NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[pochimax]

Thanks for the concise explanation, and I'm sorry that this did not sink in originally.  If these missions are not going to be landers, then why fly them at all? What do they accomplish?

Artemis is not a monolithic architecture, it is made up of multiple components. They need to fly in order to test their performance and make the relevant improvements.
What does not make sense is that the potential delay or failure of one of the components of the architecture forces the program to be stopped completely, preventing other components from being tested.
As I have said on other occasions, if one of the components of a mission is delayed, it is possible that the rest of the hardware will be left waiting for some time, but not indefinitely.
Precisely, the SLS / Orion is often accused of "flying infrequently" and being "poor in hardware", it does not make sense that if the HLS Starship is delayed too much then the problem will be aggravated.

[Hyperborealis]

Although it's comforting,  Nasa doesn't stand apart from Congress. Our nation's state capacity for doing things in space is what Nasa is able to do in conjunction with Congress and its industry contractors, Boeing, SpaceX, etc. Nasa has done well, on budget and on time, with some of the science missions (thinking of the Mars rovers.) It has done badly on the high profile missions: Shuttle, ISS, JWST, and of course SLS. Human moon landing is high profile, and so likely to be a mess no matter the technical design. That is what it means to say rot is institutional.

[Jim]

It has done badly on the high profile missions: Shuttle, ISS, JWST, and of course SLS.

JWST was due to technical issues unlike the others

[TheRadicalModerate]

I think I have said this several times... Starship HLS is the critical-path item for the PoR Artemis III and IV...

Assumes facts not in evidence.  You may easily be right, but the other potential critical path items are the AxEMU, the Arty 3 Orion, and the Arty 3 SLS.

[VSECOTSPE]

But I'm also very skeptical that his proposed brand new small lunar lander would but ready by then.

We should all be very skeptical of Dumbacher’s claim that a small lander could beat China back to the Moon in 2030 from where we are today.

We have 69 months to work with from today (3/25) to the end of 2030 (12/30).  Only 69 months.

It took 106 months for STS (Rockwell) to go from contract award (7/72) to first operational manned flight (4/81).  That’s 37 months longer that we have to work with.

It took 80 months for the LEM to go from contract award (11/62) to first operational manned flight (6/69).  That’s 11 months longer than we have to work with.

It took 74 months for Dragon 2 (Crewed Dragon) to go from contract award (10/14) to first operational manned flight (11/20).  That’s 5 months longer than we have to work with.

So even if we awarded a small lander contract today, based on history — including the most relevant case (LEM) and the best manned case using modern practices (Dragon 2), we would not make 2030/beat China back to the Moon.

But we’re not awarding a small lander contract today.  We don’t even have a small lander in the budget.  Starting today, it will be at least another year, maybe two, until a small lander is under contract.  Add 12 to 24 months to the numbers above, and we’re looking at 2032, best case, before Dumbacher’s putative small lander reaches the Moon.

Dumbacher is wrong.  There’s no way a small lunar lander will beat China back to the Moon/make 2030.  Best case is a couple years late.  Probably somewhat longer.

If poorly formulated, mismanaged, and/or sole-sourced like Dumbacher’s past programs (Ares I, SLS, Orion), his putative small lander might not even make 2040, forget 2030.  And even if well formulated and competed, the small lander could still get stuck with a lousy contractor like Boeing/Starliner on Commercial Crew that blows the schedule by many years.

Like I’ve been saying for a few years now with regards to an alternative to Orion/SLS, if we want to make changes to Artemis and still make 2030, we need to have started that ball rolling yesterday.  Time is essentially up.  It’s better to stop wasting limited resources on a delta for 2030 and build the systems Artemis needs to be a vibrant, efficient, and productive program, whether those missions start in 2030 or 2035.

In principle it's certainly possible,

I’d argue no.  Based on the above, it’s not even possible in principle.  The only way a small lander could theoretically fly with crew before 2030 is if we assume Mercury/Gemini development times and practices, which are from an era when we basically didn’t understand what we were doing.  No one is going back to that era.  Even the unmanned capsule and the transfer stage of the COTS program took 7 and 5 years each.

Developing manned space flight systems takes a certain amount of time.  Dumbacher and those making similar 2030 red scare arguments to keep Orion/SLS going longer are out of time.  Either the PoR for Artemis will make 2030 or it won’t.  There’s no alternative that better ensures a landing by 2030.  There are alternatives that ensure a more frequent, capable, efficient, and vibrant Artemis Program.  Those are what we should be pursuing, not Dumbacher’s dead-end small lander that almost certainly won’t make 2030, anyway.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...

[yoram]

I’d argue no.  Based on the above, it’s not even possible in principle.  The only way a small lander could theoretically fly with crew before 2030 is if we assume Mercury/Gemini development times and practices, which are from an era when we basically didn’t understand what we were doing.  No one is going back to that era.  Even the unmanned capsule and the transfer stage of the COTS program took 7 and 5 years each.

It's interesting what it says about technology when doing something when you don't know what you're doing is faster than doing it when you know.

[VSECOTSPE]

It's interesting what it says about technology when doing something when you don't know what you're doing is faster than doing it when you know.

It says we got very, very lucky.  Mercury/Gemini were unsafe spacecraft in many respects.  Just to take one example, they used pure oxygen just like the Apollo 1 fire.  Those are some bad old practices we don’t want to return to.

[VSECOTSPE]

This — congressional reaction to Musk and DOGE (including some SpaceX employee) involvement in Trump II — will be an obstacle to Artemis reform.  In the near-term, the questions raised about Mienk will be raised about Isaacman.  Longer-term, Orion/SLS advocates will use congressional reaction to Musk and DOGE to argue against changes, i.e., don’t introduce new/different objectives/elements that could give Musk and SpaceX more power.  Not saying whether those arguments have merit or not or whether they’ll succeed.  Just that they’re coming.

Two Senators Question Air Force Nominees SpaceX Connections

Two Democratic senators are pressing the Trump administration’s nominee for Secretary of the Air Force, Troy Meink, over his past role in awarding contracts to SpaceX. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Meink seeking clarity on his relationship with SpaceX and its chief executive, Elon Musk, who now holds a significant advisory role in the administration.

https://spacenews.com/two-senators-question-air-force-nominees-spacex-connections/

Edit/Add:  This article gets gets quite a bit wrong, but also warns about the impact of Musk’s “flamboyant partisanship” on NASA bipartisanship in Congress generally and needed reforms in Artemis/HSF specifically:

https://www.city-journal.org/article/nasa-space-exploration-trump-administration

[pochimax]

I think I have said this several times... Starship HLS is the critical-path item for the PoR Artemis III and IV...

Assumes facts not in evidence.  You may easily be right, but the other potential critical path items are the AxEMU, the Arty 3 Orion, and the Arty 3 SLS.

If you don' t see evidence is because you don't wanna see, I think.

[DanClemmensen]

I think I have said this several times... Starship HLS is the critical-path item for the PoR Artemis III and IV...

Assumes facts not in evidence.  You may easily be right, but the other potential critical path items are the AxEMU, the Arty 3 Orion, and the Arty 3 SLS.

If you don' t see evidence is because you don't wanna see, I think.

Please carefully re-read the @TheRadicalModerate reply. There is evidence that the HLS effort may be late. There is also evidence that the other elements may be late. We will not know (i.e., no evidence) which element was on the critical path until the mission launches. Because you are an SLS/Orion enthusiast, you are optimistic that SLS/Orion issues will be solved without affecting the schedule even if you are more realistic about other elements. Because I am a Starship enthusiast, I am optimistic that SpaceX will solve its issues without affecting the schedule even if I am more realistic about SLS/Orion issues.

[catdlr]

Artemis II Orion solar array install, Starship refueling delayed to 2026, SLS phase out?

Mar 2, 2025
This week's Artemis news starts on the political front: after Trump/Musk "go in a different direction" with NASA, another agency leader is out, Congress wants to know if Artemis can beat China back to the Moon, and a policy analyst recommends a phase out of SLS.

Launch preps continue: at the Kennedy Space Center, Orion prime contractor Lockheed Martin got the Artemis II spacecraft ready for final installs, beginning with its solar array wings, and down at Starbase, SpaceX got the next Starship prototype ready for the eighth flight test in two years, following a mid-January test flight setback.

While Elon Musk contemplates DOGE changes to Artemis, he also revealed more SpaceX delays to Artemis-critical Starship technology demonstrations, out to 2026.  NASA provided a little more Gateway imagery and Boeing provided an update on SLS Stages production.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
00:51 NASA Exploration directorate head is next one out
02:15 House Science subcommittee hearing on Artemis
02:52 Representatives focused on China and the Moon, questions about skipping the Moon and going directly to Mars
06:00 Dr. Pace recommends SLS phase out, but not immediate termination
09:25 Questions about whether Starship can land astronauts on the Moon by 2030
12:50 Artemis II Orion prepared for solar array installs
15:51 SpaceX publishes preview for Starship flight test 8
18:23 Musk reveals that Starship prop transfer delayed until 2026
19:53 Other news and notes, starting with more Gateway PPE footage
20:30 A short SLS Stages production update from Boeing
21:48 Thanks for watching!

[deltaV]

We should all be very skeptical of Dumbacher’s claim that a small lander could beat China back to the Moon in 2030 from where we are today.

Yeah the fastest backup in case of Starship delays is probably the Blue Origin HLS program that's already under contract and scheduled to fly in Artemis V in 2030.

[pochimax]

Please carefully re-read the @TheRadicalModerate reply. There is evidence that the HLS effort may be late. There is also evidence that the other elements may be late. We will not know (i.e., no evidence) which element was on the critical path until the mission launches. Because you are an SLS/Orion enthusiast, you are optimistic that SLS/Orion issues will be solved without affecting the schedule even if you are more realistic about other elements. Because I am a Starship enthusiast, I am optimistic that SpaceX will solve its issues without affecting the schedule even if I am more realistic about SLS/Orion issues.

The problem is that the pending milestones for the HLS Starship are an order of magnitude greater than the problems that the SLS and Orion may present, although I recognize that perhaps the heat shield is an unknown.
Honestly, I think the suits are a minor problem. Since there are no realistic expectations for an early landing date, it is not as if there is much of a rush with the suits.

We just saw in the video above that Musk confirmed a couple of days ago that the orbital refueling test will happen, at the earliest, next year. As I have commented on previous occasions, I firmly believe that a premature cancellation of the SLS and Orion, without having first carried out that test, is suicide for NASA's lunar program (and therefore for the Western one). In my opinion, everything should continue as it is at least until that test, if it occurs in 2026.

[TheRadicalModerate]

We should all be very skeptical of Dumbacher’s claim that a small lander could beat China back to the Moon in 2030 from where we are today.

Yeah the fastest backup in case of Starship delays is probably the Blue Origin HLS program that's already under contract and scheduled to fly in Artemis V in 2030.

Blue Moon Mk2 is not exactly a small lander.  While we don't have official mass numbers for it, if you assume ε=17%, a 6t crew module, and Isp=450s yields a vehicle with a wet mass of almost 64t.  That's 4x the size of the Apollo lunar module.

To get it to NRHO and fully fuel it after launch requires about 130t of prop sent to LEO for the Blue Moon and the Cislunar Transport.  That'd be 3 New Glenn tanker launches.  To refuel it for reuse in NRHO requires about 170t--4 tanker launches.  (Questionable numbers attached.)

Those numbers are clearly less onerous than the number of tankers required for the LSS, but they have to develop pretty much the same tech as SpaceX will have to.  And they'll have the extra burden of developing it for hydrolox instead of methalox.

[hektor]

I was under the impression that Blue Origin lander was even more difficult than Starship regarding propellant refueling, relying on LH2 instead of methane.

[DanClemmensen]

Please carefully re-read the @TheRadicalModerate reply. There is evidence that the HLS effort may be late. There is also evidence that the other elements may be late. We will not know (i.e., no evidence) which element was on the critical path until the mission launches. Because you are an SLS/Orion enthusiast, you are optimistic that SLS/Orion issues will be solved without affecting the schedule even if you are more realistic about other elements. Because I am a Starship enthusiast, I am optimistic that SpaceX will solve its issues without affecting the schedule even if I am more realistic about SLS/Orion issues.

The problem is that the pending milestones for the HLS Starship are an order of magnitude greater than the problems that the SLS and Orion may present, although I recognize that perhaps the heat shield is an unknown.
Honestly, I think the suits are a minor problem. Since there are no realistic expectations for an early landing date, it is not as if there is much of a rush with the suits.

We just saw in the video above that Musk confirmed a couple of days ago that the orbital refueling test will happen, at the earliest, next year. As I have commented on previous occasions, I firmly believe that a premature cancellation of the SLS and Orion, without having first carried out that test, is suicide for NASA's lunar program (and therefore for the Western one). In my opinion, everything should continue as it is at least until that test, if it occurs in 2026.

OK, thanks.

To simplify: I think we should try for a landing as soon as is realistically possible. I think that Starship HLS has the best chance of enabling this. I do not think SLS/Orion are needed for this.

I do not understand why you think SLS/Orion are useful without Starship HLS. Do you think some other landing scheme in conjunction with other hardware can enable a landing sooner than a Starship HLS landing?

[TheRadicalModerate]

Since I'm fiddling with the Blue Moon cases, I might as well add the HDL cases.

Notice that this is an excellent example of why a less onerous final staging orbit than LLO can be a big boon to the smaller landers.  Here are two missions, one that stages from LLO after refueling, and one that stages from NRHO.  Simply because the Blue Moon doesn't have the delta-v to get to LLO with a heavy payload, it needs to be restricted more than the version that refuels in NRHO instead.

Note that NRHO isn't a requirement here:  any orbit that allows a fully fueled Blue Moon with a large payload to reach it will work.  (I just happen to have a BLT-mediated trip to NRHO in my delta-v table.)

Update:  Minor error fixed.  (I didn't have the LLO case using a BLT.)

[TheRadicalModerate]

The problem is that the pending milestones for the HLS Starship are an order of magnitude greater than the problems that the SLS and Orion may present, although I recognize that perhaps the heat shield is an unknown.
Honestly, I think the suits are a minor problem. Since there are no realistic expectations for an early landing date, it is not as if there is much of a rush with the suits.

As I said, you might be right.  But I never would have guessed that Orion heat shield erosion would push the Arty 2 schedule to the right by 18 months either.  When things go wrong with SLS/Orion, they tend to go wrong in a way that causes big delays.  When things go wrong at SpaceX, it's... Wednesday.  They're simply better set up to diagnose, redesign, and re-fly problems.

Axiom has a decent reputation, but this is their first time in the chute for an ESDMD contract.  I don't expect them to be the critical path, but we don't have good priors to rely upon.

As I have commented on previous occasions, I firmly believe that a premature cancellation of the SLS and Orion, without having first carried out that test, is suicide for NASA's lunar program (and therefore for the Western one). In my opinion, everything should continue as it is at least until that test, if it occurs in 2026.

You continue to misunderstand the error in your reasoning.  If SpaceX has a big delay, then it doesn't matter if SLS/Orion is available, because there's nothing for it to do when it gets to NRHO.  No Starship HLS, no Artemis III.

I know you think that there's a useful mission that doesn't land on the Moon, but you're wrong.  All you're doing is setting fire to a $4.2B pile of money.  So we might as well set fire to SLS/Orion now and have done with it.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, it could require up to 8 total launches.

[dfp21]

I couldn't pick a side of this debate, so I asked Grok for more info. I would now vote to continue funding Artemis, but only with fixed-price contracts. (My question to Grok, and it's answer, shown below)

"Is a lunar landing of any long-term utility? Or is it simply a way to inject government money into the space industry?"

Whether a lunar landing has long-term utility or is just a government cash pump for the space industry depends on how you weigh practical outcomes against political and economic motives. Let’s break it down—both sides have legs.

### Long-Term Utility: The Case For
1. **Science and Resources** 
   The moon’s a goldmine for research—literally and figuratively. Its south pole, Artemis’s target, has water ice in shadowed craters, confirmed by missions like India’s Chandrayaan-1 (2008) and NASA’s LCROSS (2009). That ice can be split into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel, cutting the cost of deep-space hops—think Mars or beyond. Helium-3, rare on Earth but abundant in lunar soil, could theoretically power fusion reactors if we crack that tech (still decades off, per MIT studies). Plus, low gravity and no atmosphere make it a prime lab for astronomy—radio telescopes on the far side dodge Earth’s noise, as China’s Chang’e-4 hinted at in 2019.

2. **Stepping Stone to Mars** 
   NASA pitches Artemis as a Mars rehearsal. Starship’s propellant transfer demo, Blue Origin’s lander, and Lockheed’s Orion are testbeds for tech we’ll need on the Red Planet—refueling in orbit, living off-world, landing heavy payloads. The moon’s 1/6th gravity and three-day trip (vs. Mars’s six months) let us debug systems without betting the farm. SpaceX’s Elon Musk has said Mars by 2028 hinges on this; NASA’s 2030s Mars goal agrees.

3. **Economic Spin-Offs** 
   Lunar bases could spark a space economy. Mining companies like AstroForge (their Odin craft launched February 2025) are already eyeing asteroids, but the moon’s closer and easier. Rare earths and metals could feed Earth’s tech boom—China’s gunning for this too with their 2030s plans. Private players like Intuitive Machines (IM-2, February 2025) show commercial interest isn’t just NASA’s pipe dream—cargo contracts and tourism might follow.

4. **Geopolitical Leverage** 
   Landing keeps the U.S. ahead of China and Russia, who’ve got their own lunar ambitions (e.g., China’s International Lunar Research Station by 2035). A foothold secures influence over space law, resource rights, and tech standards—think Cold War vibes but off-planet.

### Just a Money Pump: The Case Against
1. **Cost vs. Payoff** 
   Artemis’s price tag is ballooning—$93 billion by some 2023 GAO estimates through 2025, with SLS alone costing $4.2 billion per launch (Boeing’s baby). Critics like physicist Sabine Hossenfelder argue the moon’s been “done”—Apollo gave us rocks and bragging rights, but no clear ROI. Water ice and helium-3 sound sexy, but extraction tech’s unproven, and fusion’s a fantasy for now. Why sink billions when Earth’s got untapped resources?

2. **Corporate Handouts** 
   The contractor list—SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed, Blue Origin—reads like a who’s-who of aerospace pork. SpaceX’s $2.9 billion HLS deal, Boeing’s SLS overruns, Lockheed’s $16 billion Orion tab—NASA’s funneling taxpayer cash to keep these giants fat. Delays (Artemis III slipping to 2027) and failures (Starship Flight 7 explosion) fuel the vibe it’s more about jobs in red states than lunar breakthroughs. X posts often call it “corporate welfare with extra steps.”

3. **Political Stunt** 
   Apollo was a Kennedy flex against the Soviets; Artemis feels like Biden’s (now Trump’s) legacy play. No one’s clamoring for lunar condos—public support’s tepid (Pew polls show Mars excites more). It’s a shiny distraction from Earth’s messes—climate, infrastructure—while NASA’s budget ($25 billion in 2024) could fix terrestrial woes instead.

4. **Short-Term Focus** 
   Even if it’s a Mars stepping stone, the moon itself might not sustain interest. Gateway and a south pole base sound cool, but without a clear “what’s next” post-Artemis V (2030), it risks being a one-off—like Apollo’s fade after 1972. Private firms might not bite unless NASA keeps subsidizing, per SpaceNews analyses.

### My Take
It’s both, honestly. The utility’s real—water, fuel, science, Mars prep—but it’s decades out and speculative. Right now, it’s a lifeline for NASA and contractors, keeping the space industry humming while China looms. Long-term, a lunar landing could pivot humanity off-planet if we exploit it right; short-term, it’s a pricey flex with jobs attached. The $93 billion question is whether the gamble pays off before taxpayers or Congress balk. What’s your angle—cynic or dreamer?