Pretty badass timing with all the trash Russia and China are starting now. We still own the moon. Just call it the 51st state of America and be done with it!

The shot of the upward pointing "sparkers ", the RS-25s igniting with the water splashing all around and the SRBs lighting up was just spectacular.

NSFW

From over 50 miles away...

It was a pretty launch, wondering how the MLS is doing. I have no doubt icps will work well at this point!

TLI complete, on its way to the Moon!

Ok, enough SLS drama; we won't see another launch attempt for what, 18 months on that?

Meanwhile, Starship lunar lander/program news;

Quote:

---

Around eight months after announcing its intention to do so, NASA has awarded SpaceX a contract for a second crewed Starship Moon landing as early as 2027.

Known as Option B, NASA has exercised a baked-in right to modify its Human Landing System (HLS) Option A contract with SpaceX signed in April 2021 to extract even more value from investments into the program. In addition to an uncrewed Starship Moon landing planned no earlier than (NET) 2024 and a crewed demonstration that could land two NASA astronauts on the Moon as early as 2025, NASA's contract modification gives SpaceX the approval and resources it needs to prepare for a second crewed Starship Moon landing.

On top of securing NASA's Artemis IV mission astronauts a ride to the lunar surface, the Option B contract will also allow SpaceX and NASA to pursue and demonstrate upgrades that will make Starship an even more capable and cost-effective Moon lander.

Update: NASA says that the Option B modification will cost $1.15 billion, raising the maximum value of SpaceX's HLS contract to approximately $4.2 billion.

---

Quote:

---

Additionally, NASA will work with SpaceX to debut new capabilities and improvements on Starship's second crewed Moon landing. While the Artemis III landing will be about as barebones as possible, the Artemis IV Starship will be upgraded with the ability to transport more NASA astronauts (four instead of just two) and more cargo to the lunar surface. It's not entirely clear, but NASA reportedly wants to land just ~180 kilograms (~400 lb) of cargo with the first crewed Starship, a vehicle likely capable of landing dozens of tons of cargo in addition to several astronauts. NASA hopes that future "sustainable" lander missions, a category that Starship's Option B landing may or may not fall under, will transport up to one ton (~2200 lb) of cargo to and from the lunar surface.

Finally, the Artemis IV Starship will also be able to dock with NASA's Lunar Gateway. Gateway is a small deep space station that will be located in a strange, high lunar orbit. It exists almost exclusively to give NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion crew capsule a destination they can both reach.

The Orion capsule is almost twice as heavy as its Apollo counterpart and its European Service Module (ESM) offers less than half the performance of NASA's retired Apollo Service Module. Combined, Orion is physically incapable of transporting itself (or astronauts) to the simpler low lunar orbits used by the Apollo Program.

Instead, NASA's new Moon lander(s) have to pick up Orion's slack. Starship will be responsible for picking up astronauts in a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), transporting them to low lunar orbit, and returning them to NRHO in addition to landing on the Moon, spending a week on the surface, and launching back into lunar orbit.

Until it's modestly upgraded in the late 2020s or 2030s, Gateway will be equally underwhelming. In fact, that's part of the reason that Starship docking with the Gateway is in any way significant. SpaceX and NASA have decades of expertise docking and berthing spacecraft with space stations. But those spacecraft are typically smaller and lighter than the stations they were joining. Even after the Gateway is fully outfitted with a range of international modules, Starship will likely weigh several times more than the tiny station, making docking even more challenging than it already is.

Starship's Moon lander variant could also have a cabin with hundreds of cubic meters of habitable space, while the Gateway is unlikely to ever have more than a few dozen. Having a Starship docked would thus immediately make the ultra-cramped station far more livable.

NASA says Artemis IV and the second crew Starship Moon landing will occur as early as 2027. But a 'space prophet' who predicted in 2017 that NASA's SLS launch debut would slip from 2019 to "around 2023" and forecasted that SpaceX alone would win NASA's Moon lander contract recently told Ars Technica's Eric Bergerthat Artemis III, the mission before Artemis IV, is unlikely to launch before 2028. At the time, that source's predictions verged on blasphemy, but they've ultimately proven to be eerily accurate. Only time will tell if their third 'prophecy' follows the same path.

---

More at the link. So, while it is still kinda-sorta fun tracking the SLS Artemis I heading toward the moon, let's at least appreciate how…utterly asinine the whole Orion/SLS/Artemis missions are, and that the real show now is unlikely to even happen until around 2028.

From a commenter at the arstechnica link;

Quote:

---

This new contract award to SpaceX for the follow-on Artemis IV mission opens the door for SpaceX and NASA to significantly modify the plan for future lunar landing missions beyond Artemis IV.
Instead of running those missions through high lunar orbit (the Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit or NRHO) as in Artemis III and IV, Starships can be sent to the lunar surface via low lunar orbit (LLO), as NASA did in the Apollo/Saturn program.

This new mission plan would use Starships exclusively. Two Starships, an Interplanetary (IP) Starship carrying 10 to 20 passengers and 100t (metric tons) of cargo and an uncrewed tanker Starship, would travel together from low earth orbit (LEO) to LLO. The tanker would transfer 80t of methalox propellant to the IP Starship, which would land on the lunar surface, unload arriving passengers and cargo, onload returning passengers and cargo, and return to LLO. The tanker would transfer another 100t of methalox to the IP Starship and both Starships would return to LEO using propulsive braking.

This mission plan uses propellant refilling in LEO. A total of eleven Starship launches are required (ten uncrewed Starship tankers and the IP Starship). Since those eleven Starships are completely reusable, the only recurring operating cost is that required for propellant and for pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight support functions. Estimate operating cost currently is ~ $10M/launch. So, that plan that sends a pair of Starships to the Moon has a $110M operating cost.

---

Nice of them to drop this/sneak it in during the senate launch celebrations.

nortex97 said:

---

More at the link. So, while it is still kinda-sorta fun tracking the SLS Artemis I heading toward the moon, let's at least appreciate how…utterly asinine the whole Orion/SLS/Artemis missions are, and that the real show now is unlikely to even happen until around 2028.

---

You don't understand the purpose of the program. Orion/Artemis is not asinine. The purpose of Orion is to take crew BEYOND the moon. Today's launch was a test flight to demonstrate that it can launch, go to the moon, and return safely before it's launched with a crew. Artemis 2 will determine flight-readiness with a crew; Artemis 3 will land a crew on the moon; Artemis 4 will deliver the Lunar Gateway space station. It' a staged operation, which each launch demonstrating equipment and (eventually) crew readiness to proceed to the next mission.

The SpaceX moon landing system isn't supposed to take the place of Orion. It's meant to replace what NASA already did in Apollo so that Orion can continue on to do deep space missions.

If anyone thought NASA was going to allow SpaceX or any other private company to be the first to do what Artemis/Orion is supposed to do, then they were misguided.

Additionally, the way the program works now, is that while Lockheed designed and built the Orion capsule, they turned it over to NASA prior to launch. Like it or not, this is the NASA show, and it stands to reason that any vehicle built by SpaceX will be handled the same...meaning it will essentially "belong" to NASA at launch.

Moon launches and landings are not going to be "privatized" until they become (for lack of a better term) routine operations...similar to where we are with satellites and low earth orbit.

There's a ton of either incorrect information here( what you're saying about HLS is utterly wrong), and a great deal of information that's years out of date.

Sorry, dont mean to be rude, but might want to go read up on NASA's actual current plans for Artemis, how the gateway project is being proposed, how commercial vehicles work, how the HLS contract is written etc.

It IS asinine in cost, function, and timeliness. It's a make work program for the Alabama aerospace mafia, and is in no way capable of the beyond lunar missions you're implying.

Artemis haters gonna hate. Enjoy the lunar ride!

Yep.

So I am looking for an Artemis project timeline and not finding an estimate of milestones to come. Next flight will be manned? Then after that we are looking at boots on the lunar surface?

I am guessing it is years of work left to accomplish this but what type of time frame are we looking at?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the lunar gateway required to transfer the lunar landing crew from Orion to the HLS Starship to land the crew on the lunar surface?

If so, the timeline above doesn't make sense.

As an aside to my question, SpaceX can absolutely beat Artemis to the moon and will likely perform several lunar landings prior to Artemis putting boots on the ground. Most likely SpaceX will have a lot of equipment on the lunar surface before Artemis lands. This will likely be due to activities both inside and outside the scope of the Artemis Project. SpaceX will likely be conducting projects on lunar construction techniques for a lunar base.

The argument that NASA's costs are too high is a very valid concern. There are alot of decisions that are being driven by people with short term agendas and political motives.

SpaceX has proven that without those elements and a renewed focus on results and long term goals, things can get done fast.

Orion is not asinine. It's the only crew vehicle available at this time that can take astronauts to lunar orbit, and NASA is still touting it as a deep space vehicle for the long-term (even though the short-term plans are to establish a presence in the moon).

To be clear, I'm not trying to make any points about the SLS system, or anything other than Orion.

Your original post that I replied to made it sound like the SpaceX vehicle is a replacement for Orion, and that's simply not the case. Orion was never intended to land on the moon (just as the Apollo capsules never landed on the moon).

Regardless of what rockets are used to launch it (and I am aware that private companies are developing those as well), in order for the program to continue, Orion has to be tested/used in flight - that was first done on EFT-1 in earth orbit, this launch is for lunar orbit, and the next launch will be with a crew.

The short(ish) term plans for Orion are for it to orbit the moon and dock with the lunar gateway. Without it, the HLS and it's crew can't get to the moon.

I guess we could wait around for SpaceX and Boeing to develop an Orion equivalent, but that just puts everything further behind schedule because Orion is the only flight-tested vehicle available at this time.

And I stand by my point (which is clearly just an opinion) that there is no way NASA would have let a private company send a vehicle or crew back to the moon for the first time in 50+ years. No matter how "cost effective" or "faster" that might have been - it just was never going to happen. In the long term, I'm sure private companies will play a role, but NASA needed to re-establish that this is something they can do.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Additionally, NASA will work with SpaceX to debut new capabilities and improvements on Starship's second crewed Moon landing. While the Artemis III landing will be about as barebones as possible, the Artemis IV Starship will be upgraded with the ability to transport more NASA astronauts (four instead of just two) and more cargo to the lunar surface. It's not entirely clear, but NASA reportedly wants to land just ~180 kilograms (~400 lb) of cargo with the first crewed Starship, a vehicle likely capable of landing dozens of tons of cargo in addition to several astronauts. NASA hopes that future "sustainable" lander missions, a category that Starship's Option B landing may or may not fall under, will transport up to one ton (~2200 lb) of cargo to and from the lunar surface.

---

---

I wonder if that's so they didn't have to figure out how to refuel a Starship in LEO? Although I thought that would be required anyways to get it to the moon. But maybe not if they're not planning on bringing it back.

TXTransplant said:

---

Moon launches and landings are not going to be "privatized" until they become (for lack of a better term) routine operations...similar to where we are with satellites and low earth orbit.

---

If Apollo is any guidance, it takes exactly 2 missions to the moon for the public to consider moon landings to be routine.

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the lunar gateway required to transfer the lunar landing crew from Orion to the HLS Starship to land the crew on the lunar surface?

If so, the timeline above doesn't make sense.

As an aside to my question, SpaceX can absolutely beat Artemis to the moon and will likely perform several lunar landings prior to Artemis putting boots on the ground. Most likely SpaceX will have a lot of equipment on the lunar surface before Artemis lands. This will likely be due to activities both inside and outside the scope of the Artemis Project. SpaceX will likely be conducting projects on lunar construction techniques for a lunar base.

The argument that NASA's costs are too high is a very valid concern. There are alot of decisions that are being driven by people with short term agendas and political motives.

SpaceX has proven that without those elements and a renewed focus on results and long term goals, things can get done fast.

---

SpaceX has been awarded a contract to put astronauts on the moon in 2025 and 2027, "if all goes according to plan".

Starship is the lunar lander. It's scheduled to put astronauts at the lunar south pole in 2025 as part of Artemis 3.

None of this happens without Orion. It's not an issue of "beating" Artemis to the moon. It's all part of one program.

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

Edited to add this link…

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-spacex-second-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0

TXTransplant said:

---

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the lunar gateway required to transfer the lunar landing crew from Orion to the HLS Starship to land the crew on the lunar surface?

If so, the timeline above doesn't make sense.

As an aside to my question, SpaceX can absolutely beat Artemis to the moon and will likely perform several lunar landings prior to Artemis putting boots on the ground. Most likely SpaceX will have a lot of equipment on the lunar surface before Artemis lands. This will likely be due to activities both inside and outside the scope of the Artemis Project. SpaceX will likely be conducting projects on lunar construction techniques for a lunar base.

The argument that NASA's costs are too high is a very valid concern. There are alot of decisions that are being driven by people with short term agendas and political motives.

SpaceX has proven that without those elements and a renewed focus on results and long term goals, things can get done fast.

---

SpaceX has been awarded a contract to put astronauts on the moon in 2025 and 2027, "if all goes according to plan".

Starship is the lunar lander. It's scheduled to put astronauts at the lunar south pole in 2025 as part of Artemis 3.

None of this happens without Orion. It's not an issue of "beating" Artemis to the moon. It's all part of one program.

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Does NASA own the moon? or space flight?

NASA is bully

Right…I don't disagree on that point. Which just brings me back to my point that NASA wants to be the first to go "back" to the moon (and beyond). They were never going to let a private company do it instead.

We all know how bloated the SLS program was, but after seeing FJB's administration* blow $90 billion in a bad weekend in Afghanistan, this is hardly the worst project this country is doing as far as overspending goes.

I've waited 50 years to see moon missions again. I'm not going to let the govt's bureaucracy & mismanagement damp the fact that we finally have a manned rated vehicle heading for the moon.

I can't wait for Starship to join in on the lunar missions. There's a lot of good stuff to look forward to.

Not going to argue that point, either, but that's sort of where we are.

The launch pads currently in use are NASA's domain (or DOD's). And SpaceX needs those launch pads.

I think once SpaceX does exactly what NASA did today with Artemis, but completely using their own money, launch pads, rockets, and crew vehicles, then NASA will have some real competition.

But for now, SpaceX needs the existing launch facilities and NASA's money to do what they do.

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

So this rocket and spaceship have no humans on board and it's not going to land on the moon?

Color me disappointed. Haven't we circled around the moon a few times before now???

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Who do you think controls the airspace that SpaceX will have to fly through?

OnlyForNow said:

---

So this rocket and spaceship have no humans on board and it's not going to land on the moon?

Color me disappointed. Haven't we circled around the moon a few times before now???

---

You have to be trolling right?

OnlyForNow said:

---

So this rocket and spaceship have no humans on board and it's not going to land on the moon?

Color me disappointed. Haven't we circled around the moon a few times before now???

---

It's not called a test flight, but that's effectively what they are doing. From here on out, the Orion Lockheed team will be monitoring the mission. When the capsule splashes down and is recovered next month, they will do a whole other series of evaluations and tests to make sure the capsule performed as expected and is crew-worthy.

It's mostly trolling.


But I don't know ANYTHING about the overall Artemis project.

So if Ag_of_08 wants to provide a fact based short synopsis in all ears. Or anyone else for that matter.

TXTransplant said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Well, right now, SpaceX is using NASA money and launchpads. See my post above…when SpaceX is able to put people in lunar orbit without using any NASA resources, then it's a different kind of space race.

---

Nasa pays for Falcon 9 launches,. That doesn't keep SpaceX from launching Falcon 9s for whatever it wants does it? And SpaceX has its own launch tower.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I guess there is a point to be made that maybe if left to do this all on their own, SpaceX could do it faster and cheaper, but again, the idea that NASA would turn all of this over to a private company just seems like science fiction.

---

Unless this government gets more authoritarian (which I'm certainly not saying won't happen), SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to wait for NASA. The US did not claim the moon in 1969.

---

Who do you think controls the airspace that SpaceX will have to fly through?

---

Like I said, I'm not discounting this government becoming more authoritarian.

OnlyForNow said:

---

So this rocket and spaceship have no humans on board and it's not going to land on the moon?

Color me disappointed. Haven't we circled around the moon a few times before now???

---

Would you like to go to the moon on an untested system? I'll refer you way back to the Atlas rocket test. Watch some of the early test launches.

OnlyForNow said:

---

So this rocket and spaceship have no humans on board and it's not going to land on the moon?

Color me disappointed. Haven't we circled around the moon a few times before now???

---

I challenge you to never go anywhere you've already been. Even if you plan to achieve something beyond what you've achieved in places you've already been to.

God this Idiocracy is mind-numbing.

And BTW, no one has ever been to the Lunar South Pole.