Dec 6, 2022 05:29 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/12/...omes-next/
EXCERPT: . . . Realistically, a follow-up to Artemis I is probably at least two years away. Most likely, the Artemis II mission will not happen before early 2025, although NASA is not giving up hope on launching humans into deep space in 2024.
It may seem strange that there's such a long gap. [...] Should it really take more than two years to finish building a second rocket and spacecraft and complete the certification of life support systems inside Orion?
The short answer is no, and the reason for the long gap is a bit absurd. It all goes back to a decision made about eight years ago to plug a $100 million budget hole in the Orion program. As a result of a chain of events that followed this decision, Artemis II is unlikely to fly before 2025 because of eight relatively small flight computers.
[...] One key difference is that NASA only planned to fly the original version of the SLS rocket, known as "Block 1," a single time. After this initial mission, the agency planned to upgrade the rocket's upper stage, making a version of the rocket known as "Block 1B." Because this variant was taller and more powerful than Block 1, it required significant modifications to the rocket's launch tower. NASA engineers estimated that it would take nearly three years of work after the initial SLS launch to complete and test the reconstructed tower.
So it seemed plausible that the Orion planners could reuse some components from the first flight of their spacecraft on the second one. In particular, they focused on a suite of two dozen avionics "boxes" that are part of the electronics system that operates Orion's communications, navigations, display, and flight control systems. They estimated it would take about two years to re-certify the flight hardware... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPT: . . . Realistically, a follow-up to Artemis I is probably at least two years away. Most likely, the Artemis II mission will not happen before early 2025, although NASA is not giving up hope on launching humans into deep space in 2024.
It may seem strange that there's such a long gap. [...] Should it really take more than two years to finish building a second rocket and spacecraft and complete the certification of life support systems inside Orion?
The short answer is no, and the reason for the long gap is a bit absurd. It all goes back to a decision made about eight years ago to plug a $100 million budget hole in the Orion program. As a result of a chain of events that followed this decision, Artemis II is unlikely to fly before 2025 because of eight relatively small flight computers.
[...] One key difference is that NASA only planned to fly the original version of the SLS rocket, known as "Block 1," a single time. After this initial mission, the agency planned to upgrade the rocket's upper stage, making a version of the rocket known as "Block 1B." Because this variant was taller and more powerful than Block 1, it required significant modifications to the rocket's launch tower. NASA engineers estimated that it would take nearly three years of work after the initial SLS launch to complete and test the reconstructed tower.
So it seemed plausible that the Orion planners could reuse some components from the first flight of their spacecraft on the second one. In particular, they focused on a suite of two dozen avionics "boxes" that are part of the electronics system that operates Orion's communications, navigations, display, and flight control systems. They estimated it would take about two years to re-certify the flight hardware... (MORE - missing details)