Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/04/2026 9:14:03 AM PST by citizen
NASA has repaired its Artemis 2 rocket, apparently keeping things on track for a possible April launch of the first crewed moon mission in more than 50 years.
Engineers made a fix that aims to restore consistent helium flow to the upper stage of Artemis 2's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, agency officials announced in an update on Tuesday (March 3).
"Work on the rocket and spacecraft will continue in the coming weeks as NASA prepares for rolling the rocket out to the launch pad again later this month ahead of a potential launch in April," NASA wrote in the update. ------------------
The next Artemis 2 launch window opens in April, with liftoff opportunities on April 1, April 3-6 and April 30. And those options apparently remain in play, thanks to recent work in the VAB.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“This latest Artemis 2 news follows a bigger announcement — that NASA is restructuring the Artemis program. For example, Artemis 3 will no longer be the first mission in the program to land astronauts on the moon; that will now be Artemis 4, which is targeted to fly in 2028. Artemis 3 will stay in Earth orbit and feature a rendezvous between Orion and one or both of the private moon landers that NASA has contracted for the Artemis program.”
I am looking this minute at a Space X image of the Space X Moon lander piggy-backed to Starship. The lander stack is about the same length as Starship. I was wondering how the lander got to the Moon.
This is from a NASA/NSF reel. I can’t copy the pic.
Following is the Facebook URL:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2372870969895843
Reel TEXT:
Ship 39 finally came out to play, rolling to Masseys for its cryogenic proof testing campaign, ahead of Starship Flight 12… but why is it on the static fire stand? Does that mean it has engines?! Meanwhile, Ship 40 has received its transfer tubes and is nearing the end of its stacking operations. Booster 19’s static fire may be happening sooner than we think. And Starship HLS will NOT land on the moon for Artemis III??
Check out everything going on in the Starship program, from Starbase to the Space Coast of Florida, on this week’s Starship Update (Mar 2, 2026), hosted by Max Evans. Click the link in the comments below for the full video. 👇
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ84Fw40nnw
The audio on my system is so garbled I can barely understand words so I don’t usually play a lot of vids with the audio.
I’ll try this one, above. 21:38 minutes.
> I was wondering how the lander got to the Moon.
It hasn’t yet. I’d guess that there will be an unmanned landing and return test within 12 months, perhaps before the end of 2026.
Hope they use Lock-Tight when they hook up those fuel lines this time.
Well shucks. With enough helium they could float off the pad.
Thanks, my wrong word: got = gets
Yes, they have to get Starship first to orbit and then perfect the in-orbit refueling. I am guessing a Falcon or a Falcon Heavy will be used to boost the fuel fuel ship to orbit.
The coming months will be exciting!
I reckon they also have to get Starship back via a successful de-orbit landing before they can try the Moon flight.
I wouldn’t get on that thing anymore...
do an unmanned mission first. with test animals
For this Artemis flight, I would be sure to take my lucky rabbit’s foot 👍
Gosh…it’s seems more difficult to land on the moon these days.
.
The heavy booster that lifts the Starship will be used. The tanker is to be a special crewless version of Starship.
Falcon Heavy has become crazy cheap — more than twice the payload capacity of the discontinued Delta 4 Heavy, but even in expendible mode (which maxes the mass budget and costs more) the Falcon 9 runs less than half the lowest cost of the D4H, which explains why the D4H was retired.
The Super Heavy will do 100-150 tons to LEO, or 250-300 tons if done expendible, compared with around 70 tons max (expendible) for the Falcon Heavy.
Historically, the Falcon Heavy’s payload capacity is roughly equivalent to Korolev’s failed N1 lunar mission booster; hypothetically the N1 was to put up to 90-95 tons to orbit, but realistically it wouldn’t have had that much payload capacity. Even had it succeeded (four failed test over a period of years, if memory serves), it was going to take two basically simultaneous launches to do each lunar mission.
The lander would go unmanned to lunar orbit, and two cosmonauts would go into a similar lunar orbit. There wasn’t enough in the mass budget for a docking module, so the lone cosmonaut would have to do an untethered space walk to the lander, get in, lock down, power up, do the landing, plant the flag, broadcast a live message to the USSR’s public, then climb back in, take off, rendezvous with his comrade, another space walk, then button down and return to Earth.
The Falcon Heavy could deliver such a lander to lunar orbit. Another FH launch could deliver a crewed vehicle. Both vehicles would have a docking module (so no untethered space walks). Etcetera. Given the launch cadence of SpaceX using their standard F9s (they did a twofer within hours just the other day), I see no reason to doubt that they could pull this off, and probably have that plan at least on the drawing board.
Thanks! That tells me a lot. (I typed the following so I’m going to post it anyway, even tho you have answered some of it :)
Per the linked NSF video from above, even Space X will be a while landing humans on the Moon. To do:
—Successfully orbit and land a Starship
—Successfully refuel a Moon-targeted Starship in orbit, which requires orbiting the fuel vehicle(s)
—Launch and test-mate (& unmate) HLS to the Moon version of Starship. And some manned habitation/testing of HLS somewhere along the way in Earth orbit would seem advisable.
—Successfully land and return to earth orbit an unmanned Space X lander (HLS). Specially mentioned is the hazard of physically landing the tall HLS vehicle, with a 6h:1w ratio, on the Moon’s surface. Can’t have it falling over! Especially if it is manned. They do have the Apollo landings that provide vehicle landing and Moon surface experience.
I am unclear on the process of getting astronauts into and out of the HLS. There has to be some transfer from Starship into HLS and back again after leaving the surface of the Moon. Docking or EVA? .
Musk is so amazing! I read he (Space X) built/budgeted four Falcon launch vehicles. I presume they learned from the first three launch failures; the fourth Falcon flew properly.
The story is Space X would have gone bankrupt if all the Falcons had failed. I suspect Musk would have somehow gotten the funding to continue...but that is the story.
Musk doesn’t like to expend vehicles.
Rank speculation: I wonder if they may eventually have a HLS booster designed for bringing it back to Earth orbit for it to be inspected somehow, refueled and reused? Maybe sufficient instrumentation would negate the need for manual inspection.
How about the crew & cargo sections? Musk envisions many thousands, maybe millions of tons of equipment and cargo transfered. Reusable crew section and a disposable cargo portion loaded each time on Earth...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.