SpaceX Starship problems likely to delay Artemis 3 moon mission to 2026, NASA says

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering how far behind its own schedule NASA is at this point in its Artemis program, I doubt that NASA will be ready on-schedule, either.

But, this whole thing with SLS taking NASA astronauts to Moon orbit and then having them taken to the surface by SpaceX Starship has seemed ridiculous from the start. If Starship can get to Lunar orbit with a human rated ship and land on the moon, why not just have the NASA astronauts ride to Lunar orbit on Starship in the first place?

This whole NASA schedule seems to be driven by the concern that China will get to the Moon before the U.S. gets back to the Moon. And, that would not have been any sort of issue if Artemis was anywhere close to its original schedule. But, funding and bureaucracy have delayed government programs, as usual.

And, now the worry is that government and bureaucracy will delay Starship development launches, too.

At this point, I am betting on China getting there before Artemis. And, I am thinking "So what?" They have a central planning government with dictatorial powers - they can focus their economy on whatever they choose.

The interesting thing will be if SpaceX gets there with human crew before Artemis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YetAnotherBob

bryant

BANNED
Jan 21, 2021
14
1
1,515
Visit site
honestly, the whole if way off target when you consider that less than a penny of American tax dollars goes towards NASA. If the government would quit wasting money on BS and get on with it, we would be on the moon by now with possible test runs to mars. As it is now, some will be dead before boots are on mars, because of the short life span of man and the ignorance of a banana republic to get off their buns and do the hard thing, like Kenndey did with Apollo.
 
Nov 19, 2019
10
2
4,515
Visit site
Considering how far behind its own schedule NASA is at this point in its Artemis program, I doubt that NASA will be ready on-schedule, either.

But, this whole thing with SLS taking NASA astronauts to Moon orbit and then having them taken to the surface by SpaceX Starship has seemed ridiculous from the start. If Starship can get to Lunar orbit with a human rated ship and land on the moon, why not just have the NASA astronauts ride to Lunar orbit on Starship in the first place?

This whole NASA schedule seems to be driven by the concern that China will get to the Moon before the U.S. gets back to the Moon. And, that would not have been any sort of issue if Artemis was anywhere close to its original schedule. But, funding and bureaucracy have delayed government programs, as usual.

And, now the worry is that government and bureaucracy will delay Starship development launches, too.

At this point, I am betting on China getting there before Artemis. And, I am thinking "So what?" They have a central planning government with dictatorial powers - they can focus their economy on whatever they choose.

The interesting thing will be if SpaceX gets there with human crew before Artemis.

They are not that far behind .. to be honest. And most of the delays can be attributed to a Congress that cuts their budget repeatedly, and a deadly Global Pandemic. In late 2022, the first SLS launch was an incredible success that sent an Orion Spacecraft to the Moon. Artemis II is on track for a late 2024 flight, and I have no doubt that Artemis III will be ready by mid 2026.

Where is Lunar Starship? They haven't even built one yet - not even a prototype - and it's easy to see why. The Starship program is floundering. They are still working to get the easy parts right, launch and staging and orbit. But in order for the Human Landing System to reach the moon (and rendezvous with Orion) they need to perfect Rapid Reuse of a Super Heavy Launch Vehicle. They need to catch Super Heavy boosters and land refueling starships with near 100% reliability and turn them around for re-flight in mere hours. Not to mention they need to also perfect rapid orbital refueling of cryogenic fuels. All of this has NEVER been done before, and there is a very good chance of complete ... dismal ... failure.

NASA should never have granted this contracted to SpaceX. They should have eliminated SpaceX and gone ahead with a round two of Human Landing System proposals. Why on Earth would you want a lunar lander taller than ten story building? It's too big! Even if they manage to get there, the damn thing might fall over and explode killing everyone on board. Or worse... Marooning them so that Americans can watch them painfully asphyxiate. NASA has lost its mind and worse.. They have turned their back of the lessons learned from the Apollo missions. We know what a successful lunar lander looks like.. And it's not Starship!!!
 
May 18, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
Well how about saving the political comments for another site and get back to the situation here? Which simply comes down to this. At this rate if we get back to the moon by 2030 we will be doing better than this program is realistically able to do as is. No matter who is, or was president. As it is it will be almost 2 full years between Artemis 1 and 2. Why so long to essentially fly the same mission except adding the crew?
The solution at this point is NOT to resurrect some different plan that may or may not have been better or not as you suggest. That horse has long left barn. The solution is to put some sense of urgency back into NASA, and kick this entire program into a far higher gear .
What is the point of NASA so proudly advertising that Artemis 2 and 3 will involve a more diverse crews? And 3 will land a diverse crew of astronauts on the moon if NASA currently has no realistic way to do that ??? Time for NASA to get back to the kind of mentality it had 50 years ago when the only problem it had solving impossible problems was their solutions only took a bit longer.
 
Jun 10, 2023
1
1
15
Visit site
Have you seen the coverage of Boca Chica? Beautiful view. 24 hours something is happening. No other space company in the world has so much work and no such schedule and working methods. Here at Starbase, the future is in sight. These are new methods of work, production and new methods of thinking about the future. The future of man in space and the exploration of the entire solar system.

If the second Starship flight is successful and there are no major damages to the 0 (zero) stage, SpaceX will be able to send a Booster and a Ship every 1 month. By the end of 2024, we may have even 10-12 such flights. Astronaut missions are treated slightly differently than missions for civilian crews. Of course, everything has to work well and be durable, but it doesn't have to be hundreds of Starship flights to get astronauts on board.

What's been happening at Starbase for the last 4 years is something the space sector has never seen before. SpaceX already has another 4 Booster and Ship kits ready today. There will be even more of them in the next 2-3 months. If they build an automated factory, the speed of building more ships will accelerate. The private company SpaceX has additional important goals, such as the settlement of Mars or the very profitable launch of the new second-generation Starlink communication satellites in full version. Starship can't go wrong. It matters much more than just individual lunar missions.

Looking at the experience, methods and working tools of SpaceX engineers (no one else has this), one can believe that the Lunar Starship will be ready on time. It's not old space, it's new space. A new and better space sector. Private space sector.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pallen
There will be delays all along the way to doing Lunar science. 3 projects I'd like to see up there are: seed saplings sample-returned, a wire radar dish and perhaps brecchia wall collapse stabilizer, and thin test armour.
These are inventions that can happen a decade or two earlier on the Moon. The sample return needs fire and explosion safeguards. Astronauts need time for botany. The samples need to be safeguarded to Earth and analyzed to be worthy of return. The radiation sensor must record cosmic rays are there.
The wire chain mail needs university facilities to make. It needs a space coating or it breaks in 1/2. Ideally larger diameter wire crimpers are there for structure. A handling wand or roomba might keep away pointy ends. The electrical system (of the mesh dish) might fail at first prototype.
And if the armour is to catch samples it might need to be thicker or a lunar brick under it invented. Astronauts might want time to anaylze such. And it need thin sheet deployment and visual damage detection may not be the only modality wanted. Collecting such panels might be risky.

As with Cis-Lunar, the delayed R+D above also has upsides potentially: new sample catching means, safe metal handling, new space food flavours and plant varieties including pharming, and perhaps a tracking dish on the Moon in its dust is stimulated.
 
I dunno: crappy Proof-of-P wire 2029, damageable armour sheets 2030, good radar dish 2033, damage resistant armour 2034, dry saplings for Earth return 2035, micro meteorite catch 2037, wet saplings maybe for Lunar analysis 2038, crater sidewall mesh deployment 2040, meteorite catch 2045. NASA/USA gets the dish technology, the DNA IP minus my hubs and personal aloe vera, and hopefully the armour is useful. Just like delays, pointy or flamable objects are a downside. Not starshading Webb and having it be all things to all astronomers seems to have worked and it was similiarly delayed. My good tech starts circa 2033 w/ some astronaut free time.
 
Jun 10, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
And who thinks SLS/Orion/Space Suits will be ready for a 2025 launch?😆 2 years from now? Dreaming. And SLS/Orion/New Space Suits have been in development for a decade. So lets not blame Starship development which entered the game just recently. Blame our politicians for funding a lunar orbit mission instead of a lunar landing. The hardware built is underpowered with a weak second stage on SLS incapable of delivering a lander. And China has been outspoken about their ambitions. Our politicians and general public didnt listen or care. Wouldnt be shocked if Chinas much simpler lunar mission beats us back.
 
Last edited:
NASA should never have granted this contracted to SpaceX. They should have eliminated SpaceX and gone ahead with a round two of Human Landing System proposals. Why on Earth would you want a lunar lander taller than ten story building? It's too big! Even if they manage to get there, the damn thing might fall over and explode killing everyone on board. Or worse... Marooning them so that Americans can watch them painfully asphyxiate. NASA has lost its mind and worse.. They have turned their back of the lessons learned from the Apollo missions. We know what a successful lunar lander looks like.. And it's not Starship!!!
For each orbit you might want a 1/2 dozen different vehicles. These are expensive to develop. Perhaps $1T to mine an asteroid with vehicles and equipment. If I were to give NASA or Blue Origin a deadly Saturn mining blueprint or go to Triton, I might consider buying Ford, retooling them to space. Buying a smaller version of Magna. And buying an Al refiner. That is $100B and it leads to the $1T if you can fund enough early stage stuff from the biz model you are seceding from. I agree but the multi-vehicle strategy requires selling in the bitcoin boom and buying help of some sort. I would but I've never ever witnessed a company buy a hedge in the middle of an own industry bubble. Unless you count vacations hedging the coming legal stuff...
 
Jun 10, 2023
2
0
10
Visit site
For each orbit you might want a 1/2 dozen different vehicles. These are expensive to develop. Perhaps $1T to mine an asteroid with vehicles and equipment. If I were to give NASA or Blue Origin a deadly Saturn mining blueprint or go to Triton, I might consider buying Ford, retooling them to space. Buying a smaller version of Magna. And buying an Al refiner. That is $100B and it leads to the $1T if you can fund enough early stage stuff from the biz model you are seceding from. I agree but the multi-vehicle strategy requires selling in the bitcoin boom and buying help of some sort. I would but I've never ever witnessed a company buy a hedge in the middle of an own industry bubble. Unless you count vacations hedging the coming legal stuff...
For each orbit you might want a 1/2 dozen different vehicles. These are expensive to develop. Perhaps $1T to mine an asteroid with vehicles and equipment. If I were to give NASA or Blue Origin a deadly Saturn mining blueprint or go to Triton, I might consider buying Ford, retooling them to space. Buying a smaller version of Magna. And buying an Al refiner. That is $100B and it leads to the $1T if you can fund enough early stage stuff from the biz model you are seceding from. I agree but the multi-vehicle strategy requires selling in the bitcoin boom and buying help of some sort. I would but I've never ever witnessed a company buy a hedge in the middle of an own industry bubble. Unless you count vacations hedging the coming legal stuff...
Replying to Teamswitcher, they choose SpaceX because theyve proven by fsr the most capable. Falcon 9 is the safest rocket on the planet and flies more missions by far than any other competitor. That flight heritage, capability and technical expertise is being carried over to Starship. No other company os capable of building a lander in the next 10 years. New Glenn has yet to fly, and neither has Vulcan, showcasing how delayed blue orgin and other engineering companies are, including companies like boeing and lockheed whove been in the game for decades. Also payload capability and reusability is essential to remain competitive in the space domain. Even China is building Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Starship clones. Their first mission will be small like the Apollo missions, but successive flights will use these clones ive mentioned. In order to build a base on the moon and go to mars massive payload capability is needed. The HLS Lunar Starship will also have landing legsgiving Starship a much wider landing base to help prevent it from falling over. Unfortunately we still use chemical rockets and to have reusability thst means massive tanks, which equals tall rockets landing on the moon and mars. Even Wernher Von Braun wanted to use tall reusable rockets for his Mars mission. Even with some nuclear rocket engines we'll still needed massive tanks when you consider needing to launch to Mars, land on Mars and then enter Mars orbit again and launch to earth, land on earth. That requires energy. Small landers will not make us competitive against China/Russian partnership.
 
Starship or another SpaceX rocket or rockets clearly lap the planet for the Moon/Mars. For other outer destinations other actors are likely to be superior. You wouldn't bank the rockets for the Saturn system (not to get there, to travel while there). You'd want removable rockets for a customized world gravity and distance from self.
There are hardened equipment contractors for NORAD who are halfway to mid Solar System operations by surviving nukes,EMPs, other first strikes....beyond Mars, it isn't certain SpaceX will be a player, there would still be growth to deploy Venus solar panels and solar recharging infrastructure. If SpaceX were to want a rocket for Dione or Tethys, they'd be even money to me with LM to build it, as long as they focus on the problem re: explosion. Those China shipped Walmart bags accrued mould and topple when stacked in N.America whereas our Hamilton assembled cardboard stays pristine used here...
 
If I were to start now, I'd make crappy sapphire where the angles of the nanoparticles aren't level to the lattice at Ford. It would be good enough for the Moon. Arrays of shielding two inches thick, maybe a km^2 eventually. A hundred metrewire radar dish eventually. Things like rails to assess the armour and gears to turn the antenna aren't known what decade will survive lunar dust, In twenty yrs I'd start moving things over to Edmonton for asteroids and other destinations. I'd expect CIS Lunar to be stepping stone to other destinations as well and those are what delays this decade are relavant to me about since learning lasers and the bond energy of atoms in lattices vs metals.
 
That seems like a very sensible analysis.

Do we really know what SpaceX is planning for their lunar lander? I know they are saying "Starship", but there seem to be a lot of versions of "Starship". One looks like a big Pez dispenser to push out large numbers of Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit. How much will the version going to Mars have in common with that?

I am hoping that what SpaceX is working on for their lunar lander looks much like what this analysis proposes.
 
Last edited:
A few additional comments:

With regard to dust kicked up by landing, remember that there is no air on the moon to make "clouds" of dust. The dust will tend to just blast away toward the horizon, rather than make a billowing cloud that engulfs the lander. That behavior was evident on the Apollo LEM landings.

But, even if the dust just blows away, it is still important to not dig a big, and perhaps unexpectedly non-uniform depression in the surface the vehicle is going to land on.

Anyway, dust did get into everything in the Apollo landing expeditions. And, it is very abrasive. So, elevators with guides on the sides of the ship sound like trouble waiting to cause a jam, Probably better to use a deployable arm and a winch to raise and lower a platform. The Apollo astronauts just used a ladder. Remember, 1/6th Earth gravity.

Regarding the configuration of the lander. I tend to agree that it doesn't make sense to land on the moon with the mass of the engines and fuel tanks needed to do the trans -lunar insertion and lunar orbit entry burns. But, what if that stage is then used independently to return to Earth orbit to pick up another stage that is loaded with fuel to transfer to lunar orbit? In other words, a reusable tanker that takes fuel from Earth orbit to Moon orbit, to keep resupplying the lander for multiple missions between the lunar "Gateway" satellite and the lunar surface? The fuel needed for return of that stage to Earth orbit from Moon orbit would take away from the mass available for the lander. But, it would save launching a lot of stuff from Earth's surface to Earth orbit. Assuming that refueling in orbit is achieved and become reliable, this trans lunar tanker concept seems like the economical way to support a "permanent" lunar outpost. Its first trip takes a lander, and subsequent trips take a big fuel tank (well 2 propellant tanks, actually).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts