‘Taking Flight’ (nearly). Our beautiful Artemis III Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage left the surface of the earth (briefly) today as it ‘flew over the hump’ via a giant crane in the Vehicle Assembly Building to be mated between our 2 already assembled Solid Rocket Boosters on the Mobile Launcher. Spectacular job by our SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and NASA Kennedy team! Go Artemis III!

https://x.com/AstroKomrade/status/2114839861588845002/photo/1

I designed & printed the most detailed 3D printed SLS Artemis II. This model is 1:96 scale.
Here are some photos - hope you like it 😄

https://x.com/NASAKennedy/status/2114754583788707954

22 flights for a single Starship mission to the Moon is absolutely insanity. SpaceX won the contract to build HLS in 2021, five years later, they are still yet to build a Starship capable of flying to the Moon with astronauts. It took years to get Crew Dragon and Orion ready for flight with a pressure vessel, life support systems, water filtration, oxygen filtration, human waste system, etc. Starship is years from ever flying humans into space. Honestly it seems SpaceX just wants Starship for launching V3 Starlink satellites and does not care about landing on the Moon. Blue Origin's Blue Moon Mark 2 is so much better on my honest opinion.

In case you missed this separate interview with NASA Artemis Program Manager Jeremy Parsons.

/u/rookisaacman, I can't speak for everyone, but I doubt you because you have shown zero evidence this is true and won't explain your plans and assumptions. If you have conducted a study, why won't you release it? It's hardly unprecedented. Where's the "transparency?"

What would be unprecedented is completing CDR of a brand new stage by Q1 next year, which is what your schedule says. That's BS and you know it. Or maybe you don't, in which case I honestly don't know what's scarier. What happens if that slips? What happens if you start dismantling ML-1 and it turns out you made the wrong call and we need to use ICPS-3? You've left no alternative path for redundancy. ASAP recommended ML-2 to be constructed precisely because of these risks, which you refuse to discuss honestly. What happens when we're past 2029 and have nothing to show for it? Though I suppose it's not your problem at that point...

Do you honestly think the workforce is totally behind you on this plan? Who do you think's been telling me what a shitshow this is? Sure, tell yourself it's a few doubters. There's a lot more than you think. People are angry, but they're also terrified to piss you off. The way you reacted to that question about the architectural changes during one of your latest Q&As scared even more people away from being frank in their feedback. Not to mention you are an appointee during an administration that is not exactly kind to civil servants in general...

The math does not add up, and you won't engage in a frank discussion. You've seen these posts, and you won't respond. You accuse critics of being fans of specific hardware, when these concerns are real and your every evasion of them only furthers the conclusion that you know they are legitimate, you just won't engage.

If I'm wrong, then show me. You have the data. You have the studies. If the cost projections for this Centaur option and the timelines are so much better than EUS release them! Show us the assumptions that led you to that conclusion.

Unless you're afraid those assumptions won't stand up to scrutiny...?

NASA plans to start modifying the OLM for the Centaur version immediately after Artemis III. But, the centaur stage is only needed if Artemis IV is done using Blue Origin (which I think is unlikely as New Glenn 9x4 doesn't even exist). If Starship HLS is used for Artemis IV, and Orion just goes to LEO a second time, couldn't they use a second spacer (presumably stretched to match the centaur height so the umbilicals line up with the modified OLM) instead of needing a centaur?

NASA said Friday that Artemis III will send four astronauts to low Earth orbit in 2027 to test systems for the Artemis IV landing. I built a notional version of the reported plan (about 430 km at 33 degrees, Blue Origin's lander first, about two days docked, then Starship for about a day, splashdown off San Diego) and rendered it.

What you're seeing:
- Launch from LC-39B. The path starts at core stage MECO (30 x 430 km); ascent isn't modeled.
- Circularization at first apogee (116 m/s), then a -8 m/s phasing burn to 430 x 400 km so Orion slowly catches Blue Moon.
- Rendezvous in Blue Moon's local frame: transfer to a 2 km hold, a hop to 200 m, final approach. The dashed circles are the 2 km approach ellipsoid and 200 m keep-out sphere.
- Two days docked, then Starship launches from Starbase and Orion phases over to dock for a day.
- Five days of free flight, a 120 m/s deorbit burn, entry interface at 121.9 km, splashdown off San Diego.

Where this is my assumption, not NASA's: the timeline and burn sizes, a Blue Moon disposal burn after undocking, and launching Starship after Orion undocks (the reported plan may launch it earlier). J2 orbit model, impulsive burns, no drag, and no ascent or entry modeling.

Let SpaceX haul the freight and Blue Origin haul the astronauts.

Hear me out.

Why are we trying to human-rate a fifty-meter-tall spacecraft to land a handful of astronauts on the Moon?

Apollo demonstrated the fundamental architecture sixty years ago. A dedicated lunar lander descends, a smaller ascent vehicle returns the crew to lunar orbit, and the command spacecraft brings them home.

We don't need to reinvent that entire process just to establish a lunar presence.

Give SpaceX the heavy cargo missions. Let Starship deliver equipment, infrastructure, supplies, and everything else we'll eventually need for a permanent lunar base.

Give Blue Origin the crewed landing missions. Develop and human-rate a smaller, purpose-built vehicle whose primary job is getting astronauts safely down and back up.

Send the cargo first. Verify everything works. Then send the people.

Repeat that process, gradually expanding the infrastructure with each mission.

We don't need to build the entire lunar base before we start building the lunar base.

I'm not saying Starship can't eventually land astronauts on the Moon. I'm asking why our return to the lunar surface should depend on proving that it can.

Am I missing a fundamental engineering constraint here, or have we allowed the transportation architecture to become more complicated than the mission itself?

The spirit of the argument: stop asking what the most ambitious spacecraft can do, and start asking what architecture accomplishes the mission with the least unnecessary complexity.

This larger 180K+ Centaur will feature a longer tank length increasing propellant capacity by approximately 50 percent for higher performance during trans-lunar injection. Additional modifications from the current Centaur flying today include changing the material of the tank from stainless steel to alloy 718, larger hydrazine tanks, and an update to avionics and software from the current Centaur V’s baseline. In addition, the team will work through human rating the Centaur Exploration stage.

Completely delusional, but official nonetheless. Look at what they have to do to ML-1 and how little time they have to do it.

ASAP is opening a formal recommendation expressing concerns about risks of Artemis IV and beyond and recommending NASA reexamine mission obj and potentially system architecture, to establish more balanced approach to risk, prioritize objectives-driven planning, and maintain a consistent cadence of flight missions. For every test obj incl uncrewed lander demos, NASA should develop detailed plan for testing & data collection to ensure all risks are thoroughly identified and mitigated. Will provide more balanced sequence of flt tests.

Humanity is returning to the Moon. These new footsteps in the lunar dust will inspire generations of people across Earth and herald a new era of discovery that could help unravel some of the deepest mysteries of the Moon, Earth, and the Universe.

At the request of NASA, Human Exploration Across the Moon identifies high-value science destinations for short-duration human missions beyond the lunar poles. This report charts a path toward broader exploration, presenting four non-polar destinations where human explorers could pursue distinct and complementary science objectives across a range of disciplines: Bhabha Crater, Mons Hadley, Orientale Basin, and Aristarchus Plateau.

Addressing science and applied science objectives with human explorers across the Moon will be key to establishing a long-term presence on the Moon, the next step for humankind after the successes of the Apollo missions and the International Space Station program.