That TBD Artemis III Lunar Landing Date
On 14 Dec 1911 Roald Amundsen and his party reached the South Pole
Wikipedia
Keith’s note: On 14 Dec 1911 Roald Amundsen and his party reached the South Pole. NASA plans to land a crew near the south pole of the Moon – but still does not know what year that will happen. And we really have no indication as to which year NASA will announce what the lunar landing date year is. Just sayin’
14 responses to “That TBD Artemis III Lunar Landing Date”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Perhaps they’re keeping it a secret like Amundsen did. He didn’t know he was going to the South Pole until someone allegedly beat him to the North.
The lunar landing will depend entirely on the Space-X StarShip in its multiple forms. It will require the lander, the tankers, and the refueler. It will also require the launch of between 8 and 20 tanker Starships and transfer of their supercooled fuels amd oxidizers. That kind of refueling operation has never been attempted or accomplished. Of course if they want to walk on the Moon they’ll need moonsuits. So the schedule is out of NASAs hands. Space X doesnt need just a first successful StarShip flight, they need dozens of successful flights and the vehicle has to be man-rated. And they meed to make those 8-20 flights on a relatively rapid turnaround basis. Given Space X success and the fact they are the most experienced rocket and spacecraft people in the world, I think they will get the job done. But dozens of flights of new vehicles in multiple variants? I’d guess 6-10 years. So maybe it will happen this decade. Honestly given how the burden is in the hands of commercial industry I really wonder what NASAs continuing role is?
I agree. I’m not sure what NASA human space flight is supposed to do in the future. Space X is essentially self directed and they conduct their own operations. NASA has not done anything ‘real’ in space in decades. I hope someone is trying to figure this out.
NASA performs the second half of the Lunar landing architecture through Orion and SLS.
They will also contruct and operate the Gateway along with Europe, Japan and others.
You are apparently thinking about Orion as if its an Apollo. Even Apollo flew several times a year.
If Space X gets Starship functioning, then there will be lots of them, taking off and returning frequently, operating in the Earth orbital, cislunar, and lunar surface environments. Hundreds of people will be launching and returning.
Orion and SLS will mount a mission every couple years? To permit a couple NASA astronauts to meet up with hundreds traveling as part of the ongoing Starship program? Why the separate amd very expensive NASA effort?
NASA cannot afford multiple billions of dollars a.mission, and it cannot afford a program which only flies every couple years.
If Starship is successful, then I think Orion and SLS go away. The sooner Starship is successful, the sooner Orion and SLS are cancelled.
Of course if Starship takes a long time before its successful, or if it were never successful, then you have to wonder what will become of Orion and SLS, because without Starship, Orion has no mission.
Until there was is something that can directly replace SLS and Orion both in function (40+ tons to TLI in a single launch human rated LV, long duration cislunar crew vehicle) and politics these programs are likely to remain core parts of the NASA program if record.
Starship even if fully operational doesn’t meet that criteria.
Block 1B development, existing and soon to be signed long term production & launch services contract will solidly the longevity if the program even more as time passes.
Orion and SLS existed long before the current Artemis Moon landing program, so they don’t really need Starship to have a mission.
Even without Starship there is still the second HLS provider in the form of Blue Moon Mk2.
Even without any of the HLS landers they have the Gateway, like they did under the Obama program of record and before Artemis was established in 2019.
I suspect we’ll be seeing several missions to Gateway in the late 2020s and early 2030s before we see one of the HLSs operational, probably starting with Artemis 3.
Starship will not be flying anything to the Moon any time soon, let alone at the scale you expect, let alone actual astronauts (in the hundreds!).
NASA can clearly afford the current program, given that it is currently happening under existing funding.
Missions after Artemis 4 will be annual, not one every two years.
The limitations until then is availability of new mission elements (HLS, xEVA, Gateway) and development of SLS Block 1B, not the rate at which they can produce SLS and Orion, which are currently moving toward an annual production cadence.
NASA performs the second half of the Lunar landing architecture through Orion and SLS.
They will also contruct and operate the Gateway along with Europe, Japan and others.
NASA would first have to admit that Artemis 2 is slipping and not happening in 2024. Then if that mission is successful and doesn’t have issues like the heat shield on Artemis 1 they can focus on setting a lunar landing date. But realistically landing is late 2026 or early 2027
Depending on heatshield fixes, Id guess Artemis II might fly in mid 2025. (I swear NASA ‘games’ the system by announcing dates at the end of a year just so they dont have to announce now a later year.) Normal 2 year Orion rotation means the earliest a landing could be attempted is 2027, maybe 2028. More likely, further slips due to Orion, or the lander, or the suits, or who knows, five years out? So end of the decade is a good guess. Remember, in the 1960s they were never sure whether the end of the decade was in 69 or 70. So an Artemis landing, maybe by 2030. By that time maybe NASA’s international partners can complete Gateway (has it ever been officially funded by Congress?). Of course if the StarShip system is functioning, no Orion and no Gateway is required but its a nice and expensive artifical construct to enable more international participants in the near term. Of course their focus ought to be on surface infrastructure amd operations.
Remember, during Apollo, right up thru mid 1968 they were planning to fly a dozen missions to get to a landing. In 68 they decided on the hail Mary Apollo 8 mission. Their criteria was 1 manned test of the vehicle, then they were ready to proceed. 9 tested LM. 10 was a dress rehearsal. So Artemis, five years away? No real plan is in sight.
NASA first has to solve its Artemis Heatshield problem. NASA is downplaying how serious this problem is and should not fly a crewed next mission until they can prove that the AVCOAT blocks will not crack and spall off in large chunks during entry.
They are refusing to allow an independent technical team solve this issue and in typical NASA form are taking a linear approach with no real options. This will lead to increased production pressure downstream and a forced decision to fly as is.
I suggested to Bill Nelson what he needs to do but they refuse to listen.