Artemis Moon Program

Philip Slos has a new Artemis status update video out:


In this video, I'll go over the Artemis II flight readiness review, where NASA cleared the machines, people, and enterprise to fly the mission, and what comes next. I'll look through the agency's inspector general report on the HLS program to see if it resolves any Starship or Blue Moon mysteries.​
Click to expand...
In other news and notes, I'll look at what NASA is saying about the programs and projects orphaned in the new Artemis plan; it's more what they're not saying. Like the word "Gateway."​
Click to expand...
Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.
NASA OIG report IG-26-004 link: https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspec...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...human-landing-system-contracts/&v=YZTywa2vexA
Click to expand...
Links to stories referenced:
https://rollcall.com/2026/03/04/white...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...of-march-30-for-budget-release/&v=YZTywa2vexA
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...://buymeacoffee.com/philipsloss&v=YZTywa2vexA
00:00 Intro
01:07 Artemis II Watch: NASA holds Flight Readiness Review
13:51 NASA OIG releases report on HLS lunar lander program audit
24:42 Other news and notes, still waiting to find out about orphaned programs like Gateway
28:12 Thanks for watching!
Click to expand...
 
NASA Reassessing Artemis II Rollout as Ground Teams Make Up Time
by: Brandi Dean

Full Text provided:

Due to quicker than expected completion of close-out activities, NASA now may roll out the Artemis II rocket from the Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Pad 39B, on Thursday, March 19.

A final decision on start time will be made on Wednesday, March 18.

The rollout was originally scheduled for March 19, but engineers identified an electrical harness on the flight termination system of the core stage of the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket that needed to be replaced. They expected to delay the move to Friday, March 20. However, since addressing the issue, teams have gained some of the time back, which may allow rollout to begin March 19, once again.

The journey to the launch pad will take up to 12 hours; NASA will provide a live stream of the move.

Once the start time for the trek is identified, an update will be provided. A rollout on either day would still preserve the possibility of launching as early as Wednesday, April 1, though teams continue to keep an eye on the weather forecasts. The April launch window includes opportunities through Monday, April 6, as well as Thursday, April 30.
Click to expand...
 
I can't wait to see the mission profile.

Starship can not get from LEO to the moon surface and back to LEO without refueling.

The most logical profile is to start with two fully fueled Starship HLS landers in Earth orbit. Both will land on the Moon. However during transit one Starship HLS transfers 25-35% of its propellant to the other Starship HLS. One Starship stays on the surface as a habitat.

I assume the Starships will be tipped onto their side using the landing legs. Where a fraction of the Starship will just sink into the lunar surface. As each crewed mission leaves a Starship on the surface they can be connected together. A large diameter flexible air tube can connect each ship allowing crew to walk between ships without space suits.
 
insidersource said:
The most logical profile is to start with two fully fueled Starship HLS landers in Earth orbit. Both will land on the Moon. However during transit one Starship HLS transfers 25-35% of its propellant to the other Starship HLS. One Starship stays on the surface as a habitat..
Click to expand...
that would be wrong. Lunar orbit would be more logical for another starship
insidersource said:
I assume the Starships will be tipped onto their side using the landing legs.
Click to expand...
bad assumption
 
Byeman said:
that would be wrong. Lunar orbit would be more logical for another starship
Click to expand...
You are clearly not thinking from first principles. The primary goal is to build a moon base on the surface. The leftover Starships becomes the moon base. We have hundreds of renderings showing Starship placed horizontal on the surface acting as a moon base.

If they are left in Lunar orbit that means after 100 crewed missions there are 100 Starships in Lunar orbit. There is no logical purpose of that.

Starships becomes the ideal moon base. The plan is to eventually produce oxygen and hydrogen on the Moon. The Starships propellant tanks then become oxygen and hydrogen storage. Did you think NASA were going to transport dedicated storage tanks to the Lunar surface? Starship becomes the tanks.

Each Starship that remains on the surface can be a module with a purpose.
 
insidersource said:
You are clearly not thinking from first principles. The primary goal is to build a moon base on the surface. The leftover Starships becomes the moon base. We have hundreds of renderings showing Starship placed horizontal on the surface acting as a moon base.

If they are left in Lunar orbit that means after 100 crewed missions there are 100 Starships in Lunar orbit. There is no logical purpose of that.

Starships becomes the ideal moon base. The plan is to eventually produce oxygen and hydrogen on the Moon. The Starships propellant tanks then become oxygen and hydrogen storage. Did you think NASA were going to transport dedicated storage tanks to the Lunar surface? Starship becomes the tanks.

Each Starship that remains on the surface can be a module with a purpose.
Click to expand...
No, the primary goal is too land and do some exploration first. Base comes later. And You obviously haven’t been keeping up with SpaceX. they are not going to expend Starships in lunar orbit. There will be tankers and depots.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
No, the primary goal is too land and do some exploration first. Base comes later. And You obviously haven’t been keeping up with SpaceX. they are not going to expend Starships in lunar orbit. There will be tankers and depots.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of the capability of Starship. They will definitely expend Starships at the moon as it is simple math using the rocket equation.

To be fully reusable the system would require two fully fueled larger Starship tanker variants to accompany the smaller Starship HLS. These two Starship tankers then provide the propellant for the Starship HLS to do another landing in a fully reusable system. The Starships tankers can't offload much propellant as they need propellant to do a return trip.

The problem then becomes simple economics. Two large Starship tankers to be sent to the moon will require ~40 extra refueling launches from Earth. While sending a smaller expendable Starship HLS will require only 10 launches from Earth.

The extra 30 launches from Earth comes with significant cost. The expended Starship HLS sitting on the surface of the Moon should not be considered a loss. It will form the moon base. This completely changes the cost calculation. To send a similar sized habitat to the surface of the Moon would require 100+ fully reusable Starship launches from Earth. So by expelling a single Starship HLS not only saves 30 launches per crewed mission it would save 100+ launches to get that structure on the surface.

This is crystal clear. They will expend Starships on the surface of the Moon as part of the regular mission profile.

The NASA plan should be considered in 3 stages.
Stage 1: uses SLS for the first few basic missions
Stage 2: uses Starship with expended ships on the surface to create the moon base.
Stage 3: uses a hydrogen powered lander using fuel created on the surface of the Moon. A fully fueled Starship variant without any additional refueling can easily go from LEO to Lunar orbit and back to LEO.

Once fuel is created on the Moon it is easy to see how the Starship system will fill the rest of the mission profile. To get crew to the moon would be possible with just two Starship launches. Starship should eventually grow to allow 300 ton of payload to LEO. A half length Starship shuttle with 600 ton of propellant should be able to get a dozen crew and meaningful payload from LEO to Lunar orbit and back to LEO. The crew and cargo then move to the hydrogen powered lander while in lunar orbit to get to the surface. The ultimate system like this has been proposed for many years.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
I am well aware of the capability of Starship. They will definitely expend Starships at the moon as it is simple math using the rocket equation.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you don't understand SpaceX and Starship capabilities other than mass to orbit.

insidersource said:
This is crystal clear. They will expend Starships on the surface of the Moon as part of the regular mission profile.
Click to expand...
Your crystal isn't clear. Expending Starships won't happen until the base will be built. There will several years of landings using reusable Starships before the base will be built.

insidersource said:
The NASA plan should be considered in 3 stages.
Stage 1: uses SLS for the first few basic missions
Stage 2: uses Starship with expended ships on the surface to create the moon base.
Stage 3: uses a hydrogen powered lander using fuel created on the surface of the Moon. A fully fueled Starship variant without any additional refueling can easily go from LEO to Lunar orbit and back to LEO.
Click to expand...
That is not the plan. The base will be built much later
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
Your crystal isn't clear. Expending Starships won't happen until the base will be built. There will several years of landings using reusable Starships before the base will be built.
Click to expand...
You have things completely backwards. The plan was always for Starship HLS to be expended on the first mission. The original profile had Starship HLS taking itself to Lunar orbit. The crew from Orion would transfer to Starship HLS. Starship HLS would go to the surface of the Moon and then come back to Lunar orbit. The Starship HLS would then be abandoned/expelled as it does not have enough fuel to return back to Earth. The crew then comes home on Orion with the European Service Module.

Byeman said:
That is not the plan. The base will be built much later
Click to expand...
I have no dates on my stages. The order is correct.

Grey Havoc said:
They will likely have to start work a lot sooner than that, with the way things are going. At least, if they are serious about having one.
Click to expand...
I think we need to provide a definition of a moonbase. I consider a single Starship expelled on the surface to be a moon base. It doesn't even need to have life support systems. If it provides storage of useful materials then I consider that a moon base.

Some people clearly have the definition where humans are permanently on the Moon like the international space station.
 
That names sounds good to me.

In terms of building a moon base it makes no sense to transport blocks or modules as cargo and the blocks get assembled on the surface. The cost of these structures and the assembly effort would be more than the cost of Starship upper stages.

SpaceX would definitely make unique Starship MB (moon base) versions for the ships that would form the moon base. The obvious change is that cabin would be designed based on it laying horizontal on the surface instead of standing up. Starship MB variants would need less fuel as the trip is one way. The habitable area can be much larger possibly reaching half of the volume of the current Starship HLS. Construction on the surface of the moon would want to be minimised. Connecting flexible human sized tubes between Starships would be the obvious solution. To tip the Starships over there would be no need for cables. The landing legs would initiate the tip. Starship HLS has multiple landing engines towards the nose which would allow it to fall gently. Each Starship MB would have its own climate control and oxygen system including two air locks. This allows a daisy chain of Starship MBs to form a moon base.
 
insidersource said:
That names sounds good to me.

In terms of building a moon base it makes no sense to transport blocks or modules as cargo and the blocks get assembled on the surface. The cost of these structures and the assembly effort would be more than the cost of Starship upper stages.

SpaceX would definitely make unique Starship MB (moon base) versions for the ships that would form the moon base. The obvious change is that cabin would be designed based on it laying horizontal on the surface instead of standing up. Starship MB variants would need less fuel as the trip is one way. The habitable area can be much larger possibly reaching half of the volume of the current Starship HLS. Construction on the surface of the moon would want to be minimised. Connecting flexible human sized tubes between Starships would be the obvious solution. To tip the Starships over there would be no need for cables. The landing legs would initiate the tip. Starship HLS has multiple landing engines towards the nose which would allow it to fall gently. Each Starship MB would have its own climate control and oxygen system including two air locks. This allows a daisy chain of Starship MBs to form a moon base.
Click to expand...
Popcorn time... (even though I personally absolutely, positively hate, disdain, detest, and abhor that utterly disgusting gross ceiling covering material that is apparently meant for human consumption...)
 
Last edited:
NASA Press Release

NASA’s Artemis II Rocket Arrives at Launch Pad 39B
Jason Costa

Full Text:

At 11:21 a.m. EDT on Friday, March 20, NASA’s Artemis II SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft arrived at Launch Pad 39B after an 11-hour journey from the Vehicle Assembly Building at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

NASA’s crawler-transporter 2 began its 4-mile trek with the integrated SLS and Orion stacked on top of the mobile launcher at 12:20 a.m. EDT. Moving at a maximum speed of just 0.82 mph, the crawler carried the 322-foot-tall Moon rocket and spacecraft slowly and steadily toward the pad. 

Now that the rocket is at Pad 39B, NASA teams are gearing up for the final stretch of prelaunch preparations ahead of launch as soon as Wednesday, April 1. The early April launch window includes opportunities through Monday, April 6.

Artemis II Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and Mission Specialist Christina Koch of NASA, along with CSA’s (Canadian Space Agency) Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen will embark on a 10-day journey around the Moon and back.

As part of a Golden Age of innovation and exploration, Artemis II is another step toward new U.S.-crewed missions to the Moon’s surface, leading to a sustained presence on the Moon that will help the agency prepare to send astronauts to Mars.
Click to expand...
 
The Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft for the Artemis II mission arrived to the launch pad today at 11:21am ET (1521 UTC).

We are gearing up for preparations ahead of launch of the crewed lunar mission. The earliest possible launch opportunity is April 1. go.nasa.gov/4sXHmtl
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035035774513537302
View: https://twitter.com/nasaartemis/status/2035035774513537302


America's Moon rocket has returned to the pad
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035042004237709331
View: https://twitter.com/nasaadmin/status/2035042004237709331
 
Given that the next launch window opens up on April 1 I have no doubt that if it does liftoff happen on that date there'll be an April Fool's day joke somewhere there in it;):D.
 
Last edited:
So no Gateway docking in lunar orbit Archibald, it will just be like during the Apollo era and a straight touchdown onto the Moon's surface. Though I do wonder why it was cancled?
 
 
Flyaway said:
Lunar Gateway is now dead. Or rather paused (indefinitely).
Click to expand...
I posted the Starship based lunar system a few days ago and it did not require the Lunar Gateway. I am not surprised that the gateway is paused/cancelled.

As I said before it is very obvious and crystal clear what the best solution is. Two Starships go to the moon. One Starship HLS has the crew and lands direct on the surface. The second uncrewed Starship provides the propellant for the return flight. This part is very obvious.

The second uncrewed Starship has two profile options.
1) Lands on the surface and becomes a moon base module
2) Full size tanker Starship can provide enough fuel to the smaller crewed Starship HLS and both ships return to LEO

It is unrealistic to expect the same Starship to make dozens of flights back and forth to the moon. The risk of mechanical failure will increase with every trip. When the risk becomes too high to carry crew it then becomes the uncrewed tanker. When the risk becomes too high it is expelled on the lunar surface as a Moon base module. This is where the cost calculations become very obvious. People are thinking that an expensive Starship would be wasted as a moon base module. But it's value is depreciating with each trip as it's service life runs out.

I think NASA will settle on each Starship HLS performing only two flights. The first flight is crewed. The second flight it is then the uncrewed tanker component that is discarded on the surface.


NMaude said:
Possibly the later as the core modules have been structural completed and are being fitted out IIRC.
Click to expand...
NASA would be waiting until Starship hits a few more milestones just to be 100% confident.
 
Last edited:
March 25, 2026 5:11PM
NASA Teams Continue Artemis II Preparations at Launch Pad

Teams at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida continue preparing the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft for its crewed launch as early as Wednesday, April 1. After rolling to Launch Pad 39B on top the mobile launcher on March 20, teams began securing the rocket, spacecraft and launch platform to the pad infrastructure to ensure there is power supply and communications with the rocket and ground teams. The emergency egress baskets were connected to the mobile launcher, and the crew access arm was extended to support access into the White Room – the location where personnel can access Orion.

In the days leading up to launch, technicians will conduct pad-specific engineering tests for ordnance connectivity on the flight termination system, radio frequency testing for the core stage and Orion spacecraft and complete final closeouts of the rocket and spacecraft before getting into launch countdown.

The four members of the Artemis II crew – NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen – began their quarantine period on March 18, to ensure they stay healthy leading up to launch. While avoiding close contact with anyone not quarantining alongside them, they are continuing some training activities at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, reviewing procedures and plans for the approximately 10-day mission.

The crew will fly to Florida on Friday, March 27, and spend the remainder of their quarantine at NASA Kennedy. Details on their arrival and other mission events and milestones will be available shortly.
Click to expand...

www.nasa.gov

NASA Teams Continue Artemis II Preparations at Launch Pad - NASA

Teams at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida continue preparing the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft for its crewed launch as early as
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
insidersource said:
You have things completely backwards. The plan was always for Starship HLS to be expended on the first mission. The original profile had Starship HLS taking itself to Lunar orbit. The crew from Orion would transfer to Starship HLS. Starship HLS would go to the surface of the Moon and then come back to Lunar orbit. The Starship HLS would then be abandoned/expelled as it does not have enough fuel to return back to Earth. The crew then comes home on Orion with the European Service Module.


I have no dates on my stages. The order is correct.


I think we need to provide a definition of a moonbase. I consider a single Starship expelled on the surface to be a moon base. It doesn't even need to have life support systems. If it provides storage of useful materials then I consider that a moon base.

Some people clearly have the definition where humans are permanently on the Moon like the international space station.
Click to expand...
And how wrong
Byeman said:
that would be wrong. Lunar orbit would be more logical for another starship

bad assumption
Click to expand...
It was a bad assumption.
 
payloadspace.com

With Artemis Changes, Europe is Left Holding the Bag

ESA and European space primes were developing many of the key components of the planned lunar orbiting station.
payloadspace.com payloadspace.com
For example, Airbus, which was supplying the European Service Module, as well as the power management and distribution system for Gateway’s HALO module, only formally found out about Gateway’s proposed pause during the presentation this week, according to a company spokesperson.
Click to expand...
 
Some details about the Artemis II proximity operations: the spacecraft will move away to a distance of approximately 100 meters and then approach to within 10 meters of the ICPS.

www.esa.int

Artemis II proximity operations

Artemis II proximity operations using the European Service Module's engines after separation from rocket second stage
www.esa.int

www.nasa.gov

Key Test Drive of Orion on NASA’s Artemis II to Aid Future Missions - NASA

Astronauts will test drive NASA’s Orion spacecraft for the first time during the agency’s Artemis II test flight next year. While many of the spacecraft’s
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
Flyaway said:
and then approach to within 10 meters of the ICPS
Click to expand...
My messy health is being messy today & right now my brain has not the first clue what an ICPS is.
Reading articles is more mental energy than available, so, off to Google artemis icps.
 
Basically a Delta IV second stage. SLS is so strongly built that it could handle a *much* heavier upper stage, were it not nixed by a tech-brah’s kept-boy.

Difference between Shuttle ET and SLS main tank, aside from size?

Difference between Shuttle ET and SLS main tank, aside from size?
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

Pluto missions were to ride on Block 2 and EUS…which I had hoped might sport a NTR one day.
 
No fan of Bechtel, but this is clearly sabotage to American hydrogen rocketry, pay no mind to NSF’s little MAF puff piece.

See what they do, not what they say.

This is also an attack on outer planet missions by extension.

Now would be a good time for Congress to forbid any American rocketry use of super-greenhouse gas fuels like methane—in return. Two can play at this game. They slash our team’s bus tires, I say pour bleach in theirs.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom