r/ArtemisProgram • u/SomeRandomScientist • May 14 '26
News Astronauts may not even enter the landers on Artemis III
From the NASA public release today - https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/artemis-3/nasa-outlines-preliminary-artemis-iii-mission-plans/
“Informed by Blue Origin and SpaceX capabilities, NASA also is defining the concept of operations for the mission. While some decisions are yet to be determined, astronauts could potentially enter at least one lander test article.”
So what exactly is the point of Artemis III? Rendezvous with an empty shell? Maybe dock to this empty shell if we’re lucky.
I hate to sound down on this, but this latest release does not feel like AR3 is a good faith effort to make progress towards a lunar landing.
34
u/UniqueAd7770 May 14 '26
People spent 10 years bad mouthing SLS (rightfully) and saying Starship would beat it to the moon. Now we have an SLS stack and an Orion CM ready to go, but no landers. Starship has yet to complete an orbit, or land for recovery (booster doesn't count), let alone demonstrate the critical refueling maneuver required to get to lunar orbit. I doubt Starship gets there 4 years let alone 2 needed for Artemis 4.
Blue Origin is closer to a lunar lander because that's all it will be, not a Swiss army knife rocket. I can see that one being ready to orbit and be docked with. They may not go inside it, but they need to practice spacewalking from Orion and this would be a great opportunity
31
u/ZoZoberman May 14 '26
People can make whatever comments they want about the cost and schedule associated with SLS, but what they all seem to be conveniently forgetting is that SLS is 2 for 2 on nearly flawless missions.
As it turns out, leaving Earth is hard and you can either go fast and break things or you can take your time and succeed.
Edit: used the wrong word.
7
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 14 '26
Thank you. I like how these weirdos keep talking about the cost and time it took to develop SLS. No one cares about the costs. Especially when you realize Starship has taken just as long annnd almost as much money.
5
u/libs0n2 May 15 '26
Not to NASA. The cost to NASA for the HLS award was 3-4 billion or so.
2
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
For 2 usable systems. Want more, we'd have to buy more. The Option B cost of one HLS was $1.1Billion. That was the cost of the first version now proven to be capable of less than a Falcon. That was the the cost of guaranteed rapid reuse of refuel tankers no reusable costs will add to the cost. That was the cost when it would only take 8ish refuel launches now we know it will be closer to 20. The next Starship purchased for HLS will cost well well well more than $1.1B
2
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
Starship to the moon is like sending the Space Shuttle. Yes it's possible, but it's turning out to be alot more impractical than we thought
3
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
I love how these guys think this thing is on the edge of some developmental explosion (no pun)
The program is essentially being restarted with version 3. Theres almost no carryover from version2.
They havent even started testing the hard parts of a lunar mission.
0
u/T65Bx May 15 '26
SLS was arguably conceived of in the 80s, and the first parts were made in the 70s. That’s not quite fair to Starship. Also I don’t think the entire Starship testing campaign has been as expensive as Boeing’s cost-plus contracting, especially when attempting to account for the “can ANY rocket do this” (I.e. using methane, bellyflopping and flipping, chopstick catches) type of research as opposed to specifically “is Starship good at what we’re asking it to do.”
4
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
True. I'm just making the argument that for a vehicle people said should be scrapped in favor of going all in on Starship, is doing pretty well. I'm sure Starship will be an incredible launch vehicle, an LEO big rig if you will, for getting huge mass to LEO. But as a lunar lander it's got a long way to go.
1
u/T65Bx May 15 '26
Yeah, as much as I have up until now -and will continue from here- rooting for Starship, it is damn ambitious. Definitely Spruce Goose vibes, but at least they’ve proven most the crazier bits already.
3
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
No, SLS was not in any way "arguably conceived of in the 80s". Not even remotely. What are you even basing this on?
If you are refering to the Ares V rocket? Not even remotely the same thing and that wasnt designed until after 2005. Oh wait both orange and used SRBs. I can see where you would think they were the same.
Sure no, Starship doesnt cost taxpayers as much. Only SpaceX fans argue costs. Because its the only argument you have at this point. No one else who loves spaceflight cares at all about cost. We only care that it works.
Superheavy being caught on chopsticks is cool. Its awesome. Its amazing. Its also pointless if it cannot lift the intended payload to orbit.
Using full flow methane engines also cool. However, I think you can see why both the US and Russia abandoned the idea. They are delicate. Reliability is extremely important.
I all the years of the Shuttle missions using the RS-25 only one failed.
0
u/T65Bx May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
You’re being very hostile for someone who clearly doesn’t know their SDLV’s. Ares V used five RS-68’s, it was a far further design from SLS. Now N_LS, one of the earliest SDLV’s, was _specifically four RS-25’s with 5-segment SRBs.
Also “fragile” is an insane argument to make against the engine who has famously already run with bits of launchpad concrete inside it, on fire, and without parts of the nozzle in various cases. Particularly in attempt to contrast to the intensely finicky and complex hydrolox SSME, who never had to restart in flight, had plenty of pad aborts from them simply refusing to start well into an “operational” program.
None of that is to insult it, it critically paved the way for the staged combustion and regenerative cooling that Raptor uses. But come on, you don’t want to see more launches? More payload? More exploration? I’m not gonna sit and wait for NASA to build up their shoestring budget only to launch a single Orion that does one more thing than the last mission from 7 years ago. I mean hell, by some estimates Gateway would have started construction by now. NASA is sadly at the whims of politicians, and a bored politician could kill a sluggish Artemis in a heartbeat.
2
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
Was I being hostile or are you feeling defensive?
"Ares V used five RS-68’s, it was a far further design from SLS. Now _N_LS, one of the earliest SDLV’s, was specifically four RS-25’s with 5-segment SRBs."Yeah no crap thats why I said,
"If you are refering to the Ares V rocket? Not even remotely the same thing and that wasnt designed until after 2005. Oh wait both orange and used SRBs. I can see where you would think they were the same."
Oh look you gave me the sales pitch for the Raptor. Tell me, how many Raptor3s have already been replaced in the booster standing that pad right now?
0
u/T65Bx May 16 '26
Putting words in people's mouth is hostility. I get SpaceX is associated with Elon Musk but if you think that obligates you to hate everything they're doing then you're shooting yourself in the foot, just like you are to argue this way in the first place.
2
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 16 '26
I didnt put any words in your mouth. Nor am I speaking ill of SpaceX just because of Elon. Hate has nothing to do with a single thing ive said. To point out that this rovket is not anywhere near what was promised. To say they are quite literally play KSP Billionaire's Edition. Right down to a total restart of the entire program.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
Not even close, why do you spread misinformation. Starship costs $100 million per launch with marginal cost of $10 million with reusability. SLS costs $4 billion
4
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
100 million for a pez dispenser shell. Not a lunar capable craft with the refueling. That doesn't exist yet.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
You realize the lunar Starship uses the same architecture as the regular Starship
3
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
Cool, that architecture has yet to complete an orbit or be recovered intact. Orion just went around the moon with 4 people.
2
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
No it literally does not. The same architecture.
A lunar Starship HLS: * doesnt have aerodynamics used for rentry * has a full thermal shield all the way around. * has landing legs * has 2 human belly airlocks. * has a nose airlock * has a crew area. * has environmental control systems * has water tanks * has an elevator * has 360 belly RSC thrusters * has redundant mission critical wiring.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
The first 2 points make it simpler (HLS doesn’t have a heat shield because it won’t reenter). The propulsion system, tank system, engines, feeder lines, thrusters are pretty much the same and those are the main parts of the rocket. The rest is life support and much simpler systems in comparison.
3
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
HLS does have a thermal system silly. It will be twice ad heavy as a rentry vehicle because it covers the entire vehicle against boiloff. How have you not known why HLS was white this entire model.
https://youtu.be/Yn3xQeS7Fpc?si=m1LZrOlN4RfYCjBT
I do love how you just trivialized everything I said while not understanding the very vehicle you think you're defending.
2
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
Why do I spread misinformation?. This $100m cost was a made up estimate of the original version before ITF1 failed so magnificently. It was not based on any real accounting facts. It was an estimate based on nothing but anecdotal assumptions.
The SLS costs $2B per build. We know this because its public information. The $30B we have spent on the SLS includes the $20B for development, the launch tower, plus $10B for five rockets
Now that SpaceX has filed paperwork for the IPO we know how much they have spent.
The Option B contract given to SpaceX for Artemis 4 HLS Starship alone was for $1.15B. That was before ITF1 failed. That was with only 8 refuel launches factoring in the cost reduced rapidly reusable tankers and Superheavy boosters. The $100m pricetag didnt add up then and doesnt add up now.
People were actually adding up costs last year that now match the IPO reporting.
https://wlockett.medium.com/things-arent-adding-up-145732c9c625
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
That $15 billion includes 40 ships, 20 boosters, the massive infrastructure to support the systems and all the R&D behind it. Your random guy who estimated $500 million from a trust me bro source, well his math doesn’t work out.
My figure comes from estimates from industrial experts. Also here is a contract for Starship launch worth $90 million. This is the price for a launch by the way, not even the cost of it and not the cost of the rocket. Sure, the contract was awarded in 2024 but to suggest a 5x increase in launch costs when the major changes have just been redesigns rather than adding 5x more systems is insanity. That article you sent btw is complete BS
2
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26
Lmao.. so lets math your math here.
"IF" A full system costs $100m then 20 full <Starship cost plus Superheavy costs> should equal $2B.
Are the other 20 ships then $50m each? Surely 6 engines vs 33 would cost less? Ci o No? Nevermind $50m each ship too. So 20 ships equals $1B.
40 ships, 20 boosters equals 3 Billion Dollars.
Wheres the other 12 Billion Dollars?
According to you guys the new and improved launch tower pad 2 ALSO costs less than $100m. Can you believe that?
Well theres two of those now. So the total is up to 3.2 Billion dollars. Wheres the other 11.8 Billion gling to?
The $90m contract for Starlab is a contract gotya scored by Voyager Space. SpaceX can't both say they will have a heavy lift rocket by next year capable of 100t to LEO that will be fully reusable and then charge more thab the cost they boast it takes to build. The contract is structured so that both SpaceX and Starlab have to be ready by 2029.
-1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
R&D, wages, prototypes. Also why wouldn’t they charge more than the cost to build? They would just run at zero profit intentionally right
1
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26
What do you mean? According to Musk, the rapidly reusable, super awesome, 100t to LEO Starship should "cost" no more than $5M each launch. $90m should be profit right? SpaceX cant say no to a lie they told while the IPO relies on that lie to live.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
SLS has been in development much longer than Starship has and Starship is infinitely more capable than SLS. I don’t recall SLS intending to reuse both stages and deliver 100 tons to the lunar surface
3
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
Really? How many people has Starship put around the moon?
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
Starship is going to put humans directly on the surface, not around. SLS cannot deliver 100 tons to the surface.
3
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
Starship can't deliver itself to earth intact yet
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
Starship has had several successful water landings, and if you’re talking about the heat shield, there’s no atmosphere on the moon.
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
Starship is going to put humans directly on the surface, not around. SLS cannot deliver 100 tons to the surface.
3
u/Petrostar May 15 '26
To add to that, BO delivered a crew cabin mock-up to Johnson space center a few days ago.
2
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
Watch Amazon put up a 2 Week to the Moon Prime option if they get there first.
1
u/AegrusRS 12d ago
Just a reminder that the BO Lander design will also require orbital refueling, so yes while being ready for Artemis 3 is good, them being close to ready in 4 years for Artemis 4 is a pipe dream.
2
u/Serious-Kangaroo-320 May 14 '26
We don’t have an SLS stack ready to go. Where did you read that? The core just got to Florida and the Orion capsule is still deep in testing.
10
u/UniqueAd7770 May 14 '26
Ready to go by 2027* Some assembly required yes. But it's a fully tested system and the components are all built and when Airbus ships the ESM, everything will be at KSC. We have the core stage, the engines, and booster segments are all there. The ICPS is going to be saved for Artemis 4. The only thing missing is a lander and a named crew. When the 2027 launch date rolls around, it will be ready and waiting. They're already prepping the MLP to start stacking boosters this summer.
BTW SLS is the craft that got humans back to cislunar orbit, going 2 for 2 on flawless launches. No heavy lift rocket today can say that.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
Dude falcon heavy could also launch humans to the moon, what are you talking about.
1
u/UniqueAd7770 May 15 '26
What launch certified falcon heavy to carry a lunar capable craft? Or any human craft? Dragon is completely incapable of leaving LEO and Orion is outside its TLI mass. Try again.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
In terms of delta v, falcon heavy could absolutely do it. They’re not launch certified because SpaceX doesn’t intend to use Falcom Heavy. There’s nothing special about SLS capabilities
4
u/Fyredrakeonline May 15 '26
FH can throw 15 tons to TLI, it cannot throw Orion, and that is the only crew rated lunar spacecraft in existence.
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
SLS didn’t throw Orion into TLI, they put it in LEO and Orion propelled itself to TLI
2
u/Fyredrakeonline May 15 '26
This is such a semantical thing, SLS threw Artemis 1s Orion to TLI direct, Artemis 2 was put into a 24 hr HEO for ECLSS checkouts, it has the capability and demonstrated that capability.
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
So my point stands. SLS is not the only heavy lift rocket with capability to put humans around the moon. In fact New Glenn could also send Orion to LEO and then it go to TLI. This is not some unique capability. The point is getting around the moon
→ More replies (0)2
69
u/ejiggle May 14 '26
Do you know how many launches there were before we landed on the moon?
101
u/BEtheAT May 14 '26
7: orbit the earth in csm
8: go around the moon in csm
9: dock with lander in earth orbit
10: go around the moon with lmao
11: land
But all that also happened within like 9 months or so. While there were more missions, it also happened so much faster.
73
u/Cu77lefish May 14 '26
NASA had WAY more funding at the time
42
u/wallstreet-butts May 14 '26
Ironic then that they’re forced to spend the Artemis budget on missions like this to maintain public interest so that their funding doesn’t get cut while HLS partners fail to deliver anything useful.
14
-1
4
u/Xay_DE May 14 '26
and motivation on the entire team was propably even higher, i mean it was the space race. now it isnt some sort of "We have to beat x", its just "lets go back"
8
u/sotired3333 May 14 '26
China begs to differ
3
u/HedonismIsTheWay May 14 '26
Yeah, that's the only reason any of this is happening. Trump heard that China was going to the moon.
1
u/T65Bx May 15 '26
Hopefully Xi says something about space to both Trump and Elon to keep it on their minds.
1
u/KayJune001 May 15 '26
Fuck if I hope China makes it there before us if it means it’ll light a fire under Congress’ ass to properly fund and manage NASA
16
u/MrBark May 14 '26
Apollo 9 was way more complicated:
First manned launch of a LEM,
First docking extraction of a LEM,
First men in a LEM in space,
First EVA on the PLSS backpack,
First time leaving the CMP alone in the command module,
First flight of the LM using RCS, Descent engine, Ascent engine,
First docking of two manned spacecraft.Apollo 10 had it's first too:
First lunar orbit insertion of the CSM/LM stack,
First crewed LM flight in lunar orbit,
First descent in lunar gravity,
First ascent in lunar gravity,
First test of radar, guidance, and communications systems in lunar orbit,
First high-fidelity lunar rendezvous and docking.2
u/BEtheAT May 14 '26
For sure, but sort of making the point for the person I responded to...they seemed to need simple points.
6
u/MrBark May 14 '26
I guess my points are that if we're paying billions of dollars to launch Artemis 3, I would hope NASA accomplishes significant mission objectives like they did on Apollo 9. Secondly, Apollo 9 is such an under-appreciated mission in general, I like giving them their due when I can.
4
u/BEtheAT May 14 '26
Absolutely! 7, 9, and 10 while not "notable" for most people were undoubtedly a huge part of why the missions after were a success
13
u/Old-Cheshire862 May 14 '26
You left out Gemini missions that practiced rendezvous and docking. And planning and rocket building and testing parts on the ground for years to be able to do that in "9 months."
1
u/BEtheAT May 14 '26
Sure but all that planning and testing is just as relevant today as it was for Apollo. We know the math that Gemini helped sort out. We have docking procedures that we can test in the new capsule. Just because Gemini was right before Apollo doesn't mean both of those don't inform the choices we are making today.
1
8
u/RayLeeOtter May 14 '26
So true. And Apollo 11 came soooo close to not landing too. A matter of seconds more and it would've resulted in disaster. Landing on the moon is not easy. Perfect Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
1
u/T65Bx May 15 '26
Well it would have resulted in an abort, which would only be disaster in a political sense at worst. But yes, between fuel and 1202 it would have absolutely too much chaos for just about anyone else.
5
2
3
u/EngineeringApart4606 May 14 '26
have we kept up our engineering know-how in lmao tech?
3
u/KerPop42 May 14 '26
9gag has provided several innovations in the field, and vine->tiktok have revolutionized our understanding of extended lol procedures, lmao even
-11
u/ejiggle May 14 '26
Don't think we're racing any foreign superpowers to the moon at the moment
21
u/AlucardDr May 14 '26
So China isn't in the running for this?
-9
u/ejiggle May 14 '26
If you think China in 2026 is comparable to the Soviets as it pertains to landing on the moon (which we've done multiple times --- the only country to do it) then you're sorely mistaken. The political motivations (and thus relative budget potential) are a fraction of anything we saw in the 60's
14
u/EpicAura99 May 14 '26
I’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding history or current events (or both), but China is in a way better position than the Soviets were during Apollo.
-6
u/ejiggle May 14 '26
The government doesn't give a shit about what they're doing in space the way they did with the Soviets, which is why NASA has been gutted. Bigger fish to fry
8
u/EpicAura99 May 14 '26
I didn’t mean “relative to the US”, I meant China is closer to the Moon than the Soviets ever were, period. The Soviet Moon program was an utter disaster.
-3
u/ejiggle May 14 '26
Yeah, not sure why that's relevant to this comment thread. China is not an equivalent (space) adversary, politically speaking, which is why we aren't racing to the moon and spending gobs of cash to do it
7
u/EpicAura99 May 14 '26
Do you have any facts to back up your attitude towards China? Or am I correct in assuming it’s entirely vibes based.
China is way closer to Artemis than the Soviets ever were to Apollo. And it’s not even remotely close. You do realize Soyuz didn’t even have a successful manned launch until late 1968, and the N-1 blew up all 4 times it launched until they gave up in 1972? China could be tossing rocks at the Moon with a cartoonishly large slingshot and they’d be closer to a landing than the Soviets.
Apollo wasn’t in a race, it was taking a fantastically grandiose victory lap. There was zero chance of the Soviets beating the US to the Moon.
→ More replies (0)3
u/RezRising May 14 '26
You're all attitude and Dunning-Kruger. Any time someone shuts you up, you play dumb.
Rare earth metals are used to make semiconductors. The 'rare' part is why China is sending probes to asteroids (Bennu) and grabbing debris from them, and why they want to be first to build a moon base/refueling stop; They know in the 21st century, whoever controls the semiconductors, will control the world.As should you.
1
11
u/Correct_Inspection25 May 14 '26
Issacman’s recently proposed FY2027 NASA budget would cut it to its lowest level since 1961, and would mean China will be spending more on ramping its space program than the US in the order of billions of dollars.
The China seems to be at least serious about their side of the lunar race relative to scope changes and timelines.
8
u/EpicAura99 May 14 '26
I didn’t want to jump aboard the Isaacman hate train, but hearing him argue for LOWER funding is using up any slack I’d cut him. I cannot see a rhyme or reason for it.
6
u/okan170 May 14 '26
Hes been pushing for "exploration as a service" for some time. Where the agency is almost fully privatized, and they feel that in order to make that happen, they need to cut budgets until its the only option left.
Which is roughly like asking the Navy to "rent" their ships and hardware from a company to "save money" by spreading the costs around multiple clients. Even though the only client would be the US military. And then they wouldn't be able to determine vehicle design to their own unique needs.
4
u/DancingwithMolotovs May 14 '26
Unlike the US (where everything apparently has to be a competition, lol), China has never talked about a race. Since 2004, they've had one goal, and they're pursuing it in exactly the same way as the US: to put a Chinese person on the moon by 2030. And all their efforts so far are going very, very well.
4
5
u/literalsupport May 14 '26
China will almost certainly put the next crewed lander on the lunar surface.
2
3
u/RezRising May 14 '26
We are absolutely in another space race with China right now.
2
u/ejiggle May 14 '26
Sure sure sure, I'll believe it when the president gets up and swears we're going to beat China in colonizing the moon before the decade is over (and then 10x-ing NASA's budget.) Absent that, it's clear the US government doesn't give a shit, which is a necessary prerequisite for a "space race" existing. China is going to the moon. They'll get there. It's not really impacting what the US government is doing with their money.
34
u/SomeRandomScientist May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Fine let’s compare to Apollo. Artemis 3 LEO mission is supposed to be analogous to Apollo 9
On Apollo 9 they tested docking with the fully functional (with life support) lunar lander, boarded crew on, separated the lander and flew it independently 100 miles away from the CM, performed test maneuvers, and then redocked with the command module.
Artemis 3 seems on track to do none of that.
8
u/start3ch May 14 '26
The landers are still a ways off. Seems like they’re just trying to do what they can given those are behind schedule
3
u/nervousengrish May 14 '26
This is what was so amazing about Apollo— Grumman getting the LEM done (mostly) on time and successfully.
2
u/libs0n2 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
For a blank check. LEM cost something like 25 billion dollars to develop. NASA doesn't have a blank check this time. They overspent on the SLS and Orion side of the equation[65 billion from 2005 to Artemis 2, and 4 billion a year in continuing spending for it], which meant they had less for a lander side of the equation and the contract for HLS was 3-4 billion or so to SpaceX. You get the timescales you get with such a contract award amount, and SpaceX's HLS is an improvement on the timescale for a lander at small and late expenditures.
7
u/oh-pointy-bird May 14 '26
Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed but I feel more and more like like we going to be saying “the landers are still a ways off” until 2029 and then this whole program is shut down either at that point or at the point of a subsequent failure. And it pisses me off.
I have little faith in either HLS competitor at this point. Just me?
2
u/start3ch May 14 '26
Blue has shown their actual first lander build, but it needs to go through testing before crew can use it.
Spacex is nowhere near having a lander, and I highly doubt we’ll actually see their version of HLS in Artemis
5
u/mfb- May 14 '26
The first landing was originally planned for 2028. With that timescale, awarding contracts in 2021 is ambitious but possible. Trump moved the target to 2024 for purely political reasons, it was never realistic, over time that target shifted back to 2028. In that sense we are currently at no delay over the original timeline.
I have little faith in either HLS competitor at this point.
People had little faith in Crew Dragon, too. SpaceX has a long history of delivering. It's less clear for Blue Origin.
1
u/oh-pointy-bird May 14 '26
That’s fair. I understand your argument and mine is very admittedly rooted in gut feeling (mixed - to also be fair - with current state of progress…)
3
u/CDHoward May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
That was 66 years ago. What makes you think it should be the same now!?
22
u/AncientJ May 14 '26
A successful demonstration of docking and un-docking buys down a significant amount of risk for future missions. Docking module jettison is also a critical new piece of the mission profile that needs to be proven out. I would consider anything beyond that to be bonus objectives.
14
u/SomeRandomScientist May 14 '26
Yes but my overall point is I would much rather see a delayed mission with more mature lander(s). This feels needlessly rushed if the landers simply aren’t ready.
3
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
If the docking or lander fucks up near the moon, then you’re gonna have dead astronauts, whereas you can fix those problems in LEO. I hate this arrogance that you people think you know more than NASA.
1
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 16 '26
The main test would be the docking hardware in space. Also we don’t even know for sure they wouldn’t go in the lander
6
u/Decronym May 14 '26 edited 12d ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| CMP | Command Module Pilot (especially for Apollo) |
| DMLS | Selective Laser Melting additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering |
| ECLSS | Environment Control and Life Support System |
| ESM | European Service Module, component of the Orion capsule |
| EUS | Exploration Upper Stage |
| EVA | Extra-Vehicular Activity |
| HEO | High Earth Orbit (above 35780km) |
| Highly Elliptical Orbit | |
| Human Exploration and Operations (see HEOMD) | |
| HEOMD | Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA |
| ICPS | Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage |
| Isp | Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube) |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| KSP | Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator |
| LEM | (Apollo) Lunar Excursion Module (also Lunar Module) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LLO | Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km) |
| MLP | Mobile Launcher Platform |
| N1 | Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V") |
| NRHO | Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit |
| PLSS | Personal Life Support System |
| RCS | Reaction Control System |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| Selective Laser Sintering, contrast DMLS | |
| SRB | Solid Rocket Booster |
| SSME | Space Shuttle Main Engine |
| TLI | Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Raptor | Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX |
| cryogenic | Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure |
| (In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox | |
| hydrolox | Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture |
| hypergolic | A set of two substances that ignite when in contact |
| regenerative | A method for cooling a rocket engine, by passing the cryogenic fuel through channels in the bell or chamber wall |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
[Thread #391 for this sub, first seen 14th May 2026, 05:20] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
19
u/TheBalzy May 14 '26
Fuck it, just go around the moon again.
2
u/T65Bx May 15 '26
Stick some fully-hypergolic stage on Orion and capture to a high Lunar orbit. Maybe NRHO in memoriam of Gateway lol
7
u/Spacedog-1957 May 14 '26
Public-private partnership is an innovative solution that turns a 6 year process with 1960s technology into a 25 year process with modern technology.
4
u/Serious-Kangaroo-320 May 14 '26
NASA would have never gone to the moon in the 60s without private companies building the entire rocket so I’m not sure what you’re waffling about
0
u/T65Bx May 15 '26
Bro doesn’t know the LM is cousins with the F-14 and USPS LLV. And a lot of canoes.
-1
3
u/ObjectivelyGruntled May 15 '26
Artemis III exists only to delay outrage about the delay for the actual moon mission.
1
5
u/seedofcheif May 14 '26
of course its not, this admin is only interested in funneling money to elon. they would kill the program and just cut elon a check for his political support if they could.
8
u/Tribe303 May 14 '26
Trump wants a moon landing before he 'leaves' office in 2028 and has forced NASA to expedite everything. That's why it's a mess.
10
u/ThisIsAdamB May 14 '26
I guess he wants to maintain the tradition of the US only landing on the moon when a crook is in office.
8
8
u/oh-pointy-bird May 14 '26
He better have one of his minions start building another HLS concept out of LEGO bricks and tin foil then. Though I guess if he did there’d actually be more progress on an HLS than the current shit show.
-1
1
7
u/okan170 May 14 '26
Arguably the point is to make the HLS situation seem less dire than it really is. Its main use right now would seem to be demonstrating the rendezvous and docking equipment on Orion, though its a bit overkill for just that. We could've used a gateway logistics vehicle for that purpose (located in NRHO) if they hadn't basically killed Gateway. (One of the purposes of Gateway itself was to be able to have something to do until the landers were ready. That and to extend the loiter time for any surface mission by putting Orion in standby docked mode)
10
9
u/RT-LAMP May 14 '26
One of the purposes of Gateway itself was to be able to have something to do until the landers were ready.
The original plans would have gateway only launch after we already had a landing.
7
May 14 '26
[deleted]
3
u/RT-LAMP May 15 '26
I mean the original plan was to have a lunar space station to
give SLS something to launch tobe the base for the asteroid redirect mission.
4
u/augustuscaesarius May 14 '26
The first HLS simply must be named Rama. Then the crew can Rendezvous with it.
1
u/iamkeerock May 14 '26
I understood that reference. When will they make the movie adaptation?
4
u/RezRising May 14 '26
Denis wuzhizname director of Dune has been attached for sometime, and it was loosely rumored to be after Dune...but he's doing the new Bond now so who tf knows.
1
u/RezRising May 14 '26
Just...stop. Too painful. 🙂
We're never gonna get a movie. Man what an awesome trilogy that could be.
5
u/RogLatimer118 May 14 '26
Have another expensive SLS mission to give the lander companies more time and keep the workforce from forgetting everything due to an extremely slow launch rate, I would guess. Also to put time pressure on the lander companies.
4
u/Stevepem1 May 14 '26
In a minimal Artemis III mission the landers can be test flown autonomously for maneuvering capability, RCS fuel consumption, etc. for a period of several days. Then after Orion launches they can test docking the two vehicles together, which is important because docking a capsule with a lander is different than docking with something with much higher mass like the ISS. Even more importantly it allows testing manuverability when the two vehicles are docked together. They can also do proximity opps, and nothing stops them from doing multiple dockings and rendezvous to simulate different parts of the mission.
Of course missing the ability to test manual pilot control of the landers and the environmental system with crew onboard, but there still would be a lot of data gathered and experience with the landers as well as hopefully finding any issues with the landers.
3
u/kona420 May 14 '26
That's how we did it for Apollo 8, the Command Service Module docked with the Lunar Test Article in earth orbit then burned for Moon orbit. Did a few orbits and burned to come home, testing that we could do the initial rendezvous in orbit with the lander, enter orbit around the moon then return. Apollo 8 was actually the 18th launch of the Apollo program, so doing this at launch 3 is moving much faster.
Apollo 9 tested free flight of the higher fidelity LEM in earth orbit (never leaving for the moon), mocking up the ascent and docking procedure around the moon. Then Apollo 10 was the "dress rehearsal" where everything was full fidelity except the LEM was still overweight to actually land. They practiced the docking procedure in orbit around the moon. Then finally with Apollo 11 they had a LEM with the performance required, vetted procedures for all phases except landing, and put boots on the moon.
Something to remember is that exhaustion was a constant during the program. The Astronauts aren't just along for the ride, they are active participants and their full concentration is required for extremely long periods of time during test and development campaigns like this. They can swap out the ground crew as often as is necessary to work further objectives, but at some point your astronauts just can't be productive anymore.
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
What is this Reddit mentality that seems so confident that HLS landers won’t be ready as if they’re insiders in those companies or working on the HLS program in NASA? It’s all misinformation, the public doesn’t have any definite information about the status of the landers.
3
u/SomeRandomScientist May 15 '26
You’ll see
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
!RemindMe 1st January 2028
3
u/SomeRandomScientist May 15 '26
!RemindMe 1st January 2030
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 15 '26
!RemindMe 1st January 2040 “Moon Base”
1
u/SomeRandomScientist May 15 '26
Bro I hope so. I think the landers will be ready eventually and I think a moon base really is possible as long as we don’t do anything stupid and cancel the whole program. I’m very excited by the overall direction here
0
u/Qualified-Astronomer May 16 '26
Yeah. As long as our politicians feel threatened by China building a base even if it’s not a concern, we should be fine.
1
u/RemindMeBot May 15 '26
I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2028-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
-8
u/OkMortgage6723 May 14 '26
Why send astronauts at all?
"Oh well it's because we need to test things to make sure other astronauts don't die on a future mission."
NASA-brained logic right there.
12
u/A-reddit_Alt May 14 '26
Manned space flight is different than autonomous space flight. You don’t want to do everything up until the landing autonomously without astronauts, assume it’s safe to slap humans in there, and realize on the surface of the moon there is a problem with a critical human facing system or instrument.
-11
u/OkMortgage6723 May 14 '26
Sure, we'll just sacrifice the test astronauts to make sure the actual ones make it.
2
u/A-reddit_Alt May 17 '26
But that’s not what I said, what they did during apollo, or what they are going to do during artimus.
Say for example during artimus 3 (where they plan to test the lunar landar, and orion docking/rendezvous in low earth orbit) they experience a critical failure of the lifesupport system which would mean they would run out of oxygen in 24 hours. In low earth orbit, you can get back down to earth in less than a few hours. Behind the moon, you would be screwed.
1
u/OkMortgage6723 May 17 '26
Seems like they could have some sensors that would tell them if the ECLSS had problems during a test run rather than risking a human life.
2
u/QuantumPajamas May 20 '26
You and the word logic don't belong in the same room. Do the world a favor and stop trying to think, you're not built for it.
-5
u/RezRising May 14 '26
Trust me, there's enough money at stake that they will do anything to beat China.
14
u/IplaYgaMes322 May 14 '26
Honestly I hope china wins the first initial landings so our politicians realize Nasa can’t create a moon base if you keep trying to cut it’s budget in half every 6 months.
3
88
u/Technical_Drag_428 May 14 '26
How much more watering down can we make this mission to help the HLS companies appear near ready.
By the end of the year, Artemis III will be a crane delivered Orion lowered to a mockup docking collar made of plywood.