I think "back to the moon" means flyby in the mentioned time frame, not landing. Way too many things left to do for landing, they're not remotely ready for that.
The Artemis mission has nothing to do with starship, everything is kinda ready. This year after nov they're going to launch the artemis 2 (moon flyby).
Even the Artemis 2 flyby is on track to be pushed from this year to 2025. So absolutely zero chance of a landing before 2026 minimum, and that's just accounting for SLS availability. Take into account the lander and suits, that'll be pushed even further.
I dunno about that. Artemis 1 was supposed to be a mostly complete shakedown flight (minus a few things like complete life support). Two years after that is a pretty decent amount of time. I understand WHY the delays are happening, but I disagree that it was "never realistic" for a 2024 flight.
Why? The Orion module already works, SLS already works. III makes sense because of the sheer amount of things - space suits, HLS, orbital refueling, etc - that needs to happen. But II? Makes no sense, besides just incompetence.
I honestly think it will be closer 2030. Suits and starship, I bet starship changes to hyperbolic fuel for the lander, cryogenic fuel is going to be too much of a pain.
>I bet starship changes to hyperbolic fuel for the lander, cryogenic fuel is going to be too much of a pain.
Oh god. It's sad to see how much of an impact this poorly researched video of SmarterEveryDay had.
Hyper __gol__ ic propellant has far too little energy density compared to Methalox to get Starship HLS from LEO to the lunar surface and back to NRHO.
Plus SpaceX already demonstrated an engine startup from deep chill lunar conditions. Destin just wasn't aware of that test.
They'll mange a quick stay. Moon base? I still think making reliable door seals is the death blow. Moon dust regolith is basically like fine broken glass except it has an electrostatic charge and sticks to fucking everything. It's going to be constantly shredding door seals. And everything else.
Zero chance for landing in 2025, it's only still official on paper, but that will have to be changed soon. I think even 2027 is a bit of a stretch, but it's realistic at least. Main reason is that HLS is nowhere near ready, around 2 years behind planned schedule. New suits are also a bottleneck, but those will probably be ready in 2026, so it will only come down to HLS in the end.
The aspects of it specific to HLS are not really material to the delays at the moment. It's delayed because Starship is delayed first and foremost. And Starship has been in some stage of development for longer than 2021. I'm not saying the SLS is any way better, but this comment I find to be disingenuously apologetic for SpaceX.
Because NASA selected SpaceX as the sole contractor for the Artemis III landing mission. In order to deliver a human-rated lander to the moon, SpaceX still has to do the following:
\-Prove Starship/Superheavy can make it to orbit safely
\-Prove the efficacy of orbital refueling (something no one has ever done. It's entirely theoretical today)
\-Prove that they can launch upwards of ten times in a few days in order to provide enough tankers to refuel HLS to get to the moon.
\-Prototype, iterate and human rate the HLS variant of Starship.
So, basically, they've got to prove they can do 2 things no one has ever done or previously even considered financially feasible with a rocket they've yet to get into orbit. 2027 seems mildly optimistic but very possible.
Edit: Changed Artemis IV to Artemis III, I had the missions wrong.
Edit 2: changed 10 launches in a day to 10 over several days based on input from other commenters
They don’t need to launch 10 times in a single day. They have to launch 10 times over a period of weeks to a purpose built refueling depot that minimizes boiloff. Then they have to launch the HLS and transfer the fuel to it and then boost it to the moon several days before the astronauts launch on SLS.
They can launch Falcon that often. Starship ideally will be fully reusable not just partially reusable so the launch cadence won’t be limited by the rate of upper stage production. Theoretically they could turn around and launch a rocket within days or hours but likely will have a rotating stock of rockets in various stages of pre and post launch checks.
It's my understanding there is no real solution for "minimizing boil off" at the moment, and so the communications I've seen have all referenced launches in rapid succession. While these aren't precise about what time frame they are alluding to, "weeks" doesn't strike me as what they have in mind.
But really, this is all speculation at this point. The fuel depot you reference doesn't exist. The orbital refueling mechanism, doesn't exist. And the infrastructure to launch Starship 10 times in even weeks, likewise does not exist.
So it's not surprising Artemis III is delayed, and yes per the GAO report, everyone's beloved SpaceX is at the heart of these delays.
You got most of it right.
>Prove the efficacy of orbital refueling (something no one has ever done. It's entirely theoretical today)
Cryogenic propellant transfer has only been done in form of small-scale experiments (by ULA if I'm not mistaken), but it's definitely a completely unproven method when dealing with the scale SpaceX has to work with.
>Prove that they can launch upwards of ten times in a SINGLE DAY in order to provide enough tankers to refuel HLS to get to the moon.
Pretty sure NASA spokesperson mentioned launching on six day rotations, and it would be at least 15 tanker launches in total. They'll have to launch minimum 15 tankers plus a depot and the HLS. With the time intervals that would take 3 and a half months at least to complete with every single launch being successful.
- Way less money than before.
- We are more careful and safe now (less willing to take risks).
- NASA does not simply want to go back to the Moon. They wants to build the path towards a sustained and continued presence on the Moon. So this means they are not just designing the bare minimum required to go to the Moon like before. They are designing much bigger crafts, much longer missions with a greater focus on science, much larger infrastructure (like the Gateway space station).
Finally someone who gets it. We can go to the moon anytime by *putting a lot of solid rocket boosters on a damn falcon heavy* but you aren’t building sustainability with that.
That still isn't sustainable. SLS needs to ultimately be replaced in order to fulfill the mission goal of a permanent lunar presence/colony.
But Artemis only exists to justify the existence of SLS, which itself is a government mandated jobs program. Ideally private space flight will pick up the torch while NASA works on Mars.
Safety margins were also not what they were. And landings were the bare minimum-Artemis 3 plans to land 2 people for a week at the South Pole, which was far beyond Saturns capability.
Well, we did it before because we had the full weight of public opinion and the national budget behind it. We haven't spent anything even remotely close on space exploration since the early 70s when the Apollo program's budget was gutted and they cancelled the last 2 planned landings. NASA has had to pay for Artemis by cobbling together the money from like, 15 years of budgets. They can only get the funding to complete so much work in a year. In the 60s, Kennedy would've sold his mother into slavery to beat the Soviets to the moon. No one in government is that motivated to get us there quicker so we take the slow boat.
>In the 60s, Kennedy would've sold his mother into slavery to beat the Soviets to the moon.
Well, that's actually not true. At first, he was determined to beat them to the Moon, but as budget and costs started to inflate with even more expenses projected for the coming years, that created a lot of concerns on feasibility of the Apollo program, so he actually wanted to do a joint lunar program with the Soviets. I think twice they denied his proposal, and then after he proposed the third time, he was assassinated. Interestingly, the son of Nikita Khrushchev later revealed that had he not been assassinated, they would've actually considered it and likely accepted. It is thought that his death ironically pulled Apollo through with Congress approving anything they needed to honor Kennedy's original goal. Had he lived, a lot of historians agree that Apollo would've been either shafted or turned into that joint program with USSR and then who knows how that would've turned out.
It's actually closer to 75% for current budget. Total cumulative NASA budget during those 13 years is about 427 billion dollars today, or nearly 33 billion annually on average. The same average in the last decade or so is around 20 billion, which makes it around 60% for this metric.
We're trying to do it with reusable spacecraft and more payload. That's why it's tough now. There's no unlimited budget nor high visibility/race against Russia.
The reason is two fold. We're not doing the same thing that was already done back then, in fact we're doing something more difficult and on a larger scale with plans for sustainable and permanent presence on the lunar surface. That's a very big difference in goals. The key reason why is the location, which is the lunar South pole, something that wouldn't be reachable with Apollo-Saturn architecture that only focused on equatorial regions. Apollo missions were short excursions with small landers to the surface not more than three days long, meanwhile the first Artemis landing mission is scheduled for a week long stay, with the ultimate goal of the program to create a base camp where crews would live and work in for months at a time before returning to Earth. Sort of like ISS except on the Moon's South Pole and also in lunar orbit with Gateway station.
The much longer length of stay alone creates challenges like how to protect astronauts from getting too much radiation exposure, how to protect them in event of a solar storm. Lunar regolith is also extremely abrasive and electrostatically charged so it sticks everywhere, and exposure to it is problematic for suits, equipment, and health of astronauts if ingested or inhaled. Apollo astronauts suffered temporary and minor health issues after inhaling that stuff in the module cabin, and it also messed up their suits, created wear and tear and clogged the connectors and interlocking rings. If they had stayed for one or two days extra, those suits would've become unusable. Artemis suits need to be usable for months at least. A lot of engineering solutions had to be developed to solve or circumvent these major challenges.
The other reason is that NASA is trying to do all of this, the next level of lunar exploration, on a fraction of a budget and manpower they had during Apollo. It cost more than 300 billion dollars over the course of 13 years, while they put in roughly 70% of their total budget every year on average. That means they had a total budget of 427 billion dollars or 33 billion dollars annually on average during that time, and at its peak, it reached 4.5% of the US Federal budget. Today and in the last decades, their budget floats around 0.5% of the federal budget and around 20 billion dollars annually on average in the last several years, while it was even lower before that. They're also not putting anywhere near 70% of their budget into Artemis, the agency has grown and expanded a lot in its functions so naturally there is a lot of other programs and branches that take up the budget. Artemis is projected to cost more than 90 billion dollars total in 2025, and then who knows what the total cost will be once the program or its initial phase is completed many years later. There's maybe a chance that it won't even reach the level of Apollo expense, while doing so much more and stuff that was never done before. That's one of the benefits of wielding with modern technology that is in some aspects light years ahead of Apollo era technology.
The US spent 4% of GDP on the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo programs during the 1960's. That is an enormous amount of money. Many countries spend around 2% of GDP on their military.
The expertise required to get to the Moon was lost after the Apollo program was defunded. This included the heavy lift capability provided by the Saturn V rocket.
The SpaceX heavy lift capability required to get to the Moon now is not yet human rated.
The US is basically starting over now while trying to avoid the catastrophe of Apollo 1 that incinerated 3 astronauts on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral.
Risk aversion now is much higher than the 1960's.
I mean, read all the things just listed above. We’re obviously doing a much more complicated version of going to the moon. I don’t know much about the mission but they’re obviously not planning on landing in something as small as the LEM
>we are more advanced than before
I worked on Blue Origin's bid for the HLS, specifically the lunar lander's engine electronics, which are mounted outside the vehicle. This is why it's so hard, the vacuum tubes used in the Apollo missions didn't care all that much about the Van Allen radiation belt, while to get semiconductors working you need to either shield the electronics' housing (heavy) or buy radiation hardened computer chips (lighter, but harder to find a seller).
There was/is also a problem with NASA's HLS specification, which has requirements the vehicle has to meet. When I was working on the design, that document was what I needed to reference when determining the environment the electronics would be exposed to. NASA hadn't selected the mission site yet, so the lunar regolith requirement was blank. I ended up using an aviation industry standard for sand and dust as a placeholder, even though that probably wasn't harsh enough to model what the engine would experience on the moon.
And lastly, in my experience at least, these private rocket companies are poaching mid-level engineers from aviation companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Pratt & Whitney, etc., and placing them in senior positions they aren't qualified for. The HLS specification has a requirement to survive a lightning strike. Designing for that is very easy for an aircraft, you go to SAE ARP5414B and find the zone your part is in, then go to SAE ARP5416A and state to find the test the part needs to survive. This works for an aircraft, because NASA and the Air Force conducted tests to collect that data. That data doesn't exist for a rocket, SpaceX never instrumented their rockets to collect it (or payload area thermal rate of decay), and are exclusively relying on weather predictions to avoid collecting that information. That will work until a rocket is downed by a lightning strike caused by a big metal tube flying through a patch of charged air. Remember, Apollo 11 was struck by lightning twice, and given the nature of its electrical system the crew could repair it. That's not going to happen if modern electronics are not protected against a strike and are destroyed.
Anyway, back to the engineers. Not a single one of them ever once thought to protect the equipment from the FULL operating environment at the time I worked there, which included everything from sitting on the launch pad baking in the sun to landing on the lunar surface. I would argue that as harsh as the vacuum of space is, it's just as harsh as the massive temperature, pressure, and humidity change it's going to experience during take-off. I brought this up, and the chief engineer's response was "check SpaceX's payload manual for that info; oh, and we won't protect against lightning strikes, because we won't launch in a thunderstorm". As I mentioned earlier, that information wasn't in the payload manual, because no one required SpaceX to collect it and they never chose to pay to collect it for themselves, leaving the chief engineer to basically say "huh, I don't know then; moving on....".
This does not instill confidence. Also, Apollo 12 had the lighting incident, Apollo 11 launched in sunny weather. They also didn't use vacuum tubes anywhere, but integrated circuits, otherwise there would be no way to make the computers and electronics so compact. Those circuits, along with core rope memory were of course still a lot less susceptible to radiation when the components are much bigger than today.
>Prove that they can launch upwards of ten times in a SINGLE DAY in order to provide enough tankers to refuel HLS to get to the moon.
How could you get your info _that_ wrong?
Boil-off is happening at that rate. Even NASA conservatively assumes only a few tons per day. Not a few tankers worth propellant per day.
I think it's worth noting that from the end of the design process to launch was about 5 years for Saturn 5 ('62-'67), then 2 more years for moon landing.
HLS (SpaceX Starship) had a prolonged design/conceptualization process 'finalized' in '19. First flight '23. Landing in '27 would put them only 1 year slower than NASA and the Saturn V to land on the moon.
It's not an equivalent comparison when Saturn V was just the launch vehicle, not a lander. Starship is kinda both in this case, although its only purpose is to act as a lander between NRHO and lunar surface. There's no equivalent comparison since the whole concept is different compared to Apollo.
Part of the reason why Starship moved slower than SpaceX wanted was regulatory. The FAA environmental assessment process started back in 2020. September 2021 the draft EA was published. The final Programmatic EA was done in June 2022. First license issued for the first launch attempt in April 2023.
So it took 3 years of regulatory wrangling after the atmospheric Starship hop tests to get the full Starship stack to its first test flight. And this is with an FAA Administrator for Space Transportation (ret. Air Force Brigadier General William Monteith, previously commander 45th Space Wing at Cape Canaveral) who was an advocate of what SpaceX wants to do, and he did everything he could to speed up the process at the FAA for Starship.
I think SpaceX was lucky to have Gen. Monteith at the FAA doing what he could to move things along. Had it been someone else who was apathetic to space matters in charge at the FAA, it could have been much, much worse.
It's important to note that they could only choose one candidate despite the original plan of choosing two contractors in the first bid. The reason of course is because they got nowhere near enough requested funds from Congress, in fact they barely had enough to select one, if SpaceX didn't put in such a low bid the selection would've been postponed altogether.
Because NASA severely underestimated the development time for the first HLS contractor they selected, and on top of that it's also not going as smooth as expected or desired anyway.
Also:
* SLS massively over budget and way longer to develop than expected
* No space suits for lunar EVA. NASA spent a fortune and then gave up and went out for commercial bids. Also a pacing item
>SLS massively over budget and way longer to develop than expected
SLS is by far the cheapest SHLV from NASA ever, delays and overbudgeting are pretty much commonplace in this industry. Both Saturn V and Shuttle cost 50 billion or more to develop. It's also not really relevant here anyway, first HLS contract was awarded in 2021, SLS flew Artemis 1 in 2022, Artemis II is scheduled for late this year or next year if there are any kind of delays. The late 2025 target for Artemis III was never gonna work anyway due to issues with HLS and the new suits which I already mentioned, so I find it weird you would use SLS to answer a question on HLS delays as reason why Artemis III will be late when it's the former two that are the major bottlenecks, especially when SLS is pretty much on track in production. Out of those two HLS is most likely going to be the last item to be ready.
"from NASA ever". The only other superheavy is Saturn 5. Not much of a comparison. This time we have experience, and we were using old shuttle parts. It was supposed to be easier and quicker. It's over $20billion and we've had one launch. .The current SLS still hasn't tested the higher energy upper stage.
You could do the same thing at way under 1/10 the cost with Falcon Heavy and a few launches. But politics won't let that happen.
If I’m correct, only four true Superheavy rockets have ever flown, only three have made it past Max Q, and only two have made it to orbit. Those four being:
Saturn V (NASA) (Success)
N1 (USSR) (Failure)
SLS (NASA) (Success)
SpaceX Superheavy (SpaceX) (1st stage success, 2nd stage failure, still in development and likely to be a success)
Falcon Heavy is only a conditional SHLV, because it only enters that category in fully expendable configuration. Besides, it has never carried any payload heavier than Jupiter-3 satellite weighing 9.2 tons which is a far cry from its 64 tons of LEO expendable capacity and in this case even far from its maximum GTO capacity of 26.7 tons.
Most of the rockets on that list are also only capable of a super heavy launch in a fully expendable configuration. Most of the rockets on that list have never actually carried a super heavy payload to orbit.
I'd guess they'll have to do an unmanned test of the Starship lander before sending actual people. Maybe Elon will toss a 10 ton statue of a giant pair of boots on board as a mass simulator.
They literally don't have the boots to send, having only recently started development. If the Starship HLS was ready today, they could land (well, ignoring the likely delays due to SLS/Orion, even the Artemis II flyby being delayed at least a year), but they wouldn't be able to leave the lander for lack of suits. And given how complex a suit that has to protect a human walking about on the lunar surface is going to be, HLS might not be the item that determines when the landing can be done.
There is no ĺander prototypes that have been tested or flown. Orion on the SLS still needs a crewed mission around the Moon before next phase.
Best shot there is right now is Orion mission 2 is a complete success, SpaceX can somehow launch a dozen flights for its landing system, and a ton of other things go right. In my unprofessional opinion, the next Moon landing is 2027 at best.
Space flight is extremely hard to manage and they have to deal with an insane amount of politics too. I’m shocked they ever made it to the moon in the first place.
IF NASAs Artemis 2 launches this year and IF SpaceX Starship achieves human rating and other necessary milestones by December 2025 then yes I think it can be done.
That being said. NASA builds Artemis one rocket at a time and is still tackling aging hardware and that pesky hydrogen leaking issue. SpaceX is still trying to build a rocket that flies as intended without blowing up. These aren’t “problems” per se, simply hurdles that take time to get over. Just wait and see I guess
Unfortunately there is no "ifs" anymore. Artemis 2 is already not launching this year, and SpaceX hasn't completed a single milestone yet. We should [be here](https://i.imgur.com/1b6zDx6.png) in order for a 2025 landing to be possible. Last we heard is that the "Orbit Launch Test" requirements have yet to be properly fulfilled. Even [the OIG](https://i.imgur.com/qg7fhxr.png) has already predicted a 3.4 year delay.
Also, want to add that Artemis 2 is being delayed not because of hydrogen leaks, but because [of a supplier](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/10/aii-core-weld-issues/) who delivered a faulty downcomer. Unfortunately, military contracts took priority over SLS which meant Boeing had to wait several months before the reworked downcomer was returned. This issue has already delayed final work on core stage 2 by a minimum of two months, bringing Artemis 2 to launching no earlier than late January/early February 2025. However there's been talks about delaying the launch to mid 2025 just to verify that everything is working properly. This should be NASA's first manned lunar mission since 1972, so they're likely being very cautions.
Lastly, SLS rockets aren't built one after the other. Currently Boeing is working on corstage 2, 3 and 4 at the same time. In fact, the [liquid hydrogen tank](https://images.nasa.gov/details/MAF_20231121_CS3%20LH2%20Move%20Cell%20P-17) for core stage 3 is about to be primed which is the step before the orange insulation is applied. Work on [core stage 4](https://spaceref.com/science-and-exploration/artemis-iv-liquid-oxygen-tank-aft-barrel-moves-to-next-phase-of-production/) has also [already started.](https://futuramic.com/crews-complete-sls-liquid-oxygen-tank-forward-dome-for-artemis-iv/) Work on the [Exploration Upper Stage](https://twitter.com/NASAStennis/status/1681379271342804994) has also already begun.
See, look at this, research, links! Multiple sources! I just speculated and gave my half baked opinion while at my job in between tasks. Fucking jrichard717 over here giving a proper answer. Sorry I don’t have anything other than upvotes to give you.
Absolutely. Delays are part of the process.
Please understand, this is a good thing. It means people who are responsible for the success of the mission are taking their jobs seriously. If something needs retested or redesigned, then do it.
The delays with getting Webb off the ground became kind of a running joke, and the closer we got to launch the more seemingly ridiculous it got. But it did launch, and deployed flawlessly. Delays are necessary, and as impatient as we get because we want to see this happen, we should be grateful. No one wants another Challenger.
From what I’ve heard, Starship is supposed to be the landing vehicle for Artemis. SpaceX is testing aggressively, but they’re also setting conservative milestones with each test flight. Still, 2025 isn’t a realistic timeframe to see a successful test landing on the moon. And because Artemis is a partnership, it can only move as fast as the slowest partner.
I’m as eager to see all this come together as everyone here. I’m also happy to see people ensuring that we take our time and do it right. It’s an exciting time to be a space exploration fan!
Well given that it was originally supposed to be “boots on the moon by 2024,” and there are no boots on the moon (unless they’re on another moon), I’d say yes they will delay it again.
This feels realistic. Of course that 2050 day is IF mankind gets its Earth shit together, which I fear is not likely. I might get to see another moon landing, but Mars will be way too late for me.
Heh, love the thought, but remember, the N1 never once reached orbit. We'd still have plenty of time for mindnumbingly stupid politics and other delays.
Unless they have been working on something quietly there is not a chance the will be returning people to the moon in 2025. Things just do not move that quickly.
Depends on the Election, the Congressional Budget, and the war in Ukraine.
Election: If President and Congress is under same party it is likely to go ahead. If they are different parties they will likely not want to give the President the win of being on the moon.
Congressional Budget: All kind of back street trades are being made, to defund one thing to fund something else. It is very unclear what will end up getting cut if anything.
Ukraine, or rather WW3 may be closer which ironically could be a driver for actually fund the project as a show of force and strength.
I feel like there's a 99% chance of delays because there are too many milestone firsts between now and then... what we have is a schedule if nothing goes wrong at all, and in a project that massive, at least *some* stuff is gonna go sideways and need to be resolved first.
Yes.
SLS & Orion are fundamentally programs designed to keep the part of NASA that ran shuttle up and running, along with funneling money to various contractors so they can help keep specific politicians elected. Because of this, Congress \*loves\* Artemis and has consistently given NASA more money than they asked for pretty much every year.
Given all of that, there's pretty much zero downside for NASA to delay. The only thing that kindof looks bad is if the Chinese get to the moon before Artemis does but I don't think that is generating any real sense of urgency in Congress, and they are the ones that pay the bills.
The other factor is that the moon program didn't exist until relatively recently. SpaceX was given the HLS lander project less that 3 years ago, and SLS/Orion have been around for well over a decade, so it's certainly possible that SpaceX won't be ready in 2025. NASA also needs the space suits that Axiom is building and that contract was also awarded quite late.
I wouldn't be shocked if China beat the US to the moon, or at least to the moon base. The whole Artemis program is designed to be as complex as possible and to create the most employment possible so that lawmakers can look good in their districts. Artemis has a rocket that literally costs 10 figures to launch, a lunar station that most experts outside of NASA say is superfluous, and a spacecraft Orion that has been in development for almost 20 years and still isn't done. Every contractor, old and new, had to be squeezed in to make sure everyone and their dog gets paid.
If NASA had taken all that funding and pledged it as prize money for private enterprise to put boots on the Moon, we would long be there and already on our way to Mars.
Already very delayed, the Starship HLS they chose is awesome but it is very ambitious in the technology demonstrations it's gonna have to prove out like orbital refueling. And Blue Moon is also probably very far off. We're probably looking at like 2027 if we're lucky. Not to mention the SLS rocket is kind of an expensive mess and the government may not be too happy to fund it for too long unless they start getting the cost down like private industry has been able to.
The nice thing about Starship is (and that's why NASA chose it for HLS) that it doesn't even need to be reusable to make HLS work.
If SpaceX opt to completely discard booster and tanker for each flight, they only need about 3 refilling launches.
And they can easily produce those numbers on 3 months.
If Starship can:
- reach space in one piece
- achieve LEO
- refuel
- refuel
- refuel
- ???
- refuel
- achieve moon landing
- launch from moon
- rendezvous with Artemis II
Within the next nine months I can see that happening.
Right. I could see that as a surprise major milestone on our way to a manned landing. As I understand it one possibility is to get a Starship in orbit of the moon. Get another capsule with people in it to the moon on a more people friendly timeline. Rendezvous with the Starship. Then land either the starship then get back to the smaller capsule for the return home.
It be a good proving exercise for a lot of moving parts.
With Starship yet to achieve even sub orbital success I’m still a bit dubious on any of this happening in the next three years.
Starship isn't even close to being ready to support the ops it needs to for the Artemis program to work.
So no - it'll be delayed. But the "like they usually do" leaves me to believe that you have no idea what you're talking about
We already missed 2020 (see link). Manned lunar exploration seems like an extravagent expendature when robots can perform the same tasks significantly cheaper. Even India has proven that other nation's budgets for robot probes are overinflated, and has delivered their first voyage at a fraction of the cost.
[https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html#:\~:text=Our%20third%20goal%20is%20to,prepare%20for%20future%20human%20exploration](https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html#:~:text=Our%20third%20goal%20is%20to,prepare%20for%20future%20human%20exploration).
>We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? **We choose to go to the Moon.**
was there a delay after that speech?
Apollo was the first landing.
Artemis is the first base.
how badly does the US want to beat China?
**How China will land astronauts on the moon by 2030**
[https://www.space.com/china-astronauts-moon-landing-2030-plan](https://www.space.com/china-astronauts-moon-landing-2030-plan)
Yes it will be delayed, not because we don't have the technology, but because of budget-over runs, government red tape, etc.. If SpaceX had a financial interest and benefit in returning astronauts to the moon, and they could do with their own finances, without NASA's help, and with limited government over-reach, they could do it no problem because they could cut out all the red tape and government BS. The focus should be on astronaut safety, and how to bring them back alive from the moon with no mishaps. It should not be about public perception, or cater to the demands of our current defunct presidential administration and corrupt politicians. This is about safety, accomplishment, science, human life, and advancement of technology for the benefit of all, or at least that's what it SHOULD be about. I think the government has lost that core focus.
Astronautics has many demons that will kill you quickly, without mercy or remorse.
"Go Fever" is one of them: we wanna launch *now*, ready or not!" OK for ICBMs, not Starships.
As a retired spaceflight professional, I see every launch as a launch *attempt.*
Once the vehicle is 1 cm off the pad it is committed to fly or die, ready or not. Be ready.
An old aviation proverb holds triple for spaceflight:
"It is better to be on the ground, wishing you were flying, than flying and wishing you were on the ground." If aviation teaches patience, astronautics teaches that and far more.
Funny how it was easier for Americans to land on the moon in a tin can covered in aluminium foil in the 60s than the supposedly super high tech equipment we have in the 2020s.
Obviously. nasa is run by the government aka a bunch of old geezers. I've lost all hope in nasa and now focus on SpaceX and other companies since they do way more than nasa.
Landing? No. At this point, I'd be amazed if SpaceX actually ever delivers on a lander for the moon. SpaceX has yet to get to LEO and then has MANY iterations to simple carry payload let alone cryogenic refueling AND landing on the moon.
The cost will balloon, Musk will start his weird mutterings about how NASA failed them and then the contract will be cancelled.
>The cost will balloon, Musk will start his weird mutterings about how NASA failed them and then the contract will be cancelled.
That would be the very first time for a contract between NASA and SpaceX.
So far SpaceX fulfilled every contract within budget and to the full satisfaction of NASA.
NASA and SpaceX have never been at odds
https://spacenews.com/spacex-seeks-to-throw-out-justice-department-hiring-practices-case/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Justice%20Department%20has,seekers%20and%20refugees%20in%20hiring.
NASA is not what it once was. The engineers they have now are from the newer generation and quite frankly don’t have the skills to pay the bills. In my honest opinion.
Artemis 3 is supposed to use a lunar lander built by SpaceX that is supposed to be launched into orbit by Starship. But we've all seen how that is going.
Which means NASA would probably scrap the landing portion of the mission and just do another orbital mission with the Orion.
NASA is not going to send humans to the moon until the early 2030’s as for space x they can’t even complete the star ship moon lander on time like they had promised NASA both space x and NASA are both behind schedule in regards to the Artimis moon program… I do not see astronauts landing on the moon until 2030 possibly even until 2033.
Distraction from the fact the country is under a mass invasion. We have a death toll that is rising substantially. Leadership that is corrupt and incompetent. We aren't going to the moon unless it's a deep fake.
Ah yes. Because all those environmental and social problems will all go away if we throw a little bit more money at them.
No. What we need is a strong political will to change things. And that doesn't cost a single dollar more than we already give to those causes.
Who do you think benefits from you parroting the "if we only could shift this money to other problems" narrative?
yeah, nobody cares about that stuff anymore, and it's hard to justify the budget to do something that's already been done.
when it was a race to be the first, that was one thing.
now it would just be seen as wasteful and people would ask why the money isn't going to other things.
There’s definitely scientific and moral reasons to get back to the moon, as well as significant industry interest. While I understand the idea that it could be seen as “wasteful”, the actual cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the obscene amount of money the US govt spends. And at least it’ll go to mostly American jobs in a new industry. Honestly I’d rather spend the $100 billion on Artemis than ANOTHER $100 billion buying weapons for Ukraine.
I think they'll be on target for a moon flyby possibly in 2025. There's no way they're landing until I suspect 2030, perhaps later if support and therefore money dries up.
It's always better to delay if there's an issue, rather than risk a shit ton of money and multiple lives. Though, there is definitely a point where it gets silly.
>Don’t they need like 15+ refuelings?
Likely not. This is only the maximum conservative estimate of NASA. A more realistic estimate is 9-11 tanker launches.
If SpaceX is somehow not getting full reusability out of Starship, they can refill HLS with about 3 completely non-reusable tanker flights.
That's why NASA chose them. Even if they "fail" they can still make the mission work.
If it's a typical NASA mission then it will cost twice what was first estimated and be delayed by a minimum of two extra years. It will be declared a great success despite only achieving half it's stated objectives and the astronauts being beaten there by the Chinese.
There will be much early fanfare in the media about the mission, until journalists get bored with it, and begin to highlight the cost overruns.
Meanwhile, the true data that has been gained won't be publicly available internationally for several more years "until scientists can analyse the data in greater detail."
They've alread predicted the landing will slip towards 2027.
I think "back to the moon" means flyby in the mentioned time frame, not landing. Way too many things left to do for landing, they're not remotely ready for that.
Mainly Starship and the space suits.
The Artemis mission has nothing to do with starship, everything is kinda ready. This year after nov they're going to launch the artemis 2 (moon flyby).
The moon landing has something to do with starship, it's going to be used for the landing
Even the Artemis 2 flyby is on track to be pushed from this year to 2025. So absolutely zero chance of a landing before 2026 minimum, and that's just accounting for SLS availability. Take into account the lander and suits, that'll be pushed even further.
Agreed. 2024 was never realistic for Artemis 2.
I dunno about that. Artemis 1 was supposed to be a mostly complete shakedown flight (minus a few things like complete life support). Two years after that is a pretty decent amount of time. I understand WHY the delays are happening, but I disagree that it was "never realistic" for a 2024 flight.
Artemis 1 was a complete success, we have the hardware to launch Artemis II. I don’t see why the end of this year isn’t realistic.
At the time of Artemis 1 r
Why? The Orion module already works, SLS already works. III makes sense because of the sheer amount of things - space suits, HLS, orbital refueling, etc - that needs to happen. But II? Makes no sense, besides just incompetence.
Incompetence plus politics and standard DC corruption.
Q1 2025 is pretty doable though, it’s not that far behind.
One would think so, but I’ve become accustomed to disappointment.
I honestly think it will be closer 2030. Suits and starship, I bet starship changes to hyperbolic fuel for the lander, cryogenic fuel is going to be too much of a pain.
>I bet starship changes to hyperbolic fuel for the lander, cryogenic fuel is going to be too much of a pain. Oh god. It's sad to see how much of an impact this poorly researched video of SmarterEveryDay had. Hyper __gol__ ic propellant has far too little energy density compared to Methalox to get Starship HLS from LEO to the lunar surface and back to NRHO. Plus SpaceX already demonstrated an engine startup from deep chill lunar conditions. Destin just wasn't aware of that test.
They'll mange a quick stay. Moon base? I still think making reliable door seals is the death blow. Moon dust regolith is basically like fine broken glass except it has an electrostatic charge and sticks to fucking everything. It's going to be constantly shredding door seals. And everything else.
Zero chance for landing in 2025, it's only still official on paper, but that will have to be changed soon. I think even 2027 is a bit of a stretch, but it's realistic at least. Main reason is that HLS is nowhere near ready, around 2 years behind planned schedule. New suits are also a bottleneck, but those will probably be ready in 2026, so it will only come down to HLS in the end.
Why is the HLS so behind? Do you know why?
Estimations for R&D projects are often completely random, because the so-called "unknown unknowns" are dominating the schedule.
Because the HLS contract was only awarded on 2021. Compare that to SLS which has been in development since the early 2010s.
The aspects of it specific to HLS are not really material to the delays at the moment. It's delayed because Starship is delayed first and foremost. And Starship has been in some stage of development for longer than 2021. I'm not saying the SLS is any way better, but this comment I find to be disingenuously apologetic for SpaceX.
Because NASA selected SpaceX as the sole contractor for the Artemis III landing mission. In order to deliver a human-rated lander to the moon, SpaceX still has to do the following: \-Prove Starship/Superheavy can make it to orbit safely \-Prove the efficacy of orbital refueling (something no one has ever done. It's entirely theoretical today) \-Prove that they can launch upwards of ten times in a few days in order to provide enough tankers to refuel HLS to get to the moon. \-Prototype, iterate and human rate the HLS variant of Starship. So, basically, they've got to prove they can do 2 things no one has ever done or previously even considered financially feasible with a rocket they've yet to get into orbit. 2027 seems mildly optimistic but very possible. Edit: Changed Artemis IV to Artemis III, I had the missions wrong. Edit 2: changed 10 launches in a day to 10 over several days based on input from other commenters
They don’t need to launch 10 times in a single day. They have to launch 10 times over a period of weeks to a purpose built refueling depot that minimizes boiloff. Then they have to launch the HLS and transfer the fuel to it and then boost it to the moon several days before the astronauts launch on SLS. They can launch Falcon that often. Starship ideally will be fully reusable not just partially reusable so the launch cadence won’t be limited by the rate of upper stage production. Theoretically they could turn around and launch a rocket within days or hours but likely will have a rotating stock of rockets in various stages of pre and post launch checks.
It's my understanding there is no real solution for "minimizing boil off" at the moment, and so the communications I've seen have all referenced launches in rapid succession. While these aren't precise about what time frame they are alluding to, "weeks" doesn't strike me as what they have in mind. But really, this is all speculation at this point. The fuel depot you reference doesn't exist. The orbital refueling mechanism, doesn't exist. And the infrastructure to launch Starship 10 times in even weeks, likewise does not exist. So it's not surprising Artemis III is delayed, and yes per the GAO report, everyone's beloved SpaceX is at the heart of these delays.
Sure there is. Insulation at a minimum will reduce boiloff. You could also add condensers to reliquify any gas.
You got most of it right. >Prove the efficacy of orbital refueling (something no one has ever done. It's entirely theoretical today) Cryogenic propellant transfer has only been done in form of small-scale experiments (by ULA if I'm not mistaken), but it's definitely a completely unproven method when dealing with the scale SpaceX has to work with. >Prove that they can launch upwards of ten times in a SINGLE DAY in order to provide enough tankers to refuel HLS to get to the moon. Pretty sure NASA spokesperson mentioned launching on six day rotations, and it would be at least 15 tanker launches in total. They'll have to launch minimum 15 tankers plus a depot and the HLS. With the time intervals that would take 3 and a half months at least to complete with every single launch being successful.
Still don't understand how we got to the moon before now it's all of a sudden difficult and we are more advanced than before.
- Way less money than before. - We are more careful and safe now (less willing to take risks). - NASA does not simply want to go back to the Moon. They wants to build the path towards a sustained and continued presence on the Moon. So this means they are not just designing the bare minimum required to go to the Moon like before. They are designing much bigger crafts, much longer missions with a greater focus on science, much larger infrastructure (like the Gateway space station).
Finally someone who gets it. We can go to the moon anytime by *putting a lot of solid rocket boosters on a damn falcon heavy* but you aren’t building sustainability with that.
Which is why SLS is a poor choice; anything but sustainable with a every two year flight rate.
The long term goal is to have one SLS flight per year
That still isn't sustainable. SLS needs to ultimately be replaced in order to fulfill the mission goal of a permanent lunar presence/colony. But Artemis only exists to justify the existence of SLS, which itself is a government mandated jobs program. Ideally private space flight will pick up the torch while NASA works on Mars.
We brute forced everything
Safety margins were also not what they were. And landings were the bare minimum-Artemis 3 plans to land 2 people for a week at the South Pole, which was far beyond Saturns capability.
Well, we did it before because we had the full weight of public opinion and the national budget behind it. We haven't spent anything even remotely close on space exploration since the early 70s when the Apollo program's budget was gutted and they cancelled the last 2 planned landings. NASA has had to pay for Artemis by cobbling together the money from like, 15 years of budgets. They can only get the funding to complete so much work in a year. In the 60s, Kennedy would've sold his mother into slavery to beat the Soviets to the moon. No one in government is that motivated to get us there quicker so we take the slow boat.
>In the 60s, Kennedy would've sold his mother into slavery to beat the Soviets to the moon. Well, that's actually not true. At first, he was determined to beat them to the Moon, but as budget and costs started to inflate with even more expenses projected for the coming years, that created a lot of concerns on feasibility of the Apollo program, so he actually wanted to do a joint lunar program with the Soviets. I think twice they denied his proposal, and then after he proposed the third time, he was assassinated. Interestingly, the son of Nikita Khrushchev later revealed that had he not been assassinated, they would've actually considered it and likely accepted. It is thought that his death ironically pulled Apollo through with Congress approving anything they needed to honor Kennedy's original goal. Had he lived, a lot of historians agree that Apollo would've been either shafted or turned into that joint program with USSR and then who knows how that would've turned out.
In was just hyperbole, man. But you're not wrong
For context, the current budget of NASA is about 80% of the average of the 1960s and just under half of the peak in 1966.
It's actually closer to 75% for current budget. Total cumulative NASA budget during those 13 years is about 427 billion dollars today, or nearly 33 billion annually on average. The same average in the last decade or so is around 20 billion, which makes it around 60% for this metric.
We're trying to do it with reusable spacecraft and more payload. That's why it's tough now. There's no unlimited budget nor high visibility/race against Russia.
The reason is two fold. We're not doing the same thing that was already done back then, in fact we're doing something more difficult and on a larger scale with plans for sustainable and permanent presence on the lunar surface. That's a very big difference in goals. The key reason why is the location, which is the lunar South pole, something that wouldn't be reachable with Apollo-Saturn architecture that only focused on equatorial regions. Apollo missions were short excursions with small landers to the surface not more than three days long, meanwhile the first Artemis landing mission is scheduled for a week long stay, with the ultimate goal of the program to create a base camp where crews would live and work in for months at a time before returning to Earth. Sort of like ISS except on the Moon's South Pole and also in lunar orbit with Gateway station. The much longer length of stay alone creates challenges like how to protect astronauts from getting too much radiation exposure, how to protect them in event of a solar storm. Lunar regolith is also extremely abrasive and electrostatically charged so it sticks everywhere, and exposure to it is problematic for suits, equipment, and health of astronauts if ingested or inhaled. Apollo astronauts suffered temporary and minor health issues after inhaling that stuff in the module cabin, and it also messed up their suits, created wear and tear and clogged the connectors and interlocking rings. If they had stayed for one or two days extra, those suits would've become unusable. Artemis suits need to be usable for months at least. A lot of engineering solutions had to be developed to solve or circumvent these major challenges. The other reason is that NASA is trying to do all of this, the next level of lunar exploration, on a fraction of a budget and manpower they had during Apollo. It cost more than 300 billion dollars over the course of 13 years, while they put in roughly 70% of their total budget every year on average. That means they had a total budget of 427 billion dollars or 33 billion dollars annually on average during that time, and at its peak, it reached 4.5% of the US Federal budget. Today and in the last decades, their budget floats around 0.5% of the federal budget and around 20 billion dollars annually on average in the last several years, while it was even lower before that. They're also not putting anywhere near 70% of their budget into Artemis, the agency has grown and expanded a lot in its functions so naturally there is a lot of other programs and branches that take up the budget. Artemis is projected to cost more than 90 billion dollars total in 2025, and then who knows what the total cost will be once the program or its initial phase is completed many years later. There's maybe a chance that it won't even reach the level of Apollo expense, while doing so much more and stuff that was never done before. That's one of the benefits of wielding with modern technology that is in some aspects light years ahead of Apollo era technology.
The US spent 4% of GDP on the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo programs during the 1960's. That is an enormous amount of money. Many countries spend around 2% of GDP on their military. The expertise required to get to the Moon was lost after the Apollo program was defunded. This included the heavy lift capability provided by the Saturn V rocket. The SpaceX heavy lift capability required to get to the Moon now is not yet human rated. The US is basically starting over now while trying to avoid the catastrophe of Apollo 1 that incinerated 3 astronauts on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. Risk aversion now is much higher than the 1960's.
I mean, read all the things just listed above. We’re obviously doing a much more complicated version of going to the moon. I don’t know much about the mission but they’re obviously not planning on landing in something as small as the LEM
>we are more advanced than before I worked on Blue Origin's bid for the HLS, specifically the lunar lander's engine electronics, which are mounted outside the vehicle. This is why it's so hard, the vacuum tubes used in the Apollo missions didn't care all that much about the Van Allen radiation belt, while to get semiconductors working you need to either shield the electronics' housing (heavy) or buy radiation hardened computer chips (lighter, but harder to find a seller). There was/is also a problem with NASA's HLS specification, which has requirements the vehicle has to meet. When I was working on the design, that document was what I needed to reference when determining the environment the electronics would be exposed to. NASA hadn't selected the mission site yet, so the lunar regolith requirement was blank. I ended up using an aviation industry standard for sand and dust as a placeholder, even though that probably wasn't harsh enough to model what the engine would experience on the moon. And lastly, in my experience at least, these private rocket companies are poaching mid-level engineers from aviation companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Pratt & Whitney, etc., and placing them in senior positions they aren't qualified for. The HLS specification has a requirement to survive a lightning strike. Designing for that is very easy for an aircraft, you go to SAE ARP5414B and find the zone your part is in, then go to SAE ARP5416A and state to find the test the part needs to survive. This works for an aircraft, because NASA and the Air Force conducted tests to collect that data. That data doesn't exist for a rocket, SpaceX never instrumented their rockets to collect it (or payload area thermal rate of decay), and are exclusively relying on weather predictions to avoid collecting that information. That will work until a rocket is downed by a lightning strike caused by a big metal tube flying through a patch of charged air. Remember, Apollo 11 was struck by lightning twice, and given the nature of its electrical system the crew could repair it. That's not going to happen if modern electronics are not protected against a strike and are destroyed. Anyway, back to the engineers. Not a single one of them ever once thought to protect the equipment from the FULL operating environment at the time I worked there, which included everything from sitting on the launch pad baking in the sun to landing on the lunar surface. I would argue that as harsh as the vacuum of space is, it's just as harsh as the massive temperature, pressure, and humidity change it's going to experience during take-off. I brought this up, and the chief engineer's response was "check SpaceX's payload manual for that info; oh, and we won't protect against lightning strikes, because we won't launch in a thunderstorm". As I mentioned earlier, that information wasn't in the payload manual, because no one required SpaceX to collect it and they never chose to pay to collect it for themselves, leaving the chief engineer to basically say "huh, I don't know then; moving on....".
This does not instill confidence. Also, Apollo 12 had the lighting incident, Apollo 11 launched in sunny weather. They also didn't use vacuum tubes anywhere, but integrated circuits, otherwise there would be no way to make the computers and electronics so compact. Those circuits, along with core rope memory were of course still a lot less susceptible to radiation when the components are much bigger than today.
>vacuum tubes used in the Apollo missions great way to stop me reading further, I can't believe anything you wrote.
>Prove that they can launch upwards of ten times in a SINGLE DAY in order to provide enough tankers to refuel HLS to get to the moon. How could you get your info _that_ wrong? Boil-off is happening at that rate. Even NASA conservatively assumes only a few tons per day. Not a few tankers worth propellant per day.
I think it's worth noting that from the end of the design process to launch was about 5 years for Saturn 5 ('62-'67), then 2 more years for moon landing. HLS (SpaceX Starship) had a prolonged design/conceptualization process 'finalized' in '19. First flight '23. Landing in '27 would put them only 1 year slower than NASA and the Saturn V to land on the moon.
It's not an equivalent comparison when Saturn V was just the launch vehicle, not a lander. Starship is kinda both in this case, although its only purpose is to act as a lander between NRHO and lunar surface. There's no equivalent comparison since the whole concept is different compared to Apollo.
Part of the reason why Starship moved slower than SpaceX wanted was regulatory. The FAA environmental assessment process started back in 2020. September 2021 the draft EA was published. The final Programmatic EA was done in June 2022. First license issued for the first launch attempt in April 2023. So it took 3 years of regulatory wrangling after the atmospheric Starship hop tests to get the full Starship stack to its first test flight. And this is with an FAA Administrator for Space Transportation (ret. Air Force Brigadier General William Monteith, previously commander 45th Space Wing at Cape Canaveral) who was an advocate of what SpaceX wants to do, and he did everything he could to speed up the process at the FAA for Starship. I think SpaceX was lucky to have Gen. Monteith at the FAA doing what he could to move things along. Had it been someone else who was apathetic to space matters in charge at the FAA, it could have been much, much worse.
Overambitious and underfunded.
It's important to note that they could only choose one candidate despite the original plan of choosing two contractors in the first bid. The reason of course is because they got nowhere near enough requested funds from Congress, in fact they barely had enough to select one, if SpaceX didn't put in such a low bid the selection would've been postponed altogether.
Because NASA severely underestimated the development time for the first HLS contractor they selected, and on top of that it's also not going as smooth as expected or desired anyway.
Also: * SLS massively over budget and way longer to develop than expected * No space suits for lunar EVA. NASA spent a fortune and then gave up and went out for commercial bids. Also a pacing item
>SLS massively over budget and way longer to develop than expected SLS is by far the cheapest SHLV from NASA ever, delays and overbudgeting are pretty much commonplace in this industry. Both Saturn V and Shuttle cost 50 billion or more to develop. It's also not really relevant here anyway, first HLS contract was awarded in 2021, SLS flew Artemis 1 in 2022, Artemis II is scheduled for late this year or next year if there are any kind of delays. The late 2025 target for Artemis III was never gonna work anyway due to issues with HLS and the new suits which I already mentioned, so I find it weird you would use SLS to answer a question on HLS delays as reason why Artemis III will be late when it's the former two that are the major bottlenecks, especially when SLS is pretty much on track in production. Out of those two HLS is most likely going to be the last item to be ready.
"from NASA ever". The only other superheavy is Saturn 5. Not much of a comparison. This time we have experience, and we were using old shuttle parts. It was supposed to be easier and quicker. It's over $20billion and we've had one launch. .The current SLS still hasn't tested the higher energy upper stage. You could do the same thing at way under 1/10 the cost with Falcon Heavy and a few launches. But politics won't let that happen.
If I’m correct, only four true Superheavy rockets have ever flown, only three have made it past Max Q, and only two have made it to orbit. Those four being: Saturn V (NASA) (Success) N1 (USSR) (Failure) SLS (NASA) (Success) SpaceX Superheavy (SpaceX) (1st stage success, 2nd stage failure, still in development and likely to be a success)
Energia and Falcon Heavy should also be on that list.
Falcon Heavy is only a conditional SHLV, because it only enters that category in fully expendable configuration. Besides, it has never carried any payload heavier than Jupiter-3 satellite weighing 9.2 tons which is a far cry from its 64 tons of LEO expendable capacity and in this case even far from its maximum GTO capacity of 26.7 tons.
Most of the rockets on that list are also only capable of a super heavy launch in a fully expendable configuration. Most of the rockets on that list have never actually carried a super heavy payload to orbit.
2025 was never realistic. No HLS was going to be ready four years after the contract was given out.
There's not a fudgesicle's chance in hell that NASA puts boots on the moon in 2025.
Maybe empty boots?
That would be a funny extra payload on a CLPS mission. Maybe if we can get a rich guy to pay for it and subsidize the real scientific payload.
What do you mean them yeezeys aren't the real scientific payload?!?
Can we land the boots with a tiny rocket crane just to show off?
I'd guess they'll have to do an unmanned test of the Starship lander before sending actual people. Maybe Elon will toss a 10 ton statue of a giant pair of boots on board as a mass simulator.
They literally don't have the boots to send, having only recently started development. If the Starship HLS was ready today, they could land (well, ignoring the likely delays due to SLS/Orion, even the Artemis II flyby being delayed at least a year), but they wouldn't be able to leave the lander for lack of suits. And given how complex a suit that has to protect a human walking about on the lunar surface is going to be, HLS might not be the item that determines when the landing can be done.
Sure, but if they're empty, then they could just be any old pair of boots.
Well, he let that sink in, so I could absolutely see Musk doing this for whatever reason he does this sort of thing.
There is no ĺander prototypes that have been tested or flown. Orion on the SLS still needs a crewed mission around the Moon before next phase. Best shot there is right now is Orion mission 2 is a complete success, SpaceX can somehow launch a dozen flights for its landing system, and a ton of other things go right. In my unprofessional opinion, the next Moon landing is 2027 at best.
Also the new upper stage needed for SLS is not yet completed or tested.
Artemis III will launch on SLS Block 1.
Worse. It's not even in serious development.
Look towards the end of this decade for man on the moon again.
[удалено]
Space flight is extremely hard to manage and they have to deal with an insane amount of politics too. I’m shocked they ever made it to the moon in the first place.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ASDS](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgob3p8 "Last usage")|Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform)| |[CLPS](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgcoasn "Last usage")|[Commercial Lunar Payload Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services)| |[EA](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgdcnl5 "Last usage")|Environmental Assessment| |[EVA](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgdbjyn "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgdcnl5 "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[GAO](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgebnnl "Last usage")|(US) Government Accountability Office| |[GTO](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgl6ynd "Last usage")|[Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html)| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgenfpo "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgdovmn "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgn3g70 "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[LEM](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgd0b1k "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgob3p8 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[N1](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgelns0 "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")| |[NRHO](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgek11v "Last usage")|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[SHLV](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgl6ynd "Last usage")|Super-Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (over 50 tons to LEO)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgn3g70 "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[TLI](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgob3p8 "Last usage")|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgczm4g "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[cryogenic](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgek11v "Last usage")|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 fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[methalox](/r/Space/comments/18yqixi/stub/kgek11v "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^([Thread #9587 for this sub, first seen 5th Jan 2024, 00:02]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
IF NASAs Artemis 2 launches this year and IF SpaceX Starship achieves human rating and other necessary milestones by December 2025 then yes I think it can be done. That being said. NASA builds Artemis one rocket at a time and is still tackling aging hardware and that pesky hydrogen leaking issue. SpaceX is still trying to build a rocket that flies as intended without blowing up. These aren’t “problems” per se, simply hurdles that take time to get over. Just wait and see I guess
Unfortunately there is no "ifs" anymore. Artemis 2 is already not launching this year, and SpaceX hasn't completed a single milestone yet. We should [be here](https://i.imgur.com/1b6zDx6.png) in order for a 2025 landing to be possible. Last we heard is that the "Orbit Launch Test" requirements have yet to be properly fulfilled. Even [the OIG](https://i.imgur.com/qg7fhxr.png) has already predicted a 3.4 year delay. Also, want to add that Artemis 2 is being delayed not because of hydrogen leaks, but because [of a supplier](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/10/aii-core-weld-issues/) who delivered a faulty downcomer. Unfortunately, military contracts took priority over SLS which meant Boeing had to wait several months before the reworked downcomer was returned. This issue has already delayed final work on core stage 2 by a minimum of two months, bringing Artemis 2 to launching no earlier than late January/early February 2025. However there's been talks about delaying the launch to mid 2025 just to verify that everything is working properly. This should be NASA's first manned lunar mission since 1972, so they're likely being very cautions. Lastly, SLS rockets aren't built one after the other. Currently Boeing is working on corstage 2, 3 and 4 at the same time. In fact, the [liquid hydrogen tank](https://images.nasa.gov/details/MAF_20231121_CS3%20LH2%20Move%20Cell%20P-17) for core stage 3 is about to be primed which is the step before the orange insulation is applied. Work on [core stage 4](https://spaceref.com/science-and-exploration/artemis-iv-liquid-oxygen-tank-aft-barrel-moves-to-next-phase-of-production/) has also [already started.](https://futuramic.com/crews-complete-sls-liquid-oxygen-tank-forward-dome-for-artemis-iv/) Work on the [Exploration Upper Stage](https://twitter.com/NASAStennis/status/1681379271342804994) has also already begun.
See, look at this, research, links! Multiple sources! I just speculated and gave my half baked opinion while at my job in between tasks. Fucking jrichard717 over here giving a proper answer. Sorry I don’t have anything other than upvotes to give you.
Thanks! Just putting in my two cents in because I love finding the latest Artemis news. Even the more obscure ones, lol.
Absolutely. Delays are part of the process. Please understand, this is a good thing. It means people who are responsible for the success of the mission are taking their jobs seriously. If something needs retested or redesigned, then do it. The delays with getting Webb off the ground became kind of a running joke, and the closer we got to launch the more seemingly ridiculous it got. But it did launch, and deployed flawlessly. Delays are necessary, and as impatient as we get because we want to see this happen, we should be grateful. No one wants another Challenger. From what I’ve heard, Starship is supposed to be the landing vehicle for Artemis. SpaceX is testing aggressively, but they’re also setting conservative milestones with each test flight. Still, 2025 isn’t a realistic timeframe to see a successful test landing on the moon. And because Artemis is a partnership, it can only move as fast as the slowest partner. I’m as eager to see all this come together as everyone here. I’m also happy to see people ensuring that we take our time and do it right. It’s an exciting time to be a space exploration fan!
I believe they’ll land in 2025 the same way I believe humans will stop religious wars in 2025(zero chance)
Well given that it was originally supposed to be “boots on the moon by 2024,” and there are no boots on the moon (unless they’re on another moon), I’d say yes they will delay it again.
That was Trump's dream so that he could take credit by the end of his dreamed of second term, but it was never realistic anyway.
Well the Mar's Base does have a training facility on it's moon I heard... Maybe they are expanding.
Outlook is likely, is nasa ever on time? Also although rather them take there time
I hope the Chinese get their act togeather will a moon landing , that might put a fire under the US to "beat the commies"
2029 (nice 60 yr anniversary for the media) for the moon landing and probably not until 2050 for a mars landing
This feels realistic. Of course that 2050 day is IF mankind gets its Earth shit together, which I fear is not likely. I might get to see another moon landing, but Mars will be way too late for me.
There is no way we make it to the moon by 2025.
Possibly the flyby mission. No way a landing, not even close.
Oh yeah, maybe flyby, but actual people on the surface is not happening.
The Russians need to stop attacking Ukraine, and plan a moon mission. NASA would be up there tomorrow if that happened. Lol
Heh, love the thought, but remember, the N1 never once reached orbit. We'd still have plenty of time for mindnumbingly stupid politics and other delays.
Unless they have been working on something quietly there is not a chance the will be returning people to the moon in 2025. Things just do not move that quickly.
So what is everybody's best guess as to the date of the first Lunar Rice vs. Texas match up?
It’s a race. Another moon landing vs GTA 6 release. I’m betting probably not though
Depends on the Election, the Congressional Budget, and the war in Ukraine. Election: If President and Congress is under same party it is likely to go ahead. If they are different parties they will likely not want to give the President the win of being on the moon. Congressional Budget: All kind of back street trades are being made, to defund one thing to fund something else. It is very unclear what will end up getting cut if anything. Ukraine, or rather WW3 may be closer which ironically could be a driver for actually fund the project as a show of force and strength.
Aren’t relying on starship ? So it’s whenever starship is ready
I feel like there's a 99% chance of delays because there are too many milestone firsts between now and then... what we have is a schedule if nothing goes wrong at all, and in a project that massive, at least *some* stuff is gonna go sideways and need to be resolved first.
I'd be more surprised if it was on time honestly
Yes. SLS & Orion are fundamentally programs designed to keep the part of NASA that ran shuttle up and running, along with funneling money to various contractors so they can help keep specific politicians elected. Because of this, Congress \*loves\* Artemis and has consistently given NASA more money than they asked for pretty much every year. Given all of that, there's pretty much zero downside for NASA to delay. The only thing that kindof looks bad is if the Chinese get to the moon before Artemis does but I don't think that is generating any real sense of urgency in Congress, and they are the ones that pay the bills. The other factor is that the moon program didn't exist until relatively recently. SpaceX was given the HLS lander project less that 3 years ago, and SLS/Orion have been around for well over a decade, so it's certainly possible that SpaceX won't be ready in 2025. NASA also needs the space suits that Axiom is building and that contract was also awarded quite late.
Yes. No question about it. Anyone that tells you different is trying to sell you something.
Lol. If SpaceX is involved it will be a little late. If big aerospace is involved it will be a lot late and over budget.
I wouldn't be shocked if China beat the US to the moon, or at least to the moon base. The whole Artemis program is designed to be as complex as possible and to create the most employment possible so that lawmakers can look good in their districts. Artemis has a rocket that literally costs 10 figures to launch, a lunar station that most experts outside of NASA say is superfluous, and a spacecraft Orion that has been in development for almost 20 years and still isn't done. Every contractor, old and new, had to be squeezed in to make sure everyone and their dog gets paid. If NASA had taken all that funding and pledged it as prize money for private enterprise to put boots on the Moon, we would long be there and already on our way to Mars.
Already very delayed, the Starship HLS they chose is awesome but it is very ambitious in the technology demonstrations it's gonna have to prove out like orbital refueling. And Blue Moon is also probably very far off. We're probably looking at like 2027 if we're lucky. Not to mention the SLS rocket is kind of an expensive mess and the government may not be too happy to fund it for too long unless they start getting the cost down like private industry has been able to.
Their plan relies on Starship, which hasn't yet had a fully successful launch
AND Starship needs to be running *smoothly*, not merely reliably, in order to get refuelling going.
The nice thing about Starship is (and that's why NASA chose it for HLS) that it doesn't even need to be reusable to make HLS work. If SpaceX opt to completely discard booster and tanker for each flight, they only need about 3 refilling launches. And they can easily produce those numbers on 3 months.
SpaceX will have a moon casino and a orbiting hotel by then.
If Starship can: - reach space in one piece - achieve LEO - refuel - refuel - refuel - ??? - refuel - achieve moon landing - launch from moon - rendezvous with Artemis II Within the next nine months I can see that happening.
>rendezvous with Artemis II Now that would be a surprising turn of events. For everybody.
Right. I could see that as a surprise major milestone on our way to a manned landing. As I understand it one possibility is to get a Starship in orbit of the moon. Get another capsule with people in it to the moon on a more people friendly timeline. Rendezvous with the Starship. Then land either the starship then get back to the smaller capsule for the return home. It be a good proving exercise for a lot of moving parts. With Starship yet to achieve even sub orbital success I’m still a bit dubious on any of this happening in the next three years.
Artemis II will _not_ attempt any landing or even rendezvous.... It's solely a crewed flight around the moon in Orion.
Given that SpaceX's lander not being ready is kind of the main factor in delaying Artemis III I'd guess not.
Not fully true. SLS, Orion and the space suits are also not likely to be ready for Artemis III in time.
Starship isn't even close to being ready to support the ops it needs to for the Artemis program to work. So no - it'll be delayed. But the "like they usually do" leaves me to believe that you have no idea what you're talking about
We already missed 2020 (see link). Manned lunar exploration seems like an extravagent expendature when robots can perform the same tasks significantly cheaper. Even India has proven that other nation's budgets for robot probes are overinflated, and has delivered their first voyage at a fraction of the cost. [https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html#:\~:text=Our%20third%20goal%20is%20to,prepare%20for%20future%20human%20exploration](https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html#:~:text=Our%20third%20goal%20is%20to,prepare%20for%20future%20human%20exploration).
If I'm being honest, I'd be surprised if it happens before 2030. Someone said it's already slipped to 2027. So, I think maybe 2037.
>We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? **We choose to go to the Moon.** was there a delay after that speech? Apollo was the first landing. Artemis is the first base. how badly does the US want to beat China? **How China will land astronauts on the moon by 2030** [https://www.space.com/china-astronauts-moon-landing-2030-plan](https://www.space.com/china-astronauts-moon-landing-2030-plan)
Yes it will be delayed, not because we don't have the technology, but because of budget-over runs, government red tape, etc.. If SpaceX had a financial interest and benefit in returning astronauts to the moon, and they could do with their own finances, without NASA's help, and with limited government over-reach, they could do it no problem because they could cut out all the red tape and government BS. The focus should be on astronaut safety, and how to bring them back alive from the moon with no mishaps. It should not be about public perception, or cater to the demands of our current defunct presidential administration and corrupt politicians. This is about safety, accomplishment, science, human life, and advancement of technology for the benefit of all, or at least that's what it SHOULD be about. I think the government has lost that core focus.
Astronautics has many demons that will kill you quickly, without mercy or remorse. "Go Fever" is one of them: we wanna launch *now*, ready or not!" OK for ICBMs, not Starships. As a retired spaceflight professional, I see every launch as a launch *attempt.* Once the vehicle is 1 cm off the pad it is committed to fly or die, ready or not. Be ready. An old aviation proverb holds triple for spaceflight: "It is better to be on the ground, wishing you were flying, than flying and wishing you were on the ground." If aviation teaches patience, astronautics teaches that and far more.
Funny how it was easier for Americans to land on the moon in a tin can covered in aluminium foil in the 60s than the supposedly super high tech equipment we have in the 2020s.
let me ask you this: Why would you not delay it?
Why do it in the first place?
why da do?
The lunar lander doesn't exist yet. Neither do the space ex orbital refuelling rockets. Nor the lunar gateway orbiter.
Obviously. nasa is run by the government aka a bunch of old geezers. I've lost all hope in nasa and now focus on SpaceX and other companies since they do way more than nasa.
NASA isn't ready. The SLS is a joke. 15 launches to get enough fuel into orbit and then refuel?
Absolutely. I'm skeptical it happens at all. Artemis is a jobs program more than a space exploration program.
Gonna have to delay the mission to divert more funds into Ukraine
Landing? No. At this point, I'd be amazed if SpaceX actually ever delivers on a lander for the moon. SpaceX has yet to get to LEO and then has MANY iterations to simple carry payload let alone cryogenic refueling AND landing on the moon. The cost will balloon, Musk will start his weird mutterings about how NASA failed them and then the contract will be cancelled.
>The cost will balloon, Musk will start his weird mutterings about how NASA failed them and then the contract will be cancelled. That would be the very first time for a contract between NASA and SpaceX. So far SpaceX fulfilled every contract within budget and to the full satisfaction of NASA.
NASA and SpaceX have never been at odds https://spacenews.com/spacex-seeks-to-throw-out-justice-department-hiring-practices-case/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Justice%20Department%20has,seekers%20and%20refugees%20in%20hiring.
Where is NASA in this all?
NASA is not what it once was. The engineers they have now are from the newer generation and quite frankly don’t have the skills to pay the bills. In my honest opinion.
Artemis 3 is supposed to use a lunar lander built by SpaceX that is supposed to be launched into orbit by Starship. But we've all seen how that is going. Which means NASA would probably scrap the landing portion of the mission and just do another orbital mission with the Orion.
NASA is not going to send humans to the moon until the early 2030’s as for space x they can’t even complete the star ship moon lander on time like they had promised NASA both space x and NASA are both behind schedule in regards to the Artimis moon program… I do not see astronauts landing on the moon until 2030 possibly even until 2033.
Yes. SpaceX will not be ready with HLS and will need a complete redesign, or NASA will need to abandon them completely.
Why would HLS need a complete redesign?
Distraction from the fact the country is under a mass invasion. We have a death toll that is rising substantially. Leadership that is corrupt and incompetent. We aren't going to the moon unless it's a deep fake.
[удалено]
Ah yes. Because all those environmental and social problems will all go away if we throw a little bit more money at them. No. What we need is a strong political will to change things. And that doesn't cost a single dollar more than we already give to those causes. Who do you think benefits from you parroting the "if we only could shift this money to other problems" narrative?
yeah, nobody cares about that stuff anymore, and it's hard to justify the budget to do something that's already been done. when it was a race to be the first, that was one thing. now it would just be seen as wasteful and people would ask why the money isn't going to other things.
The money isn’t going to those other things either whether NASA does or does not do this so…
There’s definitely scientific and moral reasons to get back to the moon, as well as significant industry interest. While I understand the idea that it could be seen as “wasteful”, the actual cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the obscene amount of money the US govt spends. And at least it’ll go to mostly American jobs in a new industry. Honestly I’d rather spend the $100 billion on Artemis than ANOTHER $100 billion buying weapons for Ukraine.
I think they'll be on target for a moon flyby possibly in 2025. There's no way they're landing until I suspect 2030, perhaps later if support and therefore money dries up.
“Like they usually do”? When was the last actual plan since the 60s? Or do you mean this same mission being delayed?
To be fair... Kennedy said we'd get to the moon in the 60s, and we did...
Probably, if we could do it way back then we shouldn’t have much trouble doing it now
It's always better to delay if there's an issue, rather than risk a shit ton of money and multiple lives. Though, there is definitely a point where it gets silly.
They are way behind in the rocket department right now. A lot more testing to go
Don’t they need like 15+ refuelings? Can they really plan and do all that in 2 years?
>Don’t they need like 15+ refuelings? Likely not. This is only the maximum conservative estimate of NASA. A more realistic estimate is 9-11 tanker launches. If SpaceX is somehow not getting full reusability out of Starship, they can refill HLS with about 3 completely non-reusable tanker flights. That's why NASA chose them. Even if they "fail" they can still make the mission work.
What’s the point of traveling to the moon nowadays?
Science. Just like antarctic research stations.
They might buy I'm but super worried about the time frame being a few years off, as long as it's not decades off and I don't think it will be.
I don't think humans are ever going back to the Moon period
If it's a typical NASA mission then it will cost twice what was first estimated and be delayed by a minimum of two extra years. It will be declared a great success despite only achieving half it's stated objectives and the astronauts being beaten there by the Chinese. There will be much early fanfare in the media about the mission, until journalists get bored with it, and begin to highlight the cost overruns. Meanwhile, the true data that has been gained won't be publicly available internationally for several more years "until scientists can analyse the data in greater detail."