TexAgs91 said:ABATTBQ11 said:
That's a real black eye for Boeing
Not just BoeingQuote:
But as NASA, we managed the contract. We accepted the vehicle. We launched the crew. We made decisions from docking through post-mission actions. A considerable portion of the responsibility and accountability rests here.
Ag_of_08 said:
NASA is a great exploration agency. They, since Apollo ended, have done a piss poor job of managing or supervising the building and launch of rockets( and arguably vehicles, given the 50/50 record the CC and the problems/inadequacies of Artemis) themselves.
AtlAg05 said:
Per NASA after WDR 2, NET March 6th for Artemis II launch.
Quote:
Lol I'm still figuring SLS has a rollback to the VAB in the cards.
I feel sorry for Jared Isaacman having to deal with this total mess, and I am starting to doubt that Artemis will ever reach the Moon. The root of these problems lies with Congress, which, when they approved funding, stipulated that legacy Shuttle technology, parts, and suppliers… https://t.co/RK4VcuqD0f
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) February 21, 2026
Quote:
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman
@NASAAdmin
32m
As an update to my earlier post.
- The ICPS helium bottles are used to purge the engines, as well as for LH2 and LOX tank pressurization. The systems did work correctly during WDR1 and WDR2.
- Last evening, the team was unable to get helium flow through the vehicle. This occurred during a routine operation to repressurize the system.
- We observed a similar failure signature on Artemis I.
- The Artemis II vehicle is in a safe configuration, using ground ECS purge for the engines versus the onboard helium supply.
- Potential faults could include the final filter between the ground and flight vehicle, located on the umbilical, though this seems least likely based on the failure signature. It could also be a failed QD umbilical interface, where similar issues have been observed. It could also be a failed check valve onboard the vehicle, which would be consistent with Artemis I, though corrective actions were taken to minimize reoccurrence on Artemis II.
Regardless of the potential fault, accessing and remediating any of these issues can only be performed in the VAB.
As mentioned previously, we will begin preparations for rollback, and this will take the March launch window out of consideration.
I understand people are disappointed by this development. That disappointment is felt most by the team at NASA, who have been working tirelessly to prepare for this great endeavor. During the 1960s, when NASA achieved what most thought was impossible, and what has never been repeated since, there were many setbacks. One historic example is that Neil Armstrong spent less than 11 hours in space on Gemini 8 before his mission ended prematurely due to a technical issue. A little over three years later, he became the first man to walk on the Moon.
There are many differences between the 1960s and today, and expectations should rightfully be high after the time and expense invested in this program. I will say again, the President created Artemis as a program that will far surpass what America achieved during Apollo. We will return in the years ahead, we will build a Moon base, and undertake what should be continuous missions to and from the lunar environment. Where we begin with this architecture and flight rate is not where it will end.
Please expect a more extensive briefing later this week as we outline the path forward, not just for Artemis II, but for subsequent missions, to ensure NASA meets the President's vision to return to the Moon and, this time, to stay.
nortex97 said:
LOL, next question; how many more roll backs to the VAB are going to happen before this thing launches?
You can definitely see the size difference in the fairings. The first picture is from Dec 18th's launch of "Don't Be Such a Square," and the second is from the WDR of "That's Not a Knife" just a few days ago. You can really see the height difference with its custom 4.3-meter-high… pic.twitter.com/powQ4ozewp
— EasternShoreSpaceflight (@EShoreSpaceflt) February 25, 2026
Founder and CTO @Dr. Michael Smart spoke with @Michael McLaren of @2BG on the groundbreaking work underway at Hypersonix and what this means for the future of reusable high-speed access to space.
— Hypersonix Launch Systems (@HypersonixAU) February 17, 2026
Dr. Smart, a global leader in scramjet technology, has spent decades of research… pic.twitter.com/BU7a52I4a4
Kenneth_2003 said:
The real reason is simply that those RS-25 engines were never meant to go into the drink and they just don't want to be wasted like that.
Maximus_Meridius said:Kenneth_2003 said:
The real reason is simply that those RS-25 engines were never meant to go into the drink and they just don't want to be wasted like that.
As Aggies, we should feel a very strong affinity for that engine, because the vibrational nightmares that its turbopumps caused resulted in Dr. Dara Childs getting substantial funding to research, which thanks to TEES being willing to invest $35,000 in a data acquisition system (tu and OU wouldn't), ended up here. Thanks to the success of his initial study, NASA gave a LOT more money over the years, and under Childs' leadership, our Turbomachinery Laboratory Research facility is one of the best there is.
NASA is sharing the following information at the request of NASA astronaut Mike Fincke: pic.twitter.com/J3UsExd94H
— NASA (@NASA) February 25, 2026
🚨SHIP 39 ROLLOUT TONIGHT!
— TankWatchers (@WatchersTank) February 25, 2026
SpaceX is targeting tonight’s road closure to roll Ship 39 to Masseys and begin its testing campaign. If March is still the target for Starship Flight 12, the pace will need to remain high. pic.twitter.com/7oBmUBanq6
Starship V3 SN1 headed for ground tests.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2026
I am highly confident that the V3 design will achieve full reusability. https://t.co/P3XS1pBeZd
They had one play during the Super Bowl.TexAgs91 said:
Interesting... I saw a Starlink commercial while watching Survivor
I can see SpaceX fans getting mad over this, but NASA's job is do do things that benefit US Spaceflight as a whole. And it is absolutely in the US's interest to have more than one launch provider. https://t.co/Vb6GgiMEJj
— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) February 26, 2026
Quote:
NASA on Friday announced an abrupt change to its pathway to getting astronauts back on the lunar surface, opting to add in an additional crewed test flight before attempting to land.
Space agency officials said that "Artemis III" the mission name that had previously been used to refer to a moon landing slated to happen no earlier than 2028 will now be a different mission entirely, one that involves launching a crewed NASA capsule to Earth orbit to dock with at least one prototype lunar lander vehicle made by SpaceX or Blue Origin. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said he hopes the mission will get off the ground in 2027.
The moon landing mission, still slated for 2028, will now be referred to as "Artemis IV." Isaacman said the agency is in fact pursuing up to two moon landings in 2028.
<snip>
While Artemis II is designed to serve as a pathfinder mission for a moon landing, whether NASA can pull off an actual lunar touchdown this decade has remained in question. While SLS and Orion are designed to take astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit, the agency long ago decided to contract out development of a lunar lander to the private sector. Such a vehicle is necessary to carry astronauts from the Orion spacecraft down to the moon's surface.
Both Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin have fixed-price contracts with NASA to develop lunar landers. SpaceX plans to use its Starship megarocket a gargantuan rocket system that Musk originally billed for Mars travel for the task. Starship is still in the early stages of development and over the past year prototypes have exploded during brief, suborbital test flights.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin is building a lunar lander that looks more like a traditional, Apollo-style vehicle. But the company has not yet launched a test flight.
Rapier108 said:Quote:
NASA on Friday announced an abrupt change to its pathway to getting astronauts back on the lunar surface, opting to add in an additional crewed test flight before attempting to land.
Space agency officials said that "Artemis III" the mission name that had previously been used to refer to a moon landing slated to happen no earlier than 2028 will now be a different mission entirely, one that involves launching a crewed NASA capsule to Earth orbit to dock with at least one prototype lunar lander vehicle made by SpaceX or Blue Origin. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said he hopes the mission will get off the ground in 2027.
The moon landing mission, still slated for 2028, will now be referred to as "Artemis IV." Isaacman said the agency is in fact pursuing up to two moon landings in 2028.
<snip>
While Artemis II is designed to serve as a pathfinder mission for a moon landing, whether NASA can pull off an actual lunar touchdown this decade has remained in question. While SLS and Orion are designed to take astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit, the agency long ago decided to contract out development of a lunar lander to the private sector. Such a vehicle is necessary to carry astronauts from the Orion spacecraft down to the moon's surface.
Both Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin have fixed-price contracts with NASA to develop lunar landers. SpaceX plans to use its Starship megarocket a gargantuan rocket system that Musk originally billed for Mars travel for the task. Starship is still in the early stages of development and over the past year prototypes have exploded during brief, suborbital test flights.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin is building a lunar lander that looks more like a traditional, Apollo-style vehicle. But the company has not yet launched a test flight.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/27/science/nasa-moon-landing-artemis-schedule
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-adds-mission-to-artemis-lunar-program-updates-architecture/
NASA just announced a MAJOR overhaul of the Artemis program. Here’s what’s changed, according to @NASAAdmin @rookisaacman:
— Kristin Fisher (@KristinFisher) February 27, 2026
NEW MISSIONS:
Artemis 3 is no longer a moon landing 🤯 It's now a crewed test mission in Low Earth Orbit in 2027 - docking with SpaceX's Starship and/or…
Quote:
NEW MISSIONS:
Artemis 3 is no longer a moon landing It's now a crewed test mission in Low Earth Orbit in 2027 - docking with SpaceX's Starship and/or Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander to test systems and new spacesuits BEFORE anyone tries to land on the moon. The actual lunar landing now moves to Artemis 4, targeted for early 2028. Artemis 5 would follow by late 2028. That's two crewed lunar landing attempts in one year, with NASA targeting at least one surface landing every year after that.
NEW ARCHITECTURE:
Block 1B - the planned upgrade to the SLS rocket - is dead. No more custom builds. No second mobile launcher. NASA is standardizing the rocket so they can launch every 10-12 months instead of every 3.5 years.
Why?
NASA is framing this as a return to the Apollo mindset. SLS has the worst launch cadence of any NASA-designed vehicle… ever. It's been 3+ years since Artemis I launched. The gap between Apollo 7 and 8 was just 9 weeks! You can't build muscle memory launching once every few years. Plus… China.
The response?
A Senior NASA Official told me Congress and all prime contractors are on board - Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, and Blue Origin. And FWIW… so am I.
torrid said:
From a technical perspective, it would make sense to check out the lander before attempting a launch. From a political perspective, that is billions to all the listed contractors. Which makes me question the real need for the program.
Quote:
NEW MISSIONS:
Artemis 3 is no longer a moon landing It's now a crewed test mission in Low Earth Orbit in 2027 - docking with SpaceX's Starship and/or Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander to test systems and new spacesuits BEFORE anyone tries to land on the moon. The actual lunar landing now moves to Artemis 4, targeted for early 2028. Artemis 5 would follow by late 2028. That's two crewed lunar landing attempts in one year, with NASA targeting at least one surface landing every year after that.
Tailgate88 said:Quote:
NEW MISSIONS:
Artemis 3 is no longer a moon landing It's now a crewed test mission in Low Earth Orbit in 2027 - docking with SpaceX's Starship and/or Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander to test systems and new spacesuits BEFORE anyone tries to land on the moon. The actual lunar landing now moves to Artemis 4, targeted for early 2028. Artemis 5 would follow by late 2028. That's two crewed lunar landing attempts in one year, with NASA targeting at least one surface landing every year after that.
That's cool, maybe SpaceX will invite them over to their place for beers.
Don't think SpaceX is going to lose any sleep over not launching a NOAA satellite into orbit once every once in awhile. If I'm Musk I'm basically saying "we're not actively pursuing any launch contracts with NASA, we will be fulfilling our own manifest and stacking bills so high you could climb your way into orbit. If you need us (we expect you will) our pricing is on our website."nortex97 said:
Pretty infuriating indeed.I can see SpaceX fans getting mad over this, but NASA's job is do do things that benefit US Spaceflight as a whole. And it is absolutely in the US's interest to have more than one launch provider. https://t.co/Vb6GgiMEJj
— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) February 26, 2026
And oh by the way, I believe this is Ted Cruz again. Bad Ted. Let Nasa contract with whoever they find is the most cost-efficient launch provider, and if a diversity of providers is in the interest of the US, legislate that Nasa seek a robust mix but why specify 50%? Blue Origin/Boeing/LM (ULA)/Rocketlab etc. should be able to compete on a fair basis/field.
