In their recent announcement, NASA has made official what pretty much anyone following the Artemis lunar program could have told you years ago — humans won’t be landing on the Moon in 2028.
It was always an ambitious timeline, especially given the scope of the mission. It wouldn’t be enough to revisit the Moon in a spidery lander that could only hold two crew members and a few hundred kilograms of gear like in the 60s. This time, NASA wants to return to the lunar surface with hardware capable of setting up a sustained human presence. That means a new breed of lander that dwarfs anything the agency, or humanity for that matter, has ever tried to place on another celestial body.
Unsurprisingly, developing such vehicles and making sure they’re safe for crewed missions takes time and requires extensive testing. The simple fact is that the landers, being built by SpaceX and Blue Origin, won’t be ready in time to support the original Artemis III landing in 2028. Additionally, development of the new lunar extravehicular activity (EVA) suits by Axiom Space has fallen behind schedule. So even if one of the landers would have been ready to fly in 2028, the crew wouldn’t have the suits they need to actually leave the vehicle and work on the surface.
But while the Artemis spacecraft and EVA suits might be state of the art, NASA’s revised timeline for the program is taking a clear step back in time, hewing closer to the phased approach used during Apollo. This not only provides their various commercial partners with more time to work on their respective contributions, but critically, provides an opportunity to test them in space before committing to a crewed landing.
Artemis II Remains Unchanged
Given its imminent launch, there are no changes planned for the upcoming Artemis II mission. In fact, had there not been delays in getting the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket ready for launch, the mission would have already flown by now. Given how slow the gears of government tend to turn, one wonders if the original plan was to announce these program revisions after the conclusion of the mission. The launch is currently slated for April, but could always slip again if more issues arise.
At any rate, the goals for Artemis II have always been fairly well-aligned with its Apollo counterpart, Apollo 8. Just like the 1968 mission, this flight is designed to test the crew capsule and collect real-world experience while in the vicinity of the Moon, but without the added complexity of attempting a landing. Although now, as it was then, the decision to test the crew capsule without its lander wasn’t made purely out of an abundance of caution.
As originally envisioned, Apollo 8 would have seen both the command and service module (CSM) and the lunar module (LM) tested in low Earth orbit. But due to delays in LM production, it was decided to fly the completed CSM without a lander on a modified mission that would put it into orbit around the Moon. This would give NASA an opportunity to demonstrate the critical translunar injection (TLI) maneuver and gain experience operating the CSM in lunar orbit — tasks which were originally scheduled to be part of the later Apollo 10 mission.
In comparison, Artemis II was always intended to be flown with only the Orion crew capsule. NASA’s goal has been to keep the program relatively agnostic when it came to landers, with the hope being that private industry would furnish an array of vehicles from which the agency could chose depending on the mission parameters. The Orion capsule would simply ferry crews to the vicinity of the Moon, where they would transfer over to the lander — either via directly docking, or by using the Lunar Gateway station as a rallying point.
There’s no lander waiting at the Moon for Artemis II, and the fate of Lunar Gateway is still uncertain. But for now, that’s not important. On this mission, NASA just wants to demonstrate that the Orion capsule can take a crew of four to the Moon and bring them back home safely.
Artemis III Kicks the Tires
For Artemis III, the previous plan was to have the Orion capsule mate up with a modified version of SpaceX’s Starship — known in NASA parlance as the Human Landing System (HLS) — which would then take the crew down to the lunar surface. While the HLS contract did stipulate that SpaceX was to perform an autonomous demonstration landing before Artemis III, the aggressive nature of the overall timeline made no provision for testing the lander with a crew onboard ahead of the actual landing attempt — a risky plan even in the best of circumstances.
The newly announced timeline resolves this issue by not only delaying the actual Moon landing until 2028, to take place during Artemis IV, but to change Artemis III into a test flight of the lander from the relative safety of low Earth orbit in 2027. The crew will liftoff from Kennedy Space Center and rendezvous with the lander in orbit. Once docked, the crews will practice maneuvering the mated vehicles and potentially perform an EVA to test Axiom’s space suits.
This new plan closely follows the example of Apollo 9, which saw the CSM and LM tested together in Earth orbit. At this point in the program, the CSM had already been thuroughly tested, but the LM had never flown in space or had a crew onboard. After the two craft docked, the crew performed several demonstrations, such as verifying that the mated craft could be maneuvered with both the CSM and LM propulsion systems.
The two craft then separated, and the LM was flown independently for several hours before once again docking with the CSM. The crew also performed a brief EVA to test the Portable Life Support System (PLSS) which would eventually be used on the lunar surface.
While the Artemis III and Apollo 9 missions have a lot in common, there’s at least one big difference. At this point, NASA isn’t committing to one particular lander. If Blue Origin gets their hardware flying before SpaceX, that’s what they’ll go with. There’s even a possibility, albeit remote, that they could test both landers during the mission.
Artemis IV Takes a Different Path
After the success of Apollo 9, there was consideration given to making the first landing attempt on the following mission. But key members of NASA such as Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft felt there was still more to learn about operating the spacecraft in lunar orbit, and it was ultimately decided to make Apollo 10 a dress rehearsal for the actual landing.
The CSM and LM would head to the Moon, separate, and go through the motions of preparing to land. The LM would begin its descent to the lunar surface, but stop at an altitude of 14.4 kilometers (9 miles). After taking pictures of the intended landing site, it would return to the CSM and the crew would prepare for the return trip to Earth. With these maneuvers demonstrated, NASA felt confident enough to schedule the history-making landing for the next mission, Apollo 11.
But this time around, NASA will take that first option. Rather than do a test run out to the Moon with the Orion capsule and attached lander, the plan is to make the first landing attempt on Artemis IV. This is partially because we now have a more complete understanding of orbital rendezvous and related maneuvers in lunar orbit. But also because by this point, SpaceX and Blue Origin should have already completed their autonomous demonstration missions to prove the capabilities of their respective landers.
Entering Uncharted Territory
At this point, the plans for anything beyond Artemis IV are at best speculative. NASA says they will work to increase mission cadence, which includes streamlining SLS operations so the megarocket can be launched at least once per year, and work towards establishing a permanent presence on the Moon. But of course none of that can happen until these early Artemis missions have been successfully executed. Until then it’s all just hypothetical.
While Apollo was an incredible success, one can only follow its example so far. Despite some grand plans, the program petered out once it was clear the Soviet Union was no longer in the game. It cemented NASA’s position as the preeminent space agency, but the dream of exploring the lunar surface and establishing an outpost remained unfulfilled. With China providing a modern space rival, and commercial partners rapidly innovating, perhaps Artemis may be able to succeed where Apollo fell short.
To be fair to SLS – Its already successfully proven it works, has orbited the moon unmanned, and doesn’t require a crazy refueling scheme like Starship.
SLS has never “orbited the Moon”, it’s a booster rocket. Wild that people will comment without even understanding the basic concepts of the discussion.
I wouldn’t call any senate money smorgasbord a success even if it “works”
SLS only Moon mission with modifications
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38069.0
file:///C:/Users/piw10/Downloads/SLS-Moon-200715.pdf
SLS missions
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Jim-Green-2290242767
file:///C:/Users/piw10/Downloads/SixFutureMissionsfortheNASASLS2025-JAN-19.pdf
Figure 26 has a good Lunar Lander concept
On costs
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3737/1
“The simple fact is that the landers, being built by SpaceX and Blue Origin, won’t be ready in time”
No, the lander being built by SpaceX won’t be ready in time. I hate the fact that people are reporting it this way. SpaceX’s Starship HLS was the lander contracted for Artemis III. Blue Origin’s Blue Moon was the lander contracted for Artemis V. In 2030.
The fact that NASA is now spinning Artemis III as “a rendezvous and docking with one or both commercial landers from SpaceX and Blue Origin” is them tacitly admitting that awarding the Starship HLS contract to SpaceX was crap, but doing it in such a way that it doesn’t torch SpaceX’s contracts. Which, I mean, everyone knew it was crap, but when SpaceX is basically “let us do this or we’ll torch your entire launch infrastructure” what can you do.
It’s really frustrating because if SpaceX had just actually proposed what NASA wanted them to propose (which is what Blue Moon basically is), they’d probably either be on schedule or very close to schedule.
This is revisionist nonsense. Both companies were competing for the same HLS contract, with the same timetable, BM just lost. Now that they have forced their way back into the running, they are supposed to get a pass for not being ready by the original requirement date? Please.
“This is revisionist nonsense.”
There’s literally a lawsuit spelling out the details. SpaceX submitted a bid that was clear nonsense in terms of the total cost and with tremendous risk in schedule. SpaceX admitted that the cost was below-cost for them, but they were willing to absorb it, making it really a cost-share bid. Blue Origin didn’t submit a cost-share bid, and they weren’t given the chance to make it a cost-share bid, hence the lawsuit, which was totally fair – had Blue Origin submitted a cost-share bid, they would’ve won the contract since their schedule risk was far lower (which NASA admitted). When the next round was opened, the bid they submitted was a cost-share bid with near-identical costing.
“they are supposed to get a pass for not being ready by the original requirement date?”
Blue Origin lost the original bid. Why would they need to be ready for the original launch date, with no money contributed by NASA? They got a contract to deliver by 2030. That’s what their schedule is. Their contract was awarded two years after SpaceX’s.
And to be clear – if Blue Origin and SpaceX had proposed the exact same thing, SpaceX would’ve won the bid because they would have less schedule risk (FH already existed). So I’m not saying Blue Origin would’ve made the original date no problem. I’m saying SpaceX would have if it wasn’t for Elon’s Mars fetish.
Bezos and Musk have nearly two trillion bucks, and are behind. SLS was made on flat budgets and is ahead. The MSFC bashers don’t want to acknowledge that fact.
Vulcan should die, an be replaced by Pyrios, so we can kick solid rockets to the curb:
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
Artist impression
https://x.com/brickmack/status/1541137107175055362
I don’t want one cent of my tax dollars going to near trillionaires.
Bezos destroyed Mom & Pop stores and Elon and his gang wants to kill Marshall
None of this is correct.
Blue Moon is not behind. It was contracted for 2030. That’s its damn date. The fact that they’re talking about a Blue Moon demonstrator for Artemis III tells you it’s not behind.
SLS is not ahead of schedule. But it doesn’t matter. SLS is politics, and free money for NASA. This whole “SLS vs SpaceX vs Blue Origin” thing is wacko.
The Artemis III decision is 10000% about SpaceX. They’re not going to be ready, they never were going to be ready, and NASA needs a way to save face for them because it was their questionable decision that even started the discussion.
Nope. Pat got it right. SpaceX’s bid was ridiculous and not a valid effort to develop the HLS. It was just a money grab to further develop something to spam the heavens with Starlink sats. Nothing more.
And yet there is still no option to do it faster… SLS definitely wasn’t going to do it faster.
SLS had to be used. It’s politics, not technical merit, and if you can’t figure out why the US government would want to keep people who build rockets employed and not, say, on the international free market, I don’t know what to tell you.
And SLS isn’t built into the Artemis design. It’s very obvious that if you want to transition away from SLS, you can do that easily. From NASA’s point of view, it’s free money – if they didn’t use SLS, it wouldn’t have gotten funded.
Artemis wouldn’t have slipped its schedule if Starship wasn’t such a mismanaged lemon. 10 launches and it still hasn’t achieved orbit. Focus was put on booster recovery and not on payload delivery/safety.
That is a new and unusual application of the word “mismanaged’
But then again, they are only doing rocket science.
No test was designed to achieve orbit. Several in orbit reignitions for deorbit burns have been demonstrated. Orbit and deorbit capabilities have been demonstrated.
Further, 3 versions of the engines have been made. several revisions of the ship/booster have been made. Its called rapid iteration.
If Starship is mismanaged then what do call SLS ? Started in 2011, it’s flown once. With Orion, it’s 4+ B$ a launch. Despite using Shuttle engines hauled out of storage and SRBs mostly the same as the Shuttle’s, it’s cost over 30 B$ to date. It’s supposed to send just under 60 klbs to the TLI in its present configuration, which is hardly enough to assemble a Moonbase. Consider Apollo J missions sent over 100 klbs to TLI, landing 36 klbs on the Moon. With the proposed more powerful 2nd stage, SLS was to just match the J mission mass to TLI. But that 2nd stage program is cancelled due to cost overuns. And there’s no clear successor to replace it, with who knows what development costs.
If Artemis was just about recreating Apollo “boots on the Moon” and then dropping further goals, SLS might do the job. But Artemis is supposed to do more than that, and should IMO. Recreating Apollo to beat China is a waste of $$$$$s. But a true Moonbase, even without purple wigs, is a more useful step towards using the Moon as a true gateway (not LOP-G) to outer space. And that’s going to require more mass to the Moon. SLS is a dead end, and an expensive one at that. Whether Starship is some form of an answer remains to be seen. Will collosal size beat out mass fraction? Stay tuned in.
“If Starship is mismanaged then what do call SLS ?”
Ask yourself “why would the US be interested in keeping rocket scientists employed” and you’ll get the answer.
Like JPL isn’t Pasadena pork.
Jobs are a good thing:
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-report-shows-nasas-75-6-billion-boost-to-us-economy/
A way for aerospace to have money without wars–I call that a good.
There actually could be a way to get the SLS core (whose apogee is 1,800 km anyway) out to cis-lunar space in one shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0UJ3Xavhg
I mean, it’s not exactly altruism. It’s a huge national security issue.
Artemis had its budget cut and then cut some more and then cut again many times over by the previous administrations. I’ll credit them with actually delivering something on its budget that has been force-cut to its below-minimum kind.
Having said that, NASA is know to breed bureaucracy and extinguish engineering jobs it actually needs; it was quite a slow poke in the 1990s and became even slower since. I am surprised it still attracts talent, though, in all fairness, it became a smaller clone of the UN, easily out-competed by those focusing on engineering challenges first, bureaucrats’ careers second. I’ve already quipped that each and every NASA bureaucrat mistakes itself for The Next Chris Craft, even though it would take few hundred of them just to fill one of the Chris Craft’s shoes.
Imaging complaining about “budget cuts” after you are 30Billion in the hole with 1 launch…
TARP was ~$475 billions wasted bailing out those with plenty of their own moneys to save themselves with. Terrible use of my tax money, and I wish there was a way to claw those back.
NASA invented us computers among other things. Compared with what “other discretionary spending” items are regularly wasted on, it is worthy keeping around, as it regularly spins off technologies/patents for free.
The flack should be directed at the pointless administrators’ career ladders, and not at the engineers who make things happen. That I 100% agree, 3/4 of them could be fired tonight, no impact.
Well said. NASA bashing is all NewSpace fans do–corrosive!
Now while I don’t think Starship could work—I’d like to see SuperHeavy and SLS side by side as a 21st Century ALS
http://www.astronautix.com/a/als.html
No solids
In simple words: Apollo 8 entered a real orbit around the moon.
Artemis 2 will be a simple fly-by. Much easier way for writing off a quick success.
That’s the big question, really. So far, China has kept its promisses.
I have my doubts that US space program has any future.
Too many changes, hostile politics and no real plan.
Some people say the 20th century was the era of the USAand 21th century will be China’s era.
Let’s wait and see. If China wins, it will affect the all of us, not just the US. 😟
I think China space program WILL make big steps leaving the US behind – though, I also suspect it would do better cooperating with India’s space program, and while at it, with the Japan’s one.
Not to point out the obvious, China had quite a head start with all the stuffs russia sold them for pennies. They copied these and improved, and skipped all kinds of growing pains/expenses/mistakes in the process, and now they are clearly going ahead on their own schedule.
I am surprised nothing is parked at the Moon-Earth lagrange point. Yet. That would be the first logical step establishing a permanent low-power outpost (less propellant, etc) that would serve as a jump point, not to mention could store extra fuel for roundtrip heavy rockets. Von Braun, too, thought this was important step, but NASA and Von Braun had different paths, once mission accomplished (to the moon and back) he was basically shoved aside as a major annoyance talking about some silly things like strategic planning, and not political games and/or careers.
Other than that, China may end up mining helium 3, while politicians on Earth are too busy examining the merits of sending woman where man has gone before. Nuclear fusion, yes, it exists, and I suspect it will be China who will make it happen in space, and I’d better stop.
Thanks, you have mentioned some really good points there! 🙂
The CSS is more like MIR than ISS in terms of size and structure, also.
Personally, I’m worried, though, about what happens if China will be too successful.
The country is very modern, eager and has well educated citizens that are kept in line.
However, it also has opposite views to the old west or the former soviet union, even.
Both had some respect for democracy and cared about well being of their citizens.
The soviets, despite being part of a different system, also understood European mentallity and had similar core values.
China by contrast, has more cultural relationships to Korea(s) than us.
The rights and well being of the individual have less priority than the interests of the group.
And that’s worrying, I think. If China expands and the US becomes irrelevant,
then western society nolonger is a partner/rival on eye level with China.
Western society then nolonger has any say when it comes to human rights or labor rights.
To China and other uprising nations, space flight is comparable in importance to establishing a semiconductor industry or being an at*mic power.
That’s one of the reasons why international partnerships are important, I think.
If different nations build something successfully through team work, then this concept will stick
and everyone identifies as a proud member of something bigger (humanity).
It also will build up a certain level of trust and cause mutual respect.
That’s something money ($) alone simply can’t buy.
But if one nation does something all alone all the time,
it may come to the conclusion that it needs no one. Ever.
This might make future partnerships impossible before they even had started.
(As an analogy, let’s think of those “independent” Karens out there that think they need no men.)
That’s why the Apollo-Soyuz or Shuttle-MIR missions and the ISS were so important.
They united different groups and created a feeling of togetherness.
To ordinary citizens on earth that gave hope, too.
If the US was smart, it would at least lend a hand and share some scientific data to help China with its space program.
Or invite Chinese astronauts to a training at NASA etc.
Nothing big or confidental, but as an act of kindness and to pay respect.
A formal congratulation by the US for a successful Chinese mission would also make China notice in a posotive way.
Such little acts of respect (-without making them looking like a weakness-) could be acknowledged by China,
which might relax relationships between these nations.
In the future, if China beats the US, such acts will be remembered, maybe.
In principle, it’s like with Federation vs Romulans or Klingon Empire in fictional ST universe.
Showing professional, respect behavior without admitting weakness leaves a lasting impression. :)
“I am surprised nothing is parked at the Moon-Earth lagrange point.”
You don’t want something there. This is one of those “sci-fi makes it sound super awesome, ten minutes’ thought tells you nope” thing.
L4 and L5 (the stable points) are constantly having objects go through them, and are filled with dust and junk. Because they’re stable. Everything that ends there, stays there. It’s not exactly a safe place to be – you’d have tons of collision issues.
The unstable points (L1/L2/L3) are actually more useful if you’re in an orbit around them. They don’t take a lot of stationkeeping to stay there – the delta-Vs for orbit maintenance are all very small. However, if you’re thinking about it for human lunar purposes, they’re all non-ideal. L2 is out of view of the Earth (the Moon is in the way), L3 is obviously bad (it’s literally the opposite side of the Earth for the Moon), and even L1 is non-ideal since you have extremely limited view of the Moon.
Instead, the better option is exactly what NASA has been trying to do! Stop thinking 2 dimensionally, and realize space is three dimensional. L1 and L2 are on opposite sides of the Moon, which means there must be families of orbits between them perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane. These are called “near-rectilinear halo orbits” – halo orbits because they’re technically halos of the Lagrange points, and near-rectilinear because the orbit is actually somewhat closer to a rectangle than an ellipse. Conceptually, an L1 version is this: Look at the Moon. Draw something like a square around it. Now imagine the square is closer to Earth than the Moon is. That’s something close (it’s not the right shape, but whatever, close enough).
NRHOs are great. They’re easy to maintain, they are always in full view of the Earth (so no comms blackout!) and they have cheap transfers to practically any lunar orbit you want – polar, equatorial, whatever. Because they’re Lagrange halo orbits, they have extremely low delta-V to interplanetary orbits.
The Gateway design wasn’t complicated. And it was a fantastic idea from an infrastructure point of view. There are tons of papers on it. It’s absolutely the right thing to do. And if it hadn’t been for SpaceX basically punting on a simple design in favor of Elon’s fever dream, it’d probably be almost done by now.
Guess this just goes to show how rapidly 60’s NASA did it. If Artemis I was like the uncrewed Apollo 6, then between then and today’s date there would be enough time to do 9 crewed missions, including 7 trips to the moon and 4 landings. Only 2 more landings would remain. And people say Starship’s development is fast.
From a leaked 2021 Elon Musk email to SpaceX employees:
“The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can’t fly Starship, which means we then can’t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong.”
Note the “Pez dispenser” for those v2 Starlinks in the prototypes being launched.
Starship is intended to be a Starlink v2/3 lifter.
It is not even remotely a good choice for manned lunar landings let alone Mars landings and its not just the number of tanker missions:
According to NASA, how many in orbit refueling and tanker missions would be required for a Starship to land on the moon.
Grok 3 AI:
According to NASA estimates for SpaceX’s Starship Human Landing System (HLS) as part of the Artemis program, a lunar mission requires approximately 15 to 20 total launches to enable the vehicle to reach the Moon and land. This includes 1 propellant depot launch, 1 HLS vehicle launch, and 13 to 18 tanker missions to transfer propellant to the depot (with the exact number depending on factors like boil-off rates, tanker payload efficiency, and launch cadence). The HLS mission profile involves landing on the lunar surface and returning to lunar orbit (a near-rectilinear halo orbit, or NRHO) to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft
What was the earliest date projected by Musk that an unmanned Starship would land on the moon?
Grok 3 AI:
In late 2021, Musk and associated announcements (including from NASA Administrator Bill Nelson relaying SpaceX plans) indicated SpaceX was targeting an uncrewed Starship HLS lunar landing as early as late 2023, with a crewed landing potentially following in late 2024. This was part of the initial aggressive schedule after NASA awarded SpaceX the Artemis Human Landing System (HLS) contract in April 2021. Musk himself echoed similarly ambitious near-term lunar goals during that period, though he focused more publicly on Mars at the time.
Did the person who chose or recommended SpaceX for the Artemis HLS contract later go on to work for SpaceX?
Grok 3 AI:
Yes, there is a notable example of this revolving door phenomenon in connection with the Artemis Human Landing System (HLS) contract awarded to SpaceX.
Kathy Lueders served as NASA’s Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations (and previously for Space Operations) at the time of the April 2021 HLS award decision. In that role, she was the Source Selection Authority (SSA) who ultimately selected SpaceX (via Starship HLS) for the $2.89 billion Option A contract to develop the human lunar lander for Artemis III. She publicly announced and endorsed the selection, stating it advanced NASA’s goals for the Artemis program.
After retiring from NASA in April 2023 (after over 30 years with the agency), Lueders joined SpaceX in May 2023 as General Manager at Starbase (the company’s Starship development and testing site in South Texas). She reported directly to SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell and worked on Starship-related efforts—including aspects tied to the HLS program she had previously overseen from the NASA side. She held that position until retiring from SpaceX in May 2025.
About this change in mission design, they apparently listened to this engineer and fixed it as much as they could with already contracted hardware. They can’t fix Orion’s dangerously long lunar orbit simply because it doesn’t have the required delta-V for a low, circular orbit:
I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA… (But I said it anyway) – Smarter Every Day 293
SmarterEveryDay
11.8M subscribers
4,748,570 views – Dec 3, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
Americans and the world quickly got bored of Apollo missions. It took Apollo 13 to get them briefly interested again. So don’t claim that manned programs are required to maintain public interest. On the other hand, I and many others based upon unmanned mission web site hits which have set NASA/JPL records never get tired of seeing new worlds through robotic eyes and if we weren’t wasting 50% of NASA’s budget on human spaceflight we’d have seen many more of them by now.
Humans haven’t been back to the moon since Apollo simply because it’s not worth the huge cost of doing so as its main purpose is political penis waiving which was 99% of the reason for the Apollo Program. Scientifically or commercially it can’t be even remotely justified.
Now, even though we beat China to the moon 57 YEARS AGO, lobbyists and their politicians have come up with Moon Race v2.0, this time with China, with a $4.1 BILLION per launch SLS as one of the products. To put the far too casually thrown around “billion dollars” figure into perspective, that $4.1 billion is a stack of crisp, new $100 bills 14,691 feet high. Laid end to end, those bills would stretch about 3,973 miles. For $1 bills, multiply those figures by 100.
Book: The End of Astronauts: Why Robots are the Future of Exploration. (2022)
Please let’s don’t throw the rest of the world and Americans in same pot.
Here in western Europe we had a general interest in science and space exploration, I think.
We didn’t need constant amount of action and one spectacular event after another in order to not get numb.
Our TV landscape and media was different to the US,
our parents watched “boring” news on TV on purpose every evening.
Some carefully listened to news on radio on a daily basis, too.
Apollo never was boring to them, as far as I understand.
Boy, what a language and what a tone! 😮💨
Anyway.. Robotic missions do help little to prepare for colonization of space.
Humans do want to “go out there” and explorere. They did that here on earth for millennia.
In order for humanity to evolve and survive, it might be necessary to leave the nest and find a new home.
Projects to terraform other planets or to build colonies in hostile places can make discoveries to eventually help to heal earth, too.
But I assume you may already know this aspect of manned missions, but reject the idea because it bothers you for some reasons.
Fine. Then why even bother? Let China colonize the solar system, you guys can save the Dollars and lean back.
It might be a win-win situation to everyone, right? ;)
Propaganda, wishful thinking or hypothesis? 🤔
“Now, even though we beat China to the moon 57 YEARS AGO…”
Do you mean Russia/USSR?
“For $1 bills, multiply those figures by 100.”
WAIT!, (gets out calculator) there’s 100 1$ in $100!? WHAAAAAAT! mind=blown ;)
The engineer in the SmarterEveryDay video points out that the decision makers at NASA apparently hadn’t read this:
“NASA SP-287, titled ‘What Made Apollo a Success?’, is a 1971 NASA Special Publication compiling eight articles (originally from the March 1970 issue of Astronautics & Aeronautics) by key figures like George M. Low, discussing factors behind the Apollo program’s success, including design simplicity, testing, crew training, flight control, and mission planning.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19720005243/downloads/19720005243.pdf
FFS, you don’t want a low circular orbit. The advantages of the NRHO architecture are huge. It’s not useful for just lunar missions – it’s a waypoint at the top of the gravity well, and you can kick cubesats to damn Jupiter by throwing them out the airlock.
The architecture’s a good idea.
If a profitable commercial use for the moon is ever found will it most likely be accomplished robotically with oversight control from Earth?
Grok 3 AI:
Yes, if a profitable commercial use for the Moon emerges, it will most likely be accomplished primarily robotically, with oversight and control from Earth (and potentially from nearby orbital or surface human outposts in later stages).
The leading candidates for profitability on the Moon involve resource extraction and in-situ utilization (ISRU), such as:
Mining water ice (for fuel, life support, or export as propellant).
Extracting helium-3 (for potential future fusion energy).
Harvesting rare earth elements, platinum-group metals, or other minerals from regolith.
Processing regolith for construction materials, oxygen production, or building infrastructure.
These activities are repetitive, hazardous, energy-intensive, and occur in an extremely harsh environment (vacuum, temperature extremes, dust, radiation, low gravity). They align closely with tasks that robotics excel at: continuous 24/7 operation without life support needs, no risk to human life, lower overall costs (no transport of food, air, radiation shielding, or return trips for crews), and scalability through fleets of machines.
Current trends strongly support this:
NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program relies entirely on private companies sending robotic landers and rovers to deliver payloads, scout resources, and test ISRU—explicitly building toward a commercial lunar economy.
Concepts for lunar mining bases emphasize autonomous robot teams or teleoperated systems for excavation, hauling, processing, and construction, often reducing energy and cost needs dramatically compared to human-tended operations.
Studies and proposals (including from academic and industry sources) highlight that permanent operations like mining or large-scale infrastructure will use automated/tele-operated machines, with humans in supervisory roles from safer locations (Earth initially, then perhaps cislunar orbit or shielded lunar habitats).
While humans offer advantages in adaptability, improvisation, and complex decision-making (e.g., for unexpected geological finds or repairs), the economics favor minimizing human presence for routine profitable work. ******Sending and sustaining people multiplies costs exponentially******, while robotic systems can be iterated, repaired remotely, or replaced affordably. Early profitable phases would almost certainly be robotic-first, with humans arriving later for high-level oversight, maintenance of complex systems, or expansion into new ventures (e.g., tourism, research outposts).
Hybrid models—human-machine teaming—are the realistic long-term vision, where robots handle the bulk of labor and humans provide strategic direction. But for the initial profitable breakthrough, especially resource extraction to kickstart a lunar economy, robotics with Earth-based control is the clear frontrunner due to cost, safety, and feasibility.
Do current efforts to develop helium 3 mining on the moon require humans on the moon with the mining hardware?
Grok 3 AI:
No, current efforts to develop helium-3 mining on the Moon do not require humans on the Moon with the mining hardware. All prominent active proposals and company plans emphasize fully robotic or autonomous systems, with operations controlled remotely from Earth (or potentially from future orbital assets), due to the high costs, risks, and technical challenges of human presence.
Key examples from leading players include:
Interlune (a prominent U.S. startup focused on helium-3 for quantum computing applications): Their approach relies on autonomous robotic harvesters—boxy, vehicle-sized machines that scoop, heat/process regolith (lunar soil), extract the gas, and redeposit waste material. They’ve built and unveiled full-scale prototypes (e.g., in collaboration with Vermeer), capable of processing ~100 metric tons of regolith per hour. Plans include a prospecting/resource assessment mission around 2027, a pilot harvesting operation by ~2029, and scaling to fleets of 5+ machines—all designed to operate without on-site humans. The abrasive, dusty lunar environment makes human-tended hardware impractical, so autonomy is core to their design.
Black Moon Energy (another U.S. company targeting helium-3 for fusion energy): In early 2026, they announced a robotic lunar mission in partnership with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to gather data, test operations, and de-risk future production. This includes robotic systems for extraction experiments and resource mapping, explicitly framed as a step toward production without mentioning human surface presence.
Magna Petra (with Japanese partner ispace): They’re developing non-destructive, sustainable extraction tech for regolith to harvest helium-3, with planned demonstration missions (potentially as early as 2025 using ispace landers). Focus is on robotic mobility, collection, and validation—no human operators on the surface.
Broader context from scientific, governmental, and industry sources (including NASA/Artemis-related discussions, ESA concepts, and expert analyses) consistently highlights that lunar resource extraction like helium-3 mining will start with—and largely rely on—intensive robotic operations. Challenges such as regolith’s abrasiveness (which clogs machinery), vacuum conditions evaporating lubricants, radiation, temperature extremes, and Earth-Moon communication delays (~1.3 seconds one-way) make real-time human control difficult and full autonomy/teleoperation preferable. Human presence would multiply costs (life support, radiation shielding, transport) and risks unnecessarily for repetitive mining tasks.
While long-term visions (e.g., sustained lunar bases under Artemis or China’s programs) include humans for oversight, complex repairs, or expansion, no current helium-3-specific mining development mandates or plans for humans to be physically present with the hardware during extraction phases. The emphasis remains on robotic fleets, remote oversight, and eventual return of extracted material to Earth.
In short, these efforts align with the broader trend toward robotic-first commercial lunar activities: humans stay on Earth (or in orbit later) while machines do the heavy lifting.
Reminds me of a scene of an episode of 1960s Star Trek,
in which the character of Dr. Daystrom imagined a world of robotic space vessels operated by AI,
so that humans nolonger would have to risk life in space.
The captain didn’t like the idea to be replaced by a machine that has no human traits.
Same time, he wondered if he was upholding progress by that thinking.
It’s interesting how far writers in the 1960s were thinking about this.
Or maybe not. Maybe it’s us who have lowered our standards?
Here we are in 2026 and ask AI if robots should take over our jobs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Z18LIk_8s
A robot certainly would need lots of care when deployed on the moon, it would need shielding for its electronics, it would need heating to not get wrecked in the lunar nights, it would need to deal with dust causing damage to it, and of course if on batteries would need constant pauses to recharge.
And we don’t even have such robots.
And for building the kind of structures envisioned you would need more than a small robot, you need big diggers and bulldozers, designed to operate in reduced gravity with reduced maintenance.
What
wethey have though is small boxeswethey try to land on the moon, and half the time it works!Addendum:
In that sense Musk is right that to get sustained development and structures you need a whopping big spaceship to transport stuff.
I just hope he never succeeds in getting it working.
Not because it is Musk, but because I actively do not want permanently to have humans and freaking (super-rich) tourists, on the moon. I find the thought quite repelling.
This is not true, actually. The Artemis architecture was designed for a Falcon Heavy, not Starship, and the key to it was Gateway.
Gateway wasn’t a political thing. It’s not a boondoggle. It’s not silliness. It’s a way station that’s essentially sitting at a Lagrange point (it’s an NRHO, but NRHOs are Lagrange halo orbits and better than Lagrange point stations).
The media coverage on this is so bad. I wish people would read the actual NASA papers on this stuff. Gateway would have been sustainable with FH launches and it would have allowed for a reasonable infrastructure buildup in deep space that would have been fantastic.
Starship is about Elon’s silly Mars fascination. You don’t reach the stars with a huge ass rocket. You reach the stars with infrastructure buildup.
Gateway could be part of the Mars Basecamp deal, perhaps?
I like the MADV better than Starship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEhkxp1WRmM
Speaking of Starship:
https://phys.org/news/2026-03-europe-starship.html
Gateway has a ludicrously tiny delta-V to like, anywhere. It was named that for a reason.
Obviously if you’re launching heavy stuff from Earth you want to go straight there. But if you have a Mars campaign, for instance, you also would want to start developing a satellite constellation for imaging, monitoring, comms, etc.
And you could launch cubesats to Mars as rideshares to Gateway and they wouldn’t need anything other than simple propulsion. Along with deep space science stuff as well.
Plus you could also just ship fuel there and leave it for staging for other missions. It’s a good idea.
If Starship HLS has to get from Earth to Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit, pick up astronauts, land and return from the moon to NRHO, why do you even need the SLS? Just build Starship HLS a tad bigger to hold a little more fuel to get the required delta-v to go from NRHO back to Earth, and you do it all on Starship…
Launch your dozen tanker Starships to fill up the orbital depot Starship, then launch your Starship HLS with astronauts to dock with the orbital depot Starship, refuel, land on the moon, and come back to Earth.
Sigh.
SLS is politics. It exists for other reasons. It’s free. Ignore it. Yes, you can replace it. You could’ve replaced it with something much simpler than Starship. Ignore that.
You’re actually trying to combine two things. SLS launches Orion, which is the crew capsule. It doesn’t have to be SLS. They likely could’ve used Falcon Heavy with a modified fairing. That was likely what NASA wanted to happen eventually, but SpaceX doesn’t really care about FH and they screwed up the whole damn program.
Starship as a lunar lander is fine (ish), because it doesn’t have to reenter. Starship as a human transport vehicle is far, far away from that. Like, probably a decade, at least.
Again: SLS is politics. It exists for other reasons. Orion is different – it’s a good idea, a solid crew module that you launch separately to get the humans there fast. It doesn’t have to be launched by SLS.
The point is that if you’re using the Starship HLS you don’t need Orion. With the 15 or so refueling launches you need to get Starship HLS to the moon and back up to lunar orbit you can just add another to get the fuel it needs to return the crew to Earth. And why have it go to the moon empty? It can take the crew there instead of making them ride Orion. Then you don’t need a spacewalk or whatever to transfer the crew from Orion to Starship and back. SLS/Orion’s advantage over Starship is that it doesn’t need refueling, which begs the question why Starship then at all? Or why not send the Starship HLS to the moon on a Falcon Heavy? The entire project looks like rubber bands and bailing wire, from using reusable shuttle engines once and throwing them away to needing 18 Starship launches to get the HLS in lunar orbit with enough fuel to land and return.
As an aside, how many Starship launches will it take to get one Starship to Mars? Musk is nuts.
No. HLS is the lander. It’s not designed for Earth reentry with humans.
And no, the fact that Elon thinks it is doesn’t mean it is. The amount of time it would take to make it viable for NASA to use it would be easily a decade.
Actually I should say Earth reentry or launch. Human rating a launch takes a long time and a lot of design effort.
HLS is a Starship. It’s designed for a trip to Mars and back, surely it can return to Earth.
And you haven’t addressed the issue of the multiple refueling flights. Again, why not send a fully fueled HLS to the moon on a Falcon Heavy?
No! It can’t! Not with humans!
HLS is not Starship. It’s modified for a lunar landing. They want Starship to be a human rated craft for launch and landing. It isn’t. That would take way, way more time, if it ever becomes possible.
The idea that Starship is this one size fits all thing is Elon’s fever dream, not reality.
Ok, but why does the moon lander have airbrakes?