Artemis II : Discussion Thread

[RocketFan1959]

We're getting closer to an official launch date. The KSC event site now lists Artemis II as no earlier later than February, highlighted on February 6 on the calendar. https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/event/nasa-space-launch-system-sls-artemis-ii/ 

[PM3]

We're getting closer to an official launch date. The KSC event site now lists Artemis II as no later than February, highlighted on February 6 on the calendar. https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/event/nasa-space-launch-system-sls-artemis-ii/ 

No earlier than February.

[RocketFan1959]

We're getting closer to an official launch date. The KSC event site now lists Artemis II as no later than February, highlighted on February 6 on the calendar. https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/event/nasa-space-launch-system-sls-artemis-ii/ 

No earlier than February.

I mistyped. Yes, no earlier than February. I've locked on to the NLT date. My point is that this the NET date is now on the event site. I'm more jazzed that the displayed calendar date linking to this is Feb. 6.

[RocketFan1959]

The emphasis that NASA is placing on their social posts about the prep teams and repeating the NET date of Feb. 6 is giving me hope that they are pushing hard for the earliest launch date possible. I have my Airbnb for the first launch window. Does anyone have a list of the other launch windows?

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/2007843342663750060

NASA Watch
@NASAWatch
Whenever #Artemis II happens it will be the first time billions will see humans leave Earth to visit another world. Yes, there are delays but when it happens let’s all applaud this new chapter in human exploration.
@NASA
 
@ExplorersClub
 
@rookisaacman

[pochimax]

The picture in the LM tweet is old, from december 20

https://images.nasa.gov/details/NHQ202512200038

[shiro]

Given the early return of the Crew-11 expedition, I seriously doubt Artemis-2 will fly in February. For NASA, it will be crucial to send the Crew-12 crew to the station on time, and preparing two manned missions simultaneously — with launches just a week or two apart — seems unlikely to me.

[freddo411]

Given the early return of the Crew-11 expedition, I seriously doubt Artemis-2 will fly in February. For NASA, it will be crucial to send the Crew-12 crew to the station on time, and preparing two manned missions simultaneously — with launches just a week or two apart — seems unlikely to me.

Consider that Artemis is a different rocket, launched on a different pad, by a different company that uses a different communications network, going to a different orbit, to be recovered by a different recovery team.

NASA has 47 active astronauts eligible for flight assignments, so they are far from constrained in that way.

Other than PR considerations, I don't see any conflicts in flying Artemis while flying a dragon crew to ISS

 

[DanClemmensen]

Given the early return of the Crew-11 expedition, I seriously doubt Artemis-2 will fly in February. For NASA, it will be crucial to send the Crew-12 crew to the station on time, and preparing two manned missions simultaneously — with launches just a week or two apart — seems unlikely to me.

Consider that Artemis is a different rocket, launched on a different pad, by a different company that uses a different communications network, going to a different orbit, to be recovered by a different recovery team.

NASA has 47 active astronauts eligible for flight assignments, so they are far from constrained in that way.

Other than PR considerations, I don't see any conflicts in flying Artemis while flying a dragon crew to ISS

Crew Dragon usually launches on Falcons with RTLS. The old LZs have been decomissioned and the new rules require return to a landing pad at the same launch complex as the launch. Where will the booster for Crew-12 land, and is this a concern if SLS/Orion are sitting on the pad at LC-39B?

I assume NASA could choose to pay extra for a ASDS landing.

[RocketFan1959]

Given the early return of the Crew-11 expedition, I seriously doubt Artemis-2 will fly in February. For NASA, it will be crucial to send the Crew-12 crew to the station on time, and preparing two manned missions simultaneously — with launches just a week or two apart — seems unlikely to me.

Consider that Artemis is a different rocket, launched on a different pad, by a different company that uses a different communications network, going to a different orbit, to be recovered by a different recovery team.

NASA has 47 active astronauts eligible for flight assignments, so they are far from constrained in that way.

Other than PR considerations, I don't see any conflicts in flying Artemis while flying a dragon crew to ISS

At the press conference on Thursday, this was one of the first questions asked. Jared was adamant that Artemis II would not be delayed due to the issue.

18:04 in - https://www.youtube.com/live/ffcV3jCwwPk?si=1OFPfUJig2_FULHC&t=1084

EDIT: And the crawler is heading to the VAB this morning.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/2009654896531026134

[ChrisC]

Daily launch windows are now available: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/artemis-ii-mission-availability.pdf
All dates between February and April, except for April 1st and April 30th, have night launch windows - earliest one is February 7 02:41-04:41 UTC (February 6 9:41-11:41 pm EST).

GPSST might have mean earliest day, but if they meant earliest time or if someone misreads the above, no there are two launches earlier in the evening: March 6th at 8:29:00 PM ET/local, and March 7th 8:57 PM ET/local .  So much for the sabre rattling about moving the launch up to get a higher profile for news coverage (and yes I know there physics reasons for the late evening launch windows).  The windows are limited to 120 minutes, so there are multiple opportunities for another 1:47am launch ...

[RocketFan1959]

GPSST might have mean earliest day, but if they meant earliest time or if someone misreads the above, no there are two launches earlier in the evening: March 6th at 8:29:00 PM ET/local, and March 7th 8:57 PM ET/local .  So much for the sabre rattling about moving the launch up to get a higher profile for news coverage (and yes I know there physics reasons for the late evening launch windows).  The windows are limited to 120 minutes, so there are multiple opportunities for another 1:47am launch ...

I'm not sure that having a two-hour launch window opening at 1:05 am on Feb. 11 is any better.

[DanClemmensen]

https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/2012210537677942841

NSF - NASASpaceflight.com
@NASASpaceflight
·
Artemis II MMT chair John Honeycutt.

If you ever wanted to know what crew safety means to these folks... Listen to him here.

The sentiment is important, and John Honeycutt seems to be sincere and is likely competent, But what is the MMT and where does it fit in the overall decision hierarchy for Artemis II? If safe crew return is his one job and everybody else thinks he will handle it, then all those other folks are in theory free to do their main jobs and let him deal with crew safety. I really, really doubt that this is the case, and I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

A google search for "NASA MMT" mostly finds links to a software tool, not this position. It did find the following post from 2007:

Thanks, Jorge, that's really interesting and goes a long way to answering my question. For comparison purposes I've attached the relevant portion of the Apollo 11 flight rules. (Apologies for the near-illegibility, which is why I can't cut and paste it.)

As you'll see, it doesn't quite give the flight director supreme authority over the conduct of the mission. There's this figure called the mission director, who at least theoretically seems to be in roughly the same position as the chair of the MMT is today.

But who was the mission director during Apollo 11? I have absolutely no idea. Certainly it wasn't Chris Kraft. In fact, the mission director seems to have become a figurehead very quickly. I hope you'll forgive me if I quote from Murray and Cox again:

...the Mission Director was intended to have an important role. "They originally thought he was going to be the director of the mission," a flight director reminisced. "The controllers just said, 'Aaah, get out of the way,' you know. They just didn't have any patience for that." The Mission Director quickly became a liaison person for telling headquarters what was happening, mildly useful and no longer in the way.

So what is the MMT today, and where is it in the hierarchy?

[deltaV]

I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

NASA often has a safety-first culture but not always. A safety-first culture would insist on successful uncrewed test flights of safety-critical hardware before flying with a crew. But the workaround to Orion's heat shield problems will be used in Artemis II without a flight test, as will the improved Orion heat shield in Artemis III, and Exploration Upper Stage will be used with crew in Artemis IV without a flight test.

[haywoodfloyd]

I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

NASA often has a safety-first culture but not always. A safety-first culture would insist on successful uncrewed test flights of safety-critical hardware before flying with a crew. But the workaround to Orion's heat shield problems will be used in Artemis II without a flight test, as will the improved Orion heat shield in Artemis III, and Exploration Upper Stage will be used with crew in Artemis IV without a flight test.

Not always.
They didn't do that for Apollo 8. Many of the systems for that mission were a "first", like environmental controls and life-support.

[DaveS]

I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

NASA often has a safety-first culture but not always. A safety-first culture would insist on successful uncrewed test flights of safety-critical hardware before flying with a crew. But the workaround to Orion's heat shield problems will be used in Artemis II without a flight test, as will the improved Orion heat shield in Artemis III, and Exploration Upper Stage will be used with crew in Artemis IV without a flight test.

Not always.
They didn't do that for Apollo 8. Many of the systems for that mission were a "first", like environmental controls and life-support.

No. They tested the CSM well on Apollo 7, although in LEO, completing the mission that Apollo 1 would have done. Only real first was the first crewed launch of the Saturn V (the two prior launches were uncrewed, Apollo 4 in November 1967 and Apollo 6 in April 1968).

[haywoodfloyd]

I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

NASA often has a safety-first culture but not always. A safety-first culture would insist on successful uncrewed test flights of safety-critical hardware before flying with a crew. But the workaround to Orion's heat shield problems will be used in Artemis II without a flight test, as will the improved Orion heat shield in Artemis III, and Exploration Upper Stage will be used with crew in Artemis IV without a flight test.

Not always.
They didn't do that for Apollo 8. Many of the systems for that mission were a "first", like environmental controls and life-support.

No. They tested the CSM well on Apollo 7, although in LEO, completing the mission that Apollo 1 would have done. Only real first was the first crewed launch of the Saturn V (the two prior launches were uncrewed, Apollo 4 in November 1967 and Apollo 6 in April 1968).

Yes they did but not for a full-duration mission. much different from LEO.

[DaveS]

I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

NASA often has a safety-first culture but not always. A safety-first culture would insist on successful uncrewed test flights of safety-critical hardware before flying with a crew. But the workaround to Orion's heat shield problems will be used in Artemis II without a flight test, as will the improved Orion heat shield in Artemis III, and Exploration Upper Stage will be used with crew in Artemis IV without a flight test.

Not always.
They didn't do that for Apollo 8. Many of the systems for that mission were a "first", like environmental controls and life-support.

No. They tested the CSM well on Apollo 7, although in LEO, completing the mission that Apollo 1 would have done. Only real first was the first crewed launch of the Saturn V (the two prior launches were uncrewed, Apollo 4 in November 1967 and Apollo 6 in April 1968).

Yes they did but not for a full-duration mission. much different from LEO.

It was full duration equivalent to a lunar mission, 10 days, 20 hrs, 9 minutes and 3 seconds. I think what you mean is that they didn't test the CSM in cis-lunar space.

[haywoodfloyd]

I hope that there is still some fundamental "safety first" culture in NASA.

NASA often has a safety-first culture but not always. A safety-first culture would insist on successful uncrewed test flights of safety-critical hardware before flying with a crew. But the workaround to Orion's heat shield problems will be used in Artemis II without a flight test, as will the improved Orion heat shield in Artemis III, and Exploration Upper Stage will be used with crew in Artemis IV without a flight test.

Not always.
They didn't do that for Apollo 8. Many of the systems for that mission were a "first", like environmental controls and life-support.

No. They tested the CSM well on Apollo 7, although in LEO, completing the mission that Apollo 1 would have done. Only real first was the first crewed launch of the Saturn V (the two prior launches were uncrewed, Apollo 4 in November 1967 and Apollo 6 in April 1968).

Yes they did but not for a full-duration mission. much different from LEO.

It was full duration equivalent to a lunar mission, 10 days, 20 hrs, 9 minutes and 3 seconds. I think what you mean is that they didn't test the CSM in cis-lunar space.

Exactly.

[Khadgars]

Time if finally here for first crewed SLS launch!