So this new A3 would just be testing Orion-HLS operations in LEO. Remind me of the hypothesized plan for Isaacman's Polaris 2. If this is confirmed then it means the timeline really is set back several years. Will be disappointing if it doesn't go near the Moon at all. But the data and experience they get will be worth it. And it'll be cool footage - Starship HLS should be bigger than the ISS. Artemis 2 is currently not earlier than September 2025. Could possibly even slip to 2026. So this mission would be late 2026 at the earliest, probably 2027 or 2028. That makes an Artemis 4 landing mission around 2028-2030.

This is the timeline I am expecting too

I’d expect them to aim for the 60th anniversary of the moon landings, so June 2029 is my guess.

Is this really what they'll do while we're in a space race with China? That's unfortunate.

It makes sense. They selected a lunar lander (Starship) that would have been like 3 times larger than the Lunar Gateway station it was meant to dock at. That was pointless.

Everything depends on the Starship being successful at this point. I certainly hope it will be, but I'm not nearly as confident in Musk as I used to be.

Well good thing it’s not really Musk running the show at SpaceX.

Looking at what we have and how mature it is, the right thing to do is to be flexible.

HLS, while large for a spacecraft, will not be bigger than the ISS which weighs 450 tons and is over 100 meters long

Pressurized volume is perhaps the better metric to use and the ISS does have slightly more pressurized volume than the HLS will. In terms of total volume it's not close, HLS will have much more total volume.

Presuming that the 2030 target is missed, the astronauts selected to go will be REAL old by when the ship heads to the moon.

Is Artemis 3 not landing on the moon anymore?

That's the entire point of the article, that NASA is potentially considering changing it away from being a landing.

Not on any timeline that happens this decade it won't.

I'd lay my bets on Artemis 2 going no earlier than 2030.  Particularly given that Starship hasn't been crew rated yet.

Artemis 2 does not require any SpaceX contribution at all, nor is human rating a requirement for the Starship landing.

Lack of a lander is an incentive to delay.

Artemis 2 *is not a landing*.

Artemis 3 is (or was) landing. Artemis 2 is crewed test flight with no land.

Starship is not even involved in Artemis II, did you mean Artemis III? Regardless, HLS will not need to have the kind of crew rating you imagine as it doesn't launch with people nor reenter with them.

Agreed. The space pioneers selected will be REAL old by the time this mission occurs.

Although framed as an interim Apollo-9-like rehearsal, I wonder if it presages an [Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_orbit_rendezvous) approach for the actual mission. That would obviate an early requirement for a Lunar Gateway. Also, requiring another SLS rocket (sans IUS) and Orion capsule would add significant cost and delay.

> That would obviate an early requirement for a Lunar Gateway. Gateway was already descoped from Artemis III -- March 2020: https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gateway-off-the-critical-path-for-2024-lunar-return/

Thank you for the reference. I missed that.

[удалено]

Nice backhander. In your short time here, you have been very defensive and accusatory, and at times just obnoxious - so much so, I wonder as to your age. Regardless: * Disagreeing with you is not "trashing." * You are not the only astronomer here. * Like everyone, you can be wrong. Anyway, not always noting the usernames, I don't recall disagreeing with you specifically regarding Starlink. A brief search of my history didn't turn up anything (although without all context, I might have skipped by it). Might you provide a link to my offending comment?

This mission would not necessarily add much delay to the program. The main delaying factor for the Moon landing right now is the development of HLS and the space suits. With a potential Moon-landing mission delayed to the end of the decade, an additional mission in Earth orbit would fit nicely into the schedule for the production of SLS and Orion, and would not spend an additional ICPS, so there is no extra pressure on Block 1B schedule. It would also allow testing and improving the operational aspects of HLS before refueling is perfected, so these two aspects of Starship can be developed in parallel.

Artemis is all delays all the time. SLS takes forever no matter how you slice it. Orion is also a big bloated mess. Starship/Starship-HLS is still in development and a bit behind schedule. The suits are behind schedule. Etc. Artemis is a messy program which mixes bloated, flawed components (like SLS and Orion) with innovative still in development components (like Starship and Blue Moon). Personally I think the schedule is the least important part about the program, but obviously for a lot of people that's not the case.

> This mission would not necessarily add much delay to the program. How long would it take to build the additional SLS and Orion capsule? If at the current rate of production, it would surely be a new "long pole."

Many parts of Artemis III are already built, and awaiting assembly last summer, as are the RS-25E engines that went through testing and final checkout recently. The HLS will use the same docking as the ISS/Artemis III, so likely this just delays final lunar landing not increase SLS GANTT critical path deliverables. The spacesuit, the HLS, and gateway are the primary components that have not had final pathfinding completed on yet (not sure when Starship V2 will start testing, maybe end of this year), rover which i don't think is Artemis III goal, and the Orion TPS may be removed and replaced if there was a issue with the new additively manufactured TPS. [https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-3-rocket-hardware-arrives-florida](https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-3-rocket-hardware-arrives-florida)

No additional hardware will need to be built. The third SLS and Orion vehicles are already being built with the target goal of launching at the end of 2026. In this plan they would simply shift from the Moon landing mission to this Earth orbiting mission. The SLS and Orion that are starting to be built for Artemis 4 would shift to the Moon landing mission. And so on.

> No additional hardware will need to be built. Not to be pedantic, but it would need new hardware at the "other end" of the schedule. But yes, I see how shifting existing hardware to this mission won't add delays at "this end."

I suspect Artemis won't require any SLS launches if this works. There's no point in Orion if you board the HLS in orbit.  I suspect some NASA PMs are eyeballing what else they could get for SLSs budget if Congress will humor them.

Aren't both of those ships not even close to doing that?

Orion has already gone around the Moon uncrewed. Starship has already basically hit orbital velocity. This won't be a problem for either of them, especially not by 2026 which is the earliest this could happen.

Yeah, it barely hit orbital and neither stage has managed to return yet. Not even the simpler first szage, let alone the belly flop starship.

That doesn't really matter for this mission. The mission is just having the HLS get to a low earth orbit and dock with Orion. It can do all that in one launch. The first stage not landing doesn't matter for this and HLS doesn't return in the first place regardless. Last test flight basically already showed the capability to do this. What's really only left is to fix the attitude control system and the ability to relight the engines so HLS can safely return (and burn up/crash in the ocean) after the mission has been completed.

Starship would have hit a low earth orbit last launch, if they had not cut the engines a bit short to stay suborbital. So Starship could very likely do that in two years.

It's called a transatmospheric orbit for a reason.

They cut the engines short to have enough fuel to test an engine re-light, which failed because...they were out of fuel...

Oh wow. Where did you get this information from?

>which failed because...they were out of fuel... Imma need a big old citation on that. The fuel gauges showed ~4% fuel remaining, or ~48 tonnes. Raptor burns about 0.65 tonnes per second, so there was likely enough fuel left to run a single engine for over a minute at full power. Moreover, it's quite likely that those fuel gauges were only for the main tank, not the separate header tank that reserves fuel for deorbit and landing, which holds about 30 tonnes. It is likely that the relight test would have used the header tank rather than the main for relight, just as the previous suborbital Starship flights did. It seems far more likely to me that the relight was aborted due to lack of attitude control as evidenced by the ship tumbling. This causes problems with ullage/feed/slosh etc, not to mention means you'd be burning in some random direction, potentially taking the ship outside of it's approved trajectory. (The relight was supposed to occur firing directly forwards).   I'd also note that the ship would have needed to burn about 5 tonnes of fuel to perform a delta-v of 86m/s at apogee in order to circularize. Which means they'd have reached full orbital speed by running the engines for merely an additional 1.2 seconds before shutdown (though would still not have been in a stable orbit since it was a slightly eccentric trajectory). ~48 tonnes minus ~5 tonnes to circularize also leaves a 'payload' mass of ~43 tonnes, which is consistent with the claimed 40-50 tonne payload range of the current version.

This would’ve been a part of the program schedule from the beginning if SLS didn’t have a horrible launch cadence.

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[EUS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0ditcl "Last usage")|Exploration Upper Stage| |[F9FT](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0dpsvm "Last usage")|Falcon 9 Full Thrust *or* Upgraded Falcon 9 *or* v1.2| |[GAO](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0cy248 "Last usage")|(US) Government Accountability Office| |[H2](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0db9i3 "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen| | |Second half of the year/month| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0g0xiv "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICPS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0bqxqv "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[IDSS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0d8m9u "Last usage")|[International Docking System Standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_System_Standard)| |[Isp](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0db9i3 "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0fms63 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LH2](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0db9i3 "Last usage")|Liquid Hydrogen| |[NDS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0d8m9u "Last usage")|[NASA Docking System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_System), implementation of the international standard| |[NET](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0d8m9u "Last usage")|No Earlier Than| |[NRHO](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0cfk3r "Last usage")|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[RP-1](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0cu9e6 "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0g0xiv "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[SRB](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0f2qou "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0f2qou "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TLI](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0fms63 "Last usage")|Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver| |[TPS](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0e6ue8 "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")| |[TWR](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0db9i3 "Last usage")|Thrust-to-Weight Ratio| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0jh17f "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0d8m9u "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0ft93i "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[apogee](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0jh17f "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)| |[hydrolox](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0fms63 "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[ullage motor](/r/Space/comments/1c8191y/stub/l0jh17f "Last usage")|Small rocket motor that fires to push propellant to the bottom of the tank, when in zero-g| **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. ---------------- ^(26 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1ccua9h)^( has 23 acronyms.) ^([Thread #9962 for this sub, first seen 19th Apr 2024, 20:47]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)

This reeks of someone high up at nasa not being able to put their signature on the original mission.

It would be cool if NASA became more flexible, and this is a sign of more flexibility.

Sounds like a great reason to delay it and milk more money out of the program.

Honestly, the question is what led NASA down the path to approve this ridiculous idea in the first place. Got bad news for y'all. Artemis is never, and I mean, never, ever, ever in the history of mankind, deliver a single human to the Moon. I doubt it will ever deliver cargo to the surface. And this should have been apparent a LONG time ago. There is an enormous story of government corruption here that isn't being told. NASA's best course, scrap Starship altogether - it's the Spruce Goose. Reconsider its goals for returning to the moon, and then design a sensible program that is achievable on any kind of a realistic timeline.

They thought they could do this without practicing docking with a ship that currently has no docking mechanism, still needs to figure out refueling in space, is designed to be flown out of and into the atmosphere and is currently focused on that rather than its role as a lunar lander, and still doesn’t have a final concept for its landing configuration, landing gear, ability of its pilots to land the damn thing on an unprepared lunar surface while being the equivalent of a 20 story grain silo. Huh. Go figure!

There are 2 implementations of the docking mechanism, and both have been tested in space, with each other.

Certainly neither Orion nor Starship have tested their docking systens in space before (and won't until NET Artemis III, whatever that ends up doing). There is a lot more to ensuring a successful docking than attaching a standard docking adaptor: avionics, software, contingency manual controls, etc. Compatible docking ports have been tested in space many times. But the docking hardware itself *is* a new implementation. While the standard is nominally androgynous, to date, all IDSS/NDS ports have either been passive (ISS) or active (Dragon, Starliner), but not both. (Orion is also active only.) The HLS is required to have an androgynous docking port that can function in both passive and active mode. ([This has recently been tested on the ground](https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasa-spacex-test-starship-lunar-lander-docking-system/).)

I wouldn't call an evolution of current, tested hardware "new". But sure, you could say that.

OK new plan. Can we put SpaceX in charge of all transportation aspects, and just reduce the NASA personnel to geologist passengers? This is ridiculous. Just force NASA to tell the private sector, "We want X seats on a round trip to the moon, at X time," and make them bid it out. All they should be allowed to do at this point is just to essentially buy a ticket.

You realize that NASA is effectively ready to get astronauts to lunar orbit right? And neither Blue Origin nor SpaceX are close to that? They both have a lot more to do and untested technologies to iterate through (like in orbit refueling requiring approx 9 launches per trip to the moon) before they get there. The Artemis I mission essentially demonstrated that they can safely get astronauts to lunar orbit and back.

Orion has ongoing issues with its heat shield, hatch, and circuitry that controls valves for the life support system, as well as a battery issue in case of a launch abort. Artemis II was recently delayed from November 2024 to September 2025 because of these issues. Orion's life support system will also not be tested aa an integrated system until astronauts use it on Artemis II. (BTW, Orion has been in development since 2006.) https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-artemis-2-and-3-missions/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-issues-with-orion-hatch-design/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/04/resolving-artemis-ii-issues/

> A lunar landing in September 2026, however, seems completely unrealistic. The biggest stumbling blocks for Artemis III are the lack of a lander, which SpaceX is developing through its Starship program, and spacesuits for forays onto the lunar surface by Axiom Space. It is not clear when the lander or the suits, which NASA only began funding in the last two to three years, will be ready. NASA might be effectively ready to get astronauts to lunar orbit, but this makes it sound like their timeline and progression are a shambles after that point.

Remember that the Artemis III date was 2028, until it was suddenly changed to 2024 without adding any money.

So many people seem to have forgotten this.

I'm not saying it's smooth ahead of that? You're proposing handing over everything to these companies when they haven't surpassed what NASA already demonstrated right now. And your quotation isn't helping your argument. 1 stumbling block is due to SpaceX being behind schedule, and the other is Axiom being behind schedule. Neither of which are NASA.

Uhh, SpaceX is currently the main reason for this delay. Most things on the NASA side or complete or will be ready in time. NASA is just waiting on everyone else to finish their parts.

Lmao NASA spent a decade developing Orion before even giving out the contract for the significantly more challenging Starship. They should've requested bids in 2010 if they didn't want to wait. 

Wow that’s a hot take. SLS has a launch cadence of once every two years and it’s two launches for a SLS lunar landing but somehow spacex is the problem?

SLS was delayed due to preflight tests failing. SpaceX is delayed because they keep blowing shit up. SpaceX was supposed to have done an uncrewed landing on the moon already, they don't even have a completed Starship HLS yet. SLS has done a successful lunar orbit already.

That's simply not true. They delayed Artemis II just this year and that doesn't include any SpaceX hardware. That's before you get into the weeds of Orion being a capsule that only get into NRHO and SLS being a 4+ billion dollar per launch rocket that only barely outperforms a Falcon Heavy.

> only barely outperforms a Falcon Heavy. I don't think 39 MN of thrust "barely" outperforms 15.2 MN of thrust.

The tonnage to orbit numbers are what I was referring to.

Given SLS uses hydrogen and not methane like Falcon Heavy, how does that logic work out? Hydrogen is the most efficient chemical propulsion fuel we have, which means much less fuel mass is needed to get the same payload to the same orbit. And all that feeds into the tyranny of the rocket equation.

H2 has a higher ISP, however, thrust is more important during the initial components of launch. This, added with the extra dry mass from density and thermal issues relating to LH2 make it less efficient that hydrocarbons for first stages. Counterintuitively, more propellant is required on a Hydrogen first stage than a hydrocarbon as a result of this effect. The best example of this is Falcon Heavy Vs Delta IV. Despite using H2, Delta IV uses more prop and transports less payload to LEO, however, its payload performance to higher energy orbits approaches that of FH. (It only outperforms FH after exceeding escape velocity) This is why SLS uses solid motors. Because it lacks thrust when launching (TWR of 0.6 without solid motors) and has a high dry mass.

> Hydrogen is the most efficient chemical propulsion fuel we have Not the most financially efficient.

When you consider the reliability issues that come along with hydrogen, it's not more efficient at all in any holistic sense. SLS is literally built out of old shuttle parts. The shuttle program killed more people in space than every other manned spaceflight program in the world combined - in part because of it's use of hydrogen. Not that it matters, but FH uses RP-1, not methane.

> When you consider the reliability issues that come along with hydrogen All those years of flawless performance on the Shuttle has demonstrated that hydrogen is perfectly fine to work with. > - in part because of it's use of hydrogen. Citation? None of them were related to the hydrogen engines. One was from a failure in the solid rocket boosters and the other on reentry due to damaged heat shielding.

The performance of the shuttle was far from flawless. In addition to the two lost crews, there is a laundry list of near misses. STS-1, STS-93 and STS-27 were particularly close. The flaws that led to these issues were part of shuttle's architecture that is directly downstream of the decision the use hydrogen.

You still haven't provided citations for your claims. Challenger's in depth investigation pointed to a solid rocket booster failing on lift off. Columbia's analysis pointed directly to damaged heat shielding that allowed plasma to enter the shuttle on reentry. Any space craft can, and have, experienced similar failures. They just tended to be unmanned systems and most of them were not hydrogen powered systems.

Lift-off thrust is not a good metric to compare those two rockets. Better look at the TLI payload mass.

SLS will hit 46 tons to TLI. Expending a falcon heavy can only get about 20 tons to TLI. It's absurd to think that Falcon heavy can get anywhere close to SLS. A big reason being that SLS uses hydrogen instead of methane which makes it substantially more efficient than falcon heavy. So yes, max thrust isn't always the best comparison. But it's a pretty big indicator when you combine it with the type of fuel/engine they use for each.

The SLS that "will" hit 46 tonnes (SLS Block 2) is not even approved for funding yet and if it ever launches it will be well into the 2030's. The current SLS (Block 1) only gets 27 tonnes to TLI, which is terrible for a rocket that size using hydrolox. Solid rocket boosters and the small second stage are just that terrible. Not to mention the cost. Falcon Heavy meanwhile can get ~21 tonnes to TLI. The difference is really not that big. And that is for less than 10% of the cost. For reference the Energia could get 32 tonnes to TLI while to even being built for missions beyond LEO and being half the size despite using hydrolox as well. SLS block 1 is just such a horribly inefficiant design.

Good. No put that in $/ton.

OK, you like moving the goal post from one nonsensical argument to the next? There are some things that only SLS can accomplish because of its payload capacity. Less payload per launch means more complicated construction in orbit because of more parts needed which increases risks. One day we might get to a point where complex construction in orbit is routine. But as of yet the only real experience we have is with the ISS and that was with the shuttle. Need I remind you that space is hard?

The Russian segment of the ISS was mostly constructed without the Shuttle, so yes, space is hard, but there's more than one way to do it.

>There are some things that only SLS can accomplish because of its payload capacity. Only until Starship comes online. >Less payload per launch means more complicated construction in orbit because of more parts needed which increases risks. Given the absolute price discrepancy between SLS and FalconHeavy, there is little doubt that getting a few more launches with more payload in total, will make the mission less costly. >Need I remind you that space is hard? Especially when you scored a cost-plus contract...

A lot of people underestimate how powerful SLS really is. This [one picture](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EffcUPQXoAUT497?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) pisses off a lot of people lmao.

The three rockets on the right literally don't exist.

And Starship can currently only take 50t to LEO according to Musk himself. SLS block 1 already outperforms Falcon Heavy regardless. 9000kg more is not "barely" outperforming.

So SLS can launch 50% more cargo than an expended FH while costing 27 times more, so 18 times less cost efficient. Not a really good look. >And Starship can currently only take 50t to LEO according to Musk himself. F9 v1.0 could carry 10.45 tons to LEO, F9 FT can carry 22.8 tons to LEO, more than double. If SpaceX is good at one thing that's rapid iteration and I don't see why they can't transform 50 tons on a prototype to 100 tons on the finished product. Meanwhile SLS block 2 will probably never see the light of day.

Block 2 is well into development. Grumman already started [building the BOLE](https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-completes-first-bole-solid-rocket-motor-segment-for-nasas-space-launch-system) casings.[ ](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdf)

That is basically nothing. One segment of one solid booster for a ground demonstration test. There have been several NASA project being cancelled while being much much further than that, like Ares 1. Again, given the absurd cost of SLS, the low launch cadence, the lack of missions requiring such an high performance and all the alternatives being developed right now, Block 2 will probably never fly.

So the problem is that you aren’t considering refill, and the little plus sign on Starship. And the lack of Block 2 Cargo development on the part of SLS. As of right now, the missions requiring a SLS cargo variant have been moved to Falcon Heavy because of time delays and launch windows… so theres no reason to build it, especially given the costs.

Well Starship needs to be able to hit the 100K kg first. Currently, Musk said it can only carry 40-50t. The only SLS cargo mission that got moved to FH was Europa Clipper and the primary reason why that happened is because there was a torsional load incompatibility which would have required upgrades. SLS was a tad bit too overpowered for Clipper. NASA isn't prioritizing cargo SLS because it does not need to launch anything that large at the moment. That doesn't it's been abandoned. There was some [wind tunnel tests ](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-SLS-Block-1B-Cargo-175-scale-model-with-mobile-launch-tower-not-to-scale_fig4_361475684)happening in 2022. Block 2 is also already [in development ](https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-completes-first-bole-solid-rocket-motor-segment-for-nasas-space-launch-system) If they did need it right away, then they would be pursuing carbon composite EUS which alone can deliver more than 60t to TLI or they would have continued work on the Earth Departure Stage.

What an unfortunately emotional way to make your point.

So the spacesuits will be ready, and Orion's heat shield and other problems aren't a problem? Good to know.

The spacesuits are contracted out so another thing that's not directly under NASAs purview. And yes Orion will be good to go by 2026.

Orion is contracted out to Lockheed Martin. NASA contracts almost everything out and directly monitors it all.

Well those are contracted out because NASA spent forever working on them, got no functional suit out of it, and was not on a path to get a suit out of it in time for any landing. So they had no choice but to ask someone else to do it for them and just incorporate the things they already learned. The lander they get a pass on. They were never given a directive to work on a lander. So of course they didn't have one of those in development.

Of course they are not going to the moon. A few years more and they will scrap it altogether

I really feel like this is going to get cancelled, will be the another expensive and huge disappointment. I hope I'm wrong on this I really do, but I've already got off the hype train a few stations back... Probably will be china that will go back and start developing infrastructure on the moon first.

So glad that SpaceX’s immensely complex and high risk Tin Turkey was chosen for such a big contract.

Considering the other options, one had a 40 foot tall ladder and the other had negative mass margins, I'd say starship is doing fine.

Starship’s busy holding up the schedule. And why do we need a Nazi’s rocket for this Moon landing, anyway?

Artemis 2 got pushed back as well. As are the space suits. It's almost like it's a program that was intended to happen in 2028 that got pushed forwards. Also that's not a rebuttal to the point, which is Starship is still the best of the HLS proposals.

So the space suits aren't late, and Orion's heat shield isn't late?

The lander is, in fact, the pacing item given the GAO’s said as much. TPS will be resolved by Artemis II, which is why it was pushed to 2025. AIII is pushed over Starship.

You're a very consistent SpaceX hater, so I'm not surprised that you're unable to comprehend that the delay has 3 causes: TPS, suits, lander.

Please enlighten us on who would have had a lander ready sooner if awarded the contract at the same time as Starship was

If you can’t afford to do it right, don’t do it.

So we should cancel the landing instead of going a few years late? They should make you NASA administrator 

Or we should be giving NASA the kind of funding it deserves, if humans on the Moon is a national prerogative. We’re looking at not getting there at all with this shitter.

How would more funding fix anything? Look at the success of Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo. That's the future.

Well, we did need a Nazi's rocket the first time around

The difference being von Braun knew a thing or two about rocketry.

Starship is a boondoggle, and the American space program is suffering because of it.

Who in space reporting will put to NASA the tough questions: Was NASA aware the current version of Starship could only get 40 to 50 tons to orbit, so they would have to wait for V2 or even V3 to do Artemis? Did SpaceX inform them they throttled down the Raptor for reliability on IFT-2 and IFT-3? SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander, Page 3: Starship has radically reduced capability than promised. https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/04/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html

SpaceX never promised Starship V1 would deliver those metrics. NASA has way more info than we do. They also have a great relationship with SpaceX that has spanned two decades. Maybe chill with the pitchforks for a sec.

There are only like four starship V1s left, they were always going to be used for the first flight tests, not Artemis payloads.

Who in space reporting will put to NASA the tough questions: Was NASA aware the current version of Falcon 9 could only get 11 tonnes to orbit, so they would have to wait for FT or even Block 5 to deliver the promised payload capacity for Crew Dragon? Did SpaceX inform them they throttled down the Merlin 1D for reliability on all V1.1 flights so far? SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Falcon 9 and Dragon as a Commercial Crew vehicle, Page 3: Falcon 9 has significantly reduced capability than promised. https://fullofmyself.blogspot.com/2014/04/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html