We'll have to wait a bit longer to see the first crewed moon mission since the Apollo era lift off.
NASA announced today (Dec. 5) that it's delaying the planned launch of Artemis 2, a flight that will send four people around the moon and back, from September 2025 to April 2026. And Artemis 3, a crewed moon landing that had been targeted for late 2026, is now scheduled for mid-2027. The extra time is needed primarily to finish prepping the Orion capsule for its first-ever crewed flights, according to NASA officials.
"Space is demanding," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said during a press conference today. "And we, and our industry and international partners, need this time to make sure that the Orion capsule is ready to safely deliver our astronauts to deep space and back to Earth."
Orion has two flights under its belt to date — a brief jaunt to Earth orbit in 2014 and the 25-day-long Artemis 1, an uncrewed test mission that sent the capsule to lunar orbit and back to Earth in late 2022.
Related: Artemis 1: 10 wild facts about the NASA moon mission
Everything appeared to go well on Artemis 1. However, postflight analyses revealed that Orion's heat shield wore away more unevenly during its reentry to Earth's atmosphere than engineers had predicted. Temperatures inside Orion remained near room temperature, meaning that astronauts would have remained safe, had any been aboard. But engineers needed to figure out what happened — and they've now come to some conclusions, NASA officials announced in today's press conference.
The uneven ablation was a consequence of Orion's "skip" reentry trajectory, in which the capsule bounced off the atmosphere and then came back in again. This strategy is required to dissipate the tremendous energy associated with high-speed returns from the moon, NASA officials said, but it had an unexpected downside on Artemis 1.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
"While the capsule was dipping in and out of the atmosphere as part of that planned skip entry, heat accumulated inside the heat shield outer layer, leading to gases forming and becoming trapped inside the heat shield," NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy said today. "This caused internal pressure to build up and led to cracking and uneven shedding of that outer layer."
Further study has shown that Orion's heat shield will be able to protect astronauts on the 10-day-long Artemis 2, she and others announced during the press conference; a new version doesn't need to be developed for the coming crewed mission. But planners will alter the reentry trajectory to minimize the issues experienced during Artemis 1.
"For Artemis 2, engineers will limit how long Orion spends in the temperature range in which the Artemis 1 heat shield phenomenon occurred by modifying how far Orion can fly between when it enters Earth atmosphere and lands," NASA officials wrote in an Artemis FAQ that was published today.
That revised trajectory will also bring the Artemis 2 Orion down in the Pacific Ocean closer to San Diego than previously planned, meaning it will be easier to get help to the mission's four astronauts if anything goes wrong during reentry.
Artemis 2 likely would've been delayed by a year or so, to late 2026, had a heat-shield replacement been required, NASA officials said today. But the mission team still needs more time than originally envisioned to get Orion up to crew-carrying speed, explaining the roughly six-month push.
"The updated timeline for the Artemis 2 flight is informed by technical issues engineers are troubleshooting, including with an Orion battery issue and its environmental control [life-support] system," NASA officials wrote in the Artemis FAQ. "The heat shield was installed in June 2023, and the root cause investigation took place in parallel to other assembly and testing activities to preserve as much schedule as possible."
Related: NASA's Artemis program: Everything you need to know
Artemis 3's timeline is likewise informed by numerous factors — perhaps even more of them, given the increased complexity of the mission.
For example, the current plan calls for the involvement of SpaceX's Starship megarocket, whose upper-stage spacecraft will serve as the Artemis 3 lunar lander. Starship is still in development, with just six test flights under its belt, though the last few of these missions have gone very well.
The newly revised Artemis 3 timeline still keeps the United States ahead of China, which has said it plans to land astronauts on the moon by 2030. Both nations are targeting the lunar south pole, which is thought to be rich in water ice, a crucial resource for a settlement or research outpost.
Nelson has said repeatedly that the U.S. needs to establish its lunar toehold first, so China cannot establish norms and practices on the moon — which could include barring other nations from certain areas. And the NASA chief said today that he thinks the U.S. is in good shape to be the lunar leader.
"I think we are handing to the new administration a safe and reliable way forward for us, which is to go back to the moon, get there before China, to have a presence in cislunar [Earth-moon space] — which is important to our country, other than NASA — and to be on the way of 'moon to Mars,'" Nelson said. "And I think we've got that wrapped up with a bow, and I think it's on its way."
Editor's note: This story was corrected at 11:50 p.m. ET on Dec. 5 to state that the Orion capsule has two test flights under its belt — Artemis 1 and a mission to Earth orbit in 2014.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.
-
fj.torres There is a recurring scenario in SF of a colonization STL generation ship arriving at its target planet only to find it already colonized via FTL. (Most recently as a sidequest in the STARFIELD RPG.) New tech always upstages the old ways. It's the circle of life, tech division.Reply
The entire Artemis project is now at risk of being rendered obsolete--from the mobile launcher to the Gateway lunar space station--by STARSHIP derivatives.
Dear Moon may be cancelled but the POLARIS crewed moon mission hasn't and a key milestone of HLS is an unmanned demo landing. If ARTEMIS and its "best 20th century tech" project slips much more it might be superseded by a private crewed lunar landing in 2027-28.
Too much of ARTEMIS is based on political considerations to support friends of the party old space companies instead of targeting emerging off the shelf New Space solutions. The existing three part Artemis model of Orion/SLS, GATEWAY, and HLS can be easily replaced by a DRAGON/FALCON, HLS LEO docking solution.
Like it or not the unavoidable part of any US lunar landing project is HLS. And once HLS is validated, everything else becomes optional. And as long as NASA limits its lunar missions to 4-7 member crews, HLS+ Dragon is a much more cost-effective solution than ORION/SLS + HLS lunar rendezvous.
For that matter, the ORION heat shield quality control is suspect, an easy fix to ARTEMIS 2 is to change the Orion return to a LEO rendezvous ISS docking. Then the ORION can return unmanned and the crew can ride a Dragon back to Earth. It could even become common practice for Old Space companies. 😎
EDITED for acronym surgery. -
orsobubu
HLM? I knew there was the starship HLS.fj.torres said:There is a recurring scenario in SF of a colonization STL generation ship arriving at its target planet only to find it already colonized via FTL. (Most recently as a sidequest in the STARFIELD RPG.) New tech always upstages the old ways. It's the circle of life, tech division.
The entire Artemis project is now at risk of being rendered obsolete--from the mobile launcher to the Gateway lunar space station--by STARSHIP derivatives.
Dear Moon may be cancelled but the POLARIS crewed moon mission hasn't and a key milestone of HLM is an unmanned demo landing. If ARTEMIS and its "best 20th century tech" project slips much more it might be superseded by a private crewed lunar landing in 2027-28.
Too much of ARTEMIS is based on political considerations to support friends of the party old space companies instead of targeting emerging off the shelf New Space solutions. The existing three part Artemis model of Orion/SLS, GATEWAY, and HLM can be easily replaced by a DRAGON/FALCON, HLM LEO docking solution.
Like it or not the unavoidable part of any US lunar landing project is HLM. And once HLM is validated, everything else becomes optional. And as long as NASA limits its lunar missions to 4-7 member crews, HLM + Dragon is a much more cost-effective solution than ORION/SLS + HLM lunar rendezvous.
For that matter, the ORION heat shield quality control is suspect, an easy fix to ARTEMIS 2 is to change the Orion return to a LEO rendezvous ISS docking. Then the ORION can return unmanned and the crew can ride a Dragon back to Earth. It could even become common practice for Old Space companies. 😎
Don't you think that there is a serious possibility that a fatal accident occurr during the many stages of starship trip to the moon, ie the tenth of fuel loading manouvers?
Another thing about artemis, it is strange to me the problem to the orion ablation system, since the reentering scenario should have been well known and all of technical issues already fixed after so many successfull missions during the apollo era, when every challenge was so brilliantly worked out in a matter of months after the apollo 1 disaster.... -
George²
These many stages are non understandable for me. Why? Moon has weak gravity. Distance Earth to Moon is so short.orsobubu said:during the many stages of starship trip to the moon, -
fj.torres
That is FUD.George² said:These many stages are non understandable for me. Why? Moon has weak gravity. Distance Earth to Moon is so short.
Musk debunked it right away.
First of all, they're extrapolating off the First gen *prototypes*. The final version will have much power engines and bigger tanks.
HLS will be a *derivative* of the latter.
Second, no; HLS won't need full tanks for its planned Artemis 3 mission since NASA plans to abandon it (and probably crash it) after the astronauts return to ORION.
Third, it is now official that Spacex will be maintaining an orbital fuel depot so HLS will only need to fuel up *once*. And since it will be unmanned at the time, no risk to humans.
SpaceX needs to first, unveil the final HLS, then fly it to the moon and land it, unmanned, and take off from the moon. Then they get their money. It is way to early to judge what the full process will involve.
Once that is known, then the critics can chime in.
But until then, nobody knows how many launches will be needed for the depot, much less HLS.
All we know is that when debunking the blue origin lawsuit claim of 14 flights and docking he said HLS will only need maybe a quarter of the earth launch fuel for its moon mission. Not 14, not 10 dockings. Just one. -
fj.torres
Yeah, HLS. Oopsie.orsobubu said:HLM? I knew there was the starship HLS.
Don't you think that there is a serious possibility that a fatal accident occurr during the many stages of starship trip to the moon, ie the tenth of fuel loading manouvers?
Another thing about artemis, it is strange to me the problem to the orion ablation system, since the reentering scenario should have been well known and all of technical issues already fixed after so many successfull missions during the apollo era, when every challenge was so brilliantly worked out in a matter of months after the apollo 1 disaster....
Got the soon to dead SLM, the launch mount, on the brain. 🙄
That is $2B in savings right there.
And you are right: there is no reason for the ablative shields to be a problem since it is 60's tech. That is why I assume it is a quality control problem: all the panels that build up the full heat shield did not ablate equally. So either the capsule was not facing a uniform plasma flow or the ablative material composition is not uniform. Ergo: not manufactured correctly. -
orsobubu
thankyou for clarifing the refueling issue; probably i missed the reply by spacexfj.torres said:Yeah, HLS. Oopsie.
Got the soon to dead SLM, the launch mount, on the brain. 🙄
That is $2B in savings right there.
And you are right: there is no reason for the ablative shields to be a problem since it is 60's tech. That is why I assume it is a quality control problem: all the panels that build up the full heat shield did not ablate equally. So either the capsule was not facing a uniform plasma flow or the ablative material composition is not uniform. Ergo: not manufactured correctly. -
fj.torres
Here is the Musk reply to the blue origin claim:orsobubu said:thankyou for clarifing the refueling issue; probably i missed the reply by spacex
https://www.universetoday.com/152220/musk-says-that-refueling-starship-for-lunar-landings-will-take-8-launches-maybe-4/
8 (first gen prototypes) to refill the tanks to full, 4 to half.
And if anything, full tanks would be carrying unnecessary fuel mass to the moon.
An interesting choice down the line might be two sets of tanks used for fuel to LEO. Only one set gets refueled to the moon and the second set can be reused as useful volume for lunar water storage. or useful volume if its mean to serve as a moon base for a long duration mission. Sealed volume is priceless on a spacecraft. -
starman2 The Gateway lunar space station should be deployed as soon as possible, which could be the best way to access the Moon. If they are viewing the lunar space station as "token" - I think it is the other way around - a space station is necessity. It will act as a main transportation hub, docking incoming spacecraft, and descending astronauts (and equipment) to the Moon via docked lunar landers. A direct landing via Starship is okay, and it can carry-on independently (help with the bulk of equipment) but I don't think it is the first choice for deploying astronauts.Reply -
George²
In some other forums has commentators which opinion is that plans for gateway must be rejected.starman2 said:The Gateway lunar space station should be deployed as soon as possible, which could be the best way to access the Moon. If they are viewing the lunar space station as "token" - I think it is the other way around - a space station is necessity. It will act as a main transportation hub, docking incoming spacecraft, and descending astronauts (and equipment) to the Moon via docked lunar landers. A direct landing via Starship is okay, and it can carry-on independently (help with the bulk of equipment) but I don't think it is the first choice for deploying astronauts. -
fj.torres
A lunar Space Station? Yes, by all means.starman2 said:The Gateway lunar space station should be deployed as soon as possible, which could be the best way to access the Moon. If they are viewing the lunar space station as "token" - I think it is the other way around - a space station is necessity. It will act as a main transportation hub, docking incoming spacecraft, and descending astronauts (and equipment) to the Moon via docked lunar landers. A direct landing via Starship is okay, and it can carry-on independently (help with the bulk of equipment) but I don't think it is the first choice for deploying astronauts.
The current design, no.
Too small, too limited.
The thing might not even be able to safely dock with HLS.
Any space station, whether lunar, LEO, or GEO (also needed) needs to be bigger than a starship useful volume. Otherwise, why bother? One could modify a starship with solar panels and extended life support and park it in the right orbit for a few years.