NASA delays Artemis 2 moon mission to April 2026, Artemis 3 lunar landing to mid-2027

[Admin]

NASA has delayed the planned launch of its Artemis 2 crewed moon mission to April 2026, allowing more time to prep its Orion capsule.

NASA delays Artemis 2 moon mission to April 2026, Artemis 3 lunar landing to mid-2027 : Read more

 

[fj.torres]

There is a recurring scenario in SF of a colonization STL generation ship arriving at its target planet only to find it already colonized via FTL. (Most recently as a sidequest in the STARFIELD RPG.) New tech always upstages the old ways. It's the circle of life, tech division.

The entire Artemis project is now at risk of being rendered obsolete--from the mobile launcher to the Gateway lunar space station--by STARSHIP derivatives.

Dear Moon may be cancelled but the POLARIS crewed moon mission hasn't and a key milestone of HLS is an unmanned demo landing. If ARTEMIS and its "best 20th century tech" project slips much more it might be superseded by a private crewed lunar landing in 2027-28.

Too much of ARTEMIS is based on political considerations to support friends of the party old space companies instead of targeting emerging off the shelf New Space solutions. The existing three part Artemis model of Orion/SLS, GATEWAY, and HLS can be easily replaced by a DRAGON/FALCON, HLS LEO docking solution.

Like it or not the unavoidable part of any US lunar landing project is HLS. And once HLS is validated, everything else becomes optional. And as long as NASA limits its lunar missions to 4-7 member crews, HLS+ Dragon is a much more cost-effective solution than ORION/SLS + HLS lunar rendezvous.

For that matter, the ORION heat shield quality control is suspect, an easy fix to ARTEMIS 2 is to change the Orion return to a LEO rendezvous ISS docking. Then the ORION can return unmanned and the crew can ride a Dragon back to Earth. It could even become common practice for Old Space companies.

EDITED for acronym surgery.

 

[orsobubu]

There is a recurring scenario in SF of a colonization STL generation ship arriving at its target planet only to find it already colonized via FTL. (Most recently as a sidequest in the STARFIELD RPG.) New tech always upstages the old ways. It's the circle of life, tech division.

The entire Artemis project is now at risk of being rendered obsolete--from the mobile launcher to the Gateway lunar space station--by STARSHIP derivatives.

Dear Moon may be cancelled but the POLARIS crewed moon mission hasn't and a key milestone of HLM is an unmanned demo landing. If ARTEMIS and its "best 20th century tech" project slips much more it might be superseded by a private crewed lunar landing in 2027-28.

Too much of ARTEMIS is based on political considerations to support friends of the party old space companies instead of targeting emerging off the shelf New Space solutions. The existing three part Artemis model of Orion/SLS, GATEWAY, and HLM can be easily replaced by a DRAGON/FALCON, HLM LEO docking solution.

Like it or not the unavoidable part of any US lunar landing project is HLM. And once HLM is validated, everything else becomes optional. And as long as NASA limits its lunar missions to 4-7 member crews, HLM + Dragon is a much more cost-effective solution than ORION/SLS + HLM lunar rendezvous.

For that matter, the ORION heat shield quality control is suspect, an easy fix to ARTEMIS 2 is to change the Orion return to a LEO rendezvous ISS docking. Then the ORION can return unmanned and the crew can ride a Dragon back to Earth. It could even become common practice for Old Space companies.

HLM? I knew there was the starship HLS.

Don't you think that there is a serious possibility that a fatal accident occurr during the many stages of starship trip to the moon, ie the tenth of fuel loading manouvers?

Another thing about artemis, it is strange to me the problem to the orion ablation system, since the reentering scenario should have been well known and all of technical issues already fixed after so many successfull missions during the apollo era, when every challenge was so brilliantly worked out in a matter of months after the apollo 1 disaster....

 

[George²]

during the many stages of starship trip to the moon,

These many stages are non understandable for me. Why? Moon has weak gravity. Distance Earth to Moon is so short.

 

[fj.torres]

These many stages are non understandable for me. Why? Moon has weak gravity. Distance Earth to Moon is so short.

That is FUD.
Musk debunked it right away.

First of all, they're extrapolating off the First gen *prototypes*. The final version will have much power engines and bigger tanks.
HLS will be a *derivative* of the latter.

Second, no; HLS won't need full tanks for its planned Artemis 3 mission since NASA plans to abandon it (and probably crash it) after the astronauts return to ORION.

Third, it is now official that Spacex will be maintaining an orbital fuel depot so HLS will only need to fuel up *once*. And since it will be unmanned at the time, no risk to humans.

SpaceX needs to first, unveil the final HLS, then fly it to the moon and land it, unmanned, and take off from the moon. Then they get their money. It is way to early to judge what the full process will involve.

Once that is known, then the critics can chime in.
But until then, nobody knows how many launches will be needed for the depot, much less HLS.

All we know is that when debunking the blue origin lawsuit claim of 14 flights and docking he said HLS will only need maybe a quarter of the earth launch fuel for its moon mission. Not 14, not 10 dockings. Just one.

 

[fj.torres]

HLM? I knew there was the starship HLS.

Don't you think that there is a serious possibility that a fatal accident occurr during the many stages of starship trip to the moon, ie the tenth of fuel loading manouvers?

Another thing about artemis, it is strange to me the problem to the orion ablation system, since the reentering scenario should have been well known and all of technical issues already fixed after so many successfull missions during the apollo era, when every challenge was so brilliantly worked out in a matter of months after the apollo 1 disaster....

Yeah, HLS. Oopsie.
Got the soon to dead SLM, the launch mount, on the brain.
That is $2B in savings right there.

And you are right: there is no reason for the ablative shields to be a problem since it is 60's tech. That is why I assume it is a quality control problem: all the panels that build up the full heat shield did not ablate equally. So either the capsule was not facing a uniform plasma flow or the ablative material composition is not uniform. Ergo: not manufactured correctly.

 

[orsobubu]

Yeah, HLS. Oopsie.
Got the soon to dead SLM, the launch mount, on the brain.
That is $2B in savings right there.

And you are right: there is no reason for the ablative shields to be a problem since it is 60's tech. That is why I assume it is a quality control problem: all the panels that build up the full heat shield did not ablate equally. So either the capsule was not facing a uniform plasma flow or the ablative material composition is not uniform. Ergo: not manufactured correctly.

thankyou for clarifing the refueling issue; probably i missed the reply by spacex

 

[fj.torres]

thankyou for clarifing the refueling issue; probably i missed the reply by spacex

Here is the Musk reply to the blue origin claim:

Musk Says That Refueling Starship for Lunar Landings Will Take 8 Launches (Maybe 4)

Bezos is still fighting for the HLS contract by claiming the Starship will require too many refueling missions, prompting Musk to respond.

www.universetoday.com

8 (first gen prototypes) to refill the tanks to full, 4 to half.
And if anything, full tanks would be carrying unnecessary fuel mass to the moon.

An interesting choice down the line might be two sets of tanks used for fuel to LEO. Only one set gets refueled to the moon and the second set can be reused as useful volume for lunar water storage. or useful volume if its mean to serve as a moon base for a long duration mission. Sealed volume is priceless on a spacecraft.

 

[starman2]

The Gateway lunar space station should be deployed as soon as possible, which could be the best way to access the Moon. If they are viewing the lunar space station as "token" - I think it is the other way around - a space station is necessity. It will act as a main transportation hub, docking incoming spacecraft, and descending astronauts (and equipment) to the Moon via docked lunar landers. A direct landing via Starship is okay, and it can carry-on independently (help with the bulk of equipment) but I don't think it is the first choice for deploying astronauts.

 

[George²]

The Gateway lunar space station should be deployed as soon as possible, which could be the best way to access the Moon. If they are viewing the lunar space station as "token" - I think it is the other way around - a space station is necessity. It will act as a main transportation hub, docking incoming spacecraft, and descending astronauts (and equipment) to the Moon via docked lunar landers. A direct landing via Starship is okay, and it can carry-on independently (help with the bulk of equipment) but I don't think it is the first choice for deploying astronauts.

In some other forums has commentators which opinion is that plans for gateway must be rejected.

 

[fj.torres]

The Gateway lunar space station should be deployed as soon as possible, which could be the best way to access the Moon. If they are viewing the lunar space station as "token" - I think it is the other way around - a space station is necessity. It will act as a main transportation hub, docking incoming spacecraft, and descending astronauts (and equipment) to the Moon via docked lunar landers. A direct landing via Starship is okay, and it can carry-on independently (help with the bulk of equipment) but I don't think it is the first choice for deploying astronauts.

A lunar Space Station? Yes, by all means.
The current design, no.
Too small, too limited.
The thing might not even be able to safely dock with HLS.

Any space station, whether lunar, LEO, or GEO (also needed) needs to be bigger than a starship useful volume. Otherwise, why bother? One could modify a starship with solar panels and extended life support and park it in the right orbit for a few years.

 

[starman2]

A lunar Space Station? Yes, by all means.
The current design, no.
Too small, too limited.
The thing might not even be able to safely dock with HLS.

Any space station, whether lunar, LEO, or GEO (also needed) needs to be bigger than a starship useful volume. Otherwise, why bother? One could modify a starship with solar panels and extended life support and park it in the right orbit for a few years.

I would think the lunar space station can always increase by adding modules. I think it should have plenty of docking ports to take in all the incoming spacecraft (e.g., size and type of Dragon) and ports for 2-3 lunar landers. The HLS (assuming Starship or even Blue Origin's version) can go direct to the Moon.

 

[fj.torres]

I would think the lunar space station can always increase by adding modules. I think it should have plenty of docking ports to take in all the incoming spacecraft (e.g., size and type of Dragon) and ports for 2-3 lunar landers. The HLS (assuming Starship or even Blue Origin's version) can go direct to the Moon.

As shown the module is tiny, system power low, not enough docking ports.
And too expensive for what you get.

https://www.eoportal.org/ftp/satellite-missions/g/Gateway_160622/Gateway_Auto3.jpeg

Looks more like MIR than a proper 21st century design.
60 KW power is barely a quarter of ISS, appropriate for its size and limited habitability, but is that all you get for $5.3B?

 

[James Parker]

Reminds me of the space race of old. A contest of government systems. Who can get the job done first? The autocratic regime of China, or a democratic regime of the USA? Whoever lands first in this century has an argument for being better able to move the needle.