunlit surface" meaning it is a surface that receives sunlight vs. shadowed craters and valleys at the poles which receive no sunlight.

NASA’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) has confirmed, for the first time, water on the sunlit surface of the Moon. This discovery indicates that water may be distributed across the lunar surface, and not limited to cold, shadowed places.

It may have been better to say on a sunlight surface and not the sunlit surface. Picking nits, I know, but still...

[selvaarchi]

"Moon 2020-something"

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4066/1

It can be hard to believe, in this era where the pandemic has warped our sense of time, that the centerpiece of NASA’s human space exploration plans isn’t that new. It was only in March 2019, a little more than 18 months ago, that Vice President Mike Pence announced that he was calling on NASA to return humans to the Moon by 2024. Prior to his speech, NASA was working towards a human landing in 2028, after first assembling the lunar Gateway.

While the 2024 human lunar return was born on March 26, 2019, it may have died on November 7, 2020. On that day former Vice President Joe Biden declared victory in his race against President Donald Trump after vote tallies made it clear he won Pennsylvania, putting him over the threshold of 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Space, for obvious reasons, was not an issue during the presidential race. The Biden campaign never published a policy paper on space, leaving the topic to a single paragraph in the Democratic party platform:

Democrats continue to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and are committed to continuing space exploration and discovery. We believe in continuing the spirit of discovery that has animated NASA’s human space exploration, in addition to its scientific and medical research, technological innovation, and educational mission that allows us to better understand our own planet and place in the universe. We will strengthen support for the United States’ role in space through our continued presence on the International Space Station, working in partnership with the international community to continue scientific and medical innovation. We support NASA’s work to return Americans to the moon and go beyond to Mars, taking the next step in exploring our solar system. Democrats additionally support strengthening NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth observation missions to better understand how climate change is impacting our home planet.

Nothing in the passage suggests a radical departure in space policy. There is, many observed, an increased emphasis on Earth science, which fits into a broader effort on climate change that the campaign has identified as one of its top overall priorities. The passage supports continued operation of the ISS and even missions to the Moon and Mars.

Notably absent from that platform, though, was any mention of a date for returning Americans to the Moon. A 2024 landing was always considered ambitious at best, but the language in the platform makes it appear to many that a Biden administration will, at the very least, take its foot off the gas pedal of the Artemis program.

[Garrison]

"Moon 2020-something"

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4066/1

Bit of stretch to try and derive Biden's space policy from that one paragraph not written by anyone on his team. All we know for sure is Bridenstine has elected to stand down regardless. I wouldn't expect Biden to make any big mentions of space policy before he takes office, after all he faces a remarkably fluid situation in terms of US spaceflight option, why commit to an SLS based Artemis right now?

[selvaarchi]

An op-ed in spacenews - "To get to Mars, first develop the moon". It is aimed at the US but applies to other countries that want to do the same thing.

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-to-get-t...elop-the-moon/

As the nation looks ahead to a new U.S. presidential administration and the new decade, few decisions will have a more profound impact on the future of our nation, and potentially the world, than the direction of the U.S. space program.

America’s current focus on development of the moon is often depicted as inhibiting human exploration of Mars. Different administrations, different Congresses, have pushed one or the other, through visionary plans, research programs and soaring rhetoric. But there is a fundamental truth that will shape our extraterrestrial planning: the next “gold rush” will be for lunar resources to enable an energy rich economy in Earth-moon space. This new wealth will make the human exploration and settlement of more distant Mars practical.

To get to Mars, we must first develop the moon.

[selvaarchi]

"Nasa says landing astronauts on moon by 2024 is unlikely"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-2024-unlikely

Nasa has said it will be “hard-pressed to land astronauts on the moon by the end of 2024”. The assessment by the agency’s office of inspector general comes in a report dated 12 November and titled 2020 Report on Nasa’s Top Management and Performance Challenges”.

Originally, Nasa had been working towards 2028 for returning astronauts to the moon, but in March 2019 the White House directed it to accelerate the plans. In response, Nasa developed the Artemis programme, which aims to land the first woman and the next man on the moon by 2024.

The report points to cost and schedule overruns on critical pieces of technology, such as the giant Space Launch System rocket, and the Orion crew capsule. It also points out that Nasa is set to receive far less than half the money it requested to begin developing a lunar lander.

However, the report does qualify its pessimism, stating: “At the very least, achieving any date close to this ambitious goal – and reaching Mars in the 2030s – will require strong, consistent, sustained leadership from the president, Congress, and Nasa, as well as stable and timely funding.”

President-elect Joe Biden’s Democratic party has stated that it will “support Nasa’s work to return Americans to the moon and go beyond to Mars”, but has not committed to 2024.

[Roger E. Moore]

Some Artemis III mission proposals that came out recently.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.00007

A High-Cadence UV-Optical Telescope Suite On The Lunar South Pole

Scott W. Fleming, Thomas Barclay, Keaton J. Bell, Luciana Bianchi, C. E. Brasseur, JJ Hermes, R. O. Parke Loyd, Chase Million, Rachel Osten, Armin Rest, Ryan Ridden-Harper, Joshua Schlieder, Evgenya L. Shkolnik, Paula Szkody, Brad E. Tucker, Michael A. Tucker, Allison Youngblood

We propose a suite of telescopes be deployed as part of the Artemis III human-crewed expedition to the lunar south pole, able to collect wide-field simultaneous far-ultraviolet (UV), near-UV, and optical band images with a fast cadence (10 seconds) of a single part of the sky for several hours continuously. Wide-field, high-cadence monitoring in the optical regime has provided new scientific breakthroughs in the fields of exoplanets, stellar astrophysics, and astronomical transients. Similar observations cannot be made in the UV from within Earth's atmosphere, but are possible from the Moon's surface. The proposed observations will enable studies of atmospheric escape from close-in giant exoplanets, exoplanet magnetospheres, the physics of stellar flare formation, the impact of stellar flares on exoplanet habitability, the internal stellar structure of hot, compact stars, and the early-time evolution of supernovae and novae to better understand their progenitors and formation mechanisms.

=============

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.12807

Exploring the near-surface at the lunar South Pole with geophysical tools

C. Schmelzbach, S. Stähler, N. C. Schmerr, M. Knapmeyer, D. Sollberger, P. Edme, A. Khan, N. Brinkman, L. Ferraioli, J. O. A. Robertsson, D. Giardini

Geophysical imaging of the lunar near-surface structure will be key for in situ resource utilization, identification of hazards for crews and infrastructure, and answering science questions on the formation and interior of the Moon. The goal of this white paper is to highlight the value of ground-based geophysical experiments by a crew and to outline a series of experiments to address key science questions. Specifically, we propose for the Artemis III crewed mission multidisciplinary investigations using geophysical methods such as seismic, seismological, ground penetrating radar, and electromagnetic techniques. We identified a series of prime near-surface targets for such geophysical investigations: (1) establishing a lunar fault monitoring observatory across a lobate scarp to study recent lunar seismicity, (2) determining the physical properties of the regolith at the landing site, (3) investigating the structure and in-situ properties of permanently shadowed regions in the context of the search for water ice and other cold-trapped volatiles, and (4) imaging the interior structure of the South-Pole Aitken basin. Beyond Artemis III, the Moon will serve as a comprehensive testbed for extra-terrestrial geophysics. Hence, lessons learned from human geophysical exploration of the Moon will be key for the exploration of the moons of Mars and near-Earth object(s), and prepare us for the human exploration of space beyond the Moon.

=====================

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03985

Next-Generation Geodesy at the Lunar South Pole: An Opportunity Enabled by the Artemis III Crew

Vishnu Viswanathan, Erwan Mazarico, Stephen Merkowitz, Xiaoli Sun, Thomas Marshall Eubanks, David Edmund Smith

Lunar retro-reflector arrays (LRAs) consisting of corner-cube reflectors (CCRs) placed on the nearside of the Moon during the Apollo era have demonstrated their longevity, cost-effectiveness, ease of deployment, and most importantly their interdisciplinary scientific impact through the ongoing lunar laser ranging (LLR) experiment. The human exploration of the lunar south polar region provides a unique opportunity to build on this legacy and contribute to the scientific return of the Artemis, for many decades to come. Here we outline the extended science objectives realizable with the deployment of geodetic tracking devices by the Artemis III crew.

======

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03514

Requirements for gravity measurements on the anticipated Artemis III mission

Peter James, Anton Ermakov, Michael Sori

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate the reasoning behind the specific measurement requirements in the white paper by James et al. titled "The value of surface-based gravity and gravity gradient measurements at the Moon's south pole with Artemis III". As described in this document, measurement requirements in practice will depend on a number of factors, including the geographic location, the shape of the local terrain, the precision to which elevation is known, and the nature of drift in the gravimeter.

[Garrison]

"Nasa says landing astronauts on moon by 2024 is unlikely"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-2024-unlikely

Not to put to fine a point on it but 2024 was never very likely, it was more case of no one daring to say it openly lest they draw the wrath of the White House. The 2024 plan would require a huge increase in budget and a fully working SLS and with the first test flight for SLS drifting into 2022 even if the green run doesn't throw up any issues 2024 was shifting from unlikely to impossible.

[Van Rijn]

Not to put to fine a point on it but 2024 was never very likely, it was more case of no one daring to say it openly lest they draw the wrath of the White House.

I will give them this, though: This is the first time a return to the Moon plan has felt to me like a serious effort going beyond paper studies. The 2024 date was always very unlikely but has helped as a goal to motivate people. As long as the effort is taken seriously by the new administration I could see a return to the Moon happening this decade. Not by 2024 but maybe 2028.

[selvaarchi]

Not to put to fine a point on it but 2024 was never very likely, it was more case of no one daring to say it openly lest they draw the wrath of the White House. The 2024 plan would require a huge increase in budget and a fully working SLS and with the first test flight for SLS drifting into 2022 even if the green run doesn't throw up any issues 2024 was shifting from unlikely to impossible.

Much earlier, if Congress can get over the need to use SLS, and settle for SpaceX.

[selvaarchi]

"Lunar Gateway Instruments to Improve Weather Forecasting for Artemis Astronauts"

https://www.moondaily.com/reports/Lu...nauts_999.html

One of the first things people want to know before taking a trip is what the weather will be like wherever they are headed. For Artemis astronauts traveling on missions to the Moon, two space weather instrument suites, NASA's HERMES and ESA's ERSA, will provide an early forecast. Weather in this case means energized, subatomic particles and electromagnetic fields hurtling through the solar system.

The instrument suites, named after two of Artemis's half-siblings in Greek Mythology - Ersa, the goddess of dew, and Hermes, the messenger of the Olympian gods - will be pre-loaded on the Gateway before the first two components are launched: the Power and Propulsion Element and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost. The two instrument suites will begin monitoring the lunar radiation environment and return data before crews begin to arrive.

Reinforcing decades of agency collaboration in space, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) are each building one of the instruments suites to monitor deep space weather and report data back to Earth. Each agency was able to take advantage of this early opportunity to conduct science from Gateway - first realized in late 2019 - by capitalizing on technologies that were mature enough to be delivered by mid-2022. The two complementary mini weather stations will split up the work, with ERSA monitoring space radiation at higher energies with a focus on astronaut protection, while HERMES monitors lower energies critical to scientific investigations.

[schlaugh]

I posted this over in the Biden Space Policy thread but it's appropriate here as well. If we try to divine any direction from a Biden administration, and if Kendra Horn does become its administrator, than House Bill 5666 may give some guideposts for how some in congress see a lunar and mars mission plan and timeline unfolding; Moon in 2028, Mars in 2033. Keep in mind that HB 5666 left the subcommittee but never made it to the full committee, let alone to the floor for a vote. Excerpt:

TITLE II—HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS
Subtitle A—Moon To Mars Program

SEC. 201. SUSTAINABLE HUMAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM.
It is the sense of Congress that the Nation’s human exploration program is an important element of United States leadership in space exploration, economic strength, and national security. It is the further sense of Congress that constancy of purpose and the sustainability of the Nation’s human exploration goals and objectives should be an inherent principle of a long-term, deep space human exploration program that spans several Congresses and Administrations.

SEC. 202. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
(a) In General.—The Administrator is authorized under sections 20302 and 70504 of title 51, United States Code, and shall carry out plans and programs to achieve sustainable human exploration of deep space for the purpose of sending humans to the surface of Mars.
(b) Establishment.—The goal of NASA’s Moon to Mars Program shall be to land humans on Mars in a sustainable manner as soon as practicable. The Moon to Mars Program shall have the interim goal of sending a crewed mission to the lunar surface by 2028 and a goal of sending a crewed mission to orbit Mars by 2033.
(c) Precursor Activities.—The Administrator shall undertake precursor crewed missions to cis-lunar space and the lunar surface for the purpose of risk reduction for human missions to Mars by developing and testing those systems and operational practices needed for successful crewed Mars missions.
(d) Objectives.—The objectives of the human missions to Mars shall be to—

(1) validate the capabilities required for sustained human exploration of and operations on the surface of Mars;

(2) pursue scientific investigations, as recommended by the National Academies, that are enabled by the human exploration of Mars; and
(3) develop and maintain the scientific, technical, program management, and human spaceflight operational skills required to support a sustainable deep space exploration program.

SEC. 203. STRUCTURE OF MOON TO MARS PROGRAM.
(a) Moon To Mars Program Office.—The Administrator shall establish a Moon to Mars Program Office within 60 days of the enactment of this Act to lead and manage the Moon to Mars Program.
(b) Program Director.—The Administrator shall appoint a Program Director of the Office established in subsection (a) who shall report to the Associate Administrator and the Associate Administrator of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate.
(c) Responsibilities.—The Moon to Mars Program Office shall be responsible for developing—

(1) requirements for a human Mars orbital mission and a human mission to the surface of Mars;
(2) an architecture, integrated plan, and overall schedule encompassing the elements of the Moon to Mars Program to carry out a human mission to orbit Mars by 2033. The architecture and plan shall be based on the mission requirements established in paragraph (1); and

(3) an integrated, master plan for the development of required capabilities for the human mission to Mars.

(d) Systems Engineering And Integration.—The Director of the Moon to Mars Program Office shall appoint a Systems Engineering and Integration Manager to manage the systems engineering and integration activities of the Moon to Mars Program.
(e) Special Hiring Authorities.—The Administrator shall propose to Congress any special hiring authorities that the Administrator determines are needed to ensure that personnel with the requisite skills and experience are available to the Program Office.
(f) Program Elements.—The Moon to Mars Program shall consist of the following:

(1) A Gateway to Mars in cis-lunar space or at a Lagrangian point for the purpose of reducing the risks of the capabilities in paragraph (3) and serving as a testbed for the systems and operational techniques needed to transport crews to, from, and during operations in Mars orbit or on the surface of Mars. The Gateway to Mars shall be developed to operate autonomously and to be crew-tended, as needed, on an intermittent basis. The Gateway to Mars shall be open and available for international participation and use.

(2) A Lunar Precursor Initiative (LPI) for the purpose of gaining and demonstrating the operational experience and systems needed to enable crewed transport to and from the surface of Mars, as well as for limited operations and habitation on Mars.

(3) A Mars Enabling Technology Initiative (METI) for the purpose of developing and testing the technologies and capabilities needed for a human missions to Mars. Mars-enabling technologies and capabilities to be demonstrated shall include—

(A) Mars entry, descent, and landing systems;

(B) radiation safety;

(C) in-space power and propulsion, including nuclear thermal propulsion;
(D) Mars transport vehicle;
(E) planetary ascent propulsion;
(F) environmental control and life support systems;
(G) Mars habitats;
(H) extravehicular activity suits;
(I) in-situ resource utilization of the Mars atmosphere; and
(J) any other Mars-enabling technologies and capabilities identified by the Administrator.

(4) A Space Launch System for the purpose of providing heavy-lift capability to carry out the Moon to Mars Program. The Administrator shall complete development of the Space Launch System and the Space Launch System variant enabled by an Exploration Upper Stage, pursuant to section 302 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. The Administrator shall take steps to develop the Block 2 variant to provide the full range of launch capability and performance available to the United States for the Administration’s crewed and robotic exploration of deep space. The Administrator shall complete the development and testing of the Exploration Upper Stage for the Space Launch System.
(5) An Orion Crew vehicle for the purpose of crewed spaceflight for the Moon to Mars Program.
(6) A Mars Transport Vehicle for the purposes of crewed transport to and around Mars. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall initiate pre-formulation activities for a Mars transport vehicle.

(g) Completion.—The Administrator shall plan to have all required testing completed to enable development and manufacture of an operational crewed Mars transport vehicle on a schedule consistent with the goal of a crewed mission to orbit Mars by 2033 and the architecture, integrated plan, and schedule in subsection (c)(2).

[Garrison]

And in another blow to the 2024 plan:

Component failure in NASA’s deep-space crew capsule could take months to fix

Is this wholly surprising when the capsule has been built but is then facing sitting on a shelf for 12-18 months waiting for the SLS? Also would anyone risk real money betting that the SLS hotfire won't end with something melting or going bang or snapping off?

[Roger E. Moore]

Full funding for 2024 Artemis mission is not there.

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-of...ander-funding/

[Garrison]

Full funding for 2024 Artemis mission is not there.

https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-of...ander-funding/

A 2024 landing was always primarily about politics, a date promoted because Donald Trump expected to be a two-term president and this would have been the grand finale of his time in office.

[Roger E. Moore]

Lunar Trailblazer: NASA Approves New Satellite to Map the Moon’s Surface. This will help determine where to land Artemis at the lunar poles.

QUOTE: A small-satellite mission to understand the lunar water cycle — detecting and mapping water on the lunar surface in order to investigate how its form, abundance, and location relate to geology — has received NASA approval to proceed with the next phase of its development. On November 24, the Lunar Trailblazer, a mission selected under NASA’s Small Innovative Missions for Planetary Exploration (SIMPLEx) program, passed its Key Decision Point-C (KDP-C) milestone, obtaining agency-level endorsement to begin final design of hardware and build. The milestone also provides the project’s official schedule and budget determination.

https://scitechdaily.com/lunar-trail...moons-surface/

[selvaarchi]

"NASA outlines science goals for future astronauts on Moon"

https://www.moondaily.com/reports/NA..._Moon_999.html

The US space agency NASA published a voluminous report on Monday outlining the scientific priorities for the Artemis III astronauts it intends to send to the Moon in 2024.

One of the goals will be to bring back a total of 85 kilograms (187 pounds) of lunar samples, both from the surface and sub-surface, more than the average 64 kilograms brought back by Apollo mission members between 1969 and 1972.

"The Moon holds vast scientific potential and astronauts are going to help us enable that science," said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

"This report helps outline a path forward toward the compelling science we can now contemplate doing on the lunar surface in conjunction with human explorers," Zurbuchen said.

[Garrison]

"NASA outlines science goals for future astronauts on Moon"

https://www.moondaily.com/reports/NA..._Moon_999.html

At this point I'm just going to assume any article quoting 2024 is wildly out of date, not to mention the potential revisions after Biden is sworn in.

[Nicolas]

2024 is still perfectly achievable with a slight revision of the calendar.

No, i did not mean to say "agenda".

[Roger E. Moore]

More Artemis news just out. NASA Successfully Powered Up Core Stage of the Massive SLS Rocket in Green Run Test.

https://scitechdaily.com/nasa-succes...reen-run-test/



NASA has named the 18 astronauts — half of them women — who will train for its Artemis moon-landing program. The first woman and next man on the moon will come from this elite group.

https://apnews.com/article/nasa-18-a...6fc6695fd98195