We managed to glean some interesting details about the Artemis III mission

"I was on the phone with Blue Origin leadership that night, all the next day, all through the weekend."

See full article...

 

[Dachshund]

“No.”

-Engineer actually working on this

 

[sporkinum]

Blue Origin just blew up, and Starship has yet to have a fully successful launch.
I don't think they are going to keep to projections.

 

[Duffman3000]

Artemis III will fly at a -33 degree inclination.

Is this a typo? I've never heard of a negative inclination, but mathematically this would be a retrograde orbit, which seems pretty unlikely

 

[Storm_Epidemic]

Seems clear as day to me that NASA is slowly understanding that Starship has no chance of being ready in time for Artemis 4, especially if they won't (or can't) test life support systems and habitation inside of it during Artemis 3.
Blue Origin has a low chance of being ready after this explosion, but Starship has zero chance of being ready. That is just reading into what NASA has been saying ever since Isaacmann took the helm.

 

[ArsSide]

It's a good story.

Let's see how it all really executes. We aren't holding our breath.

 

[r0twhylr]

It sounds like he kind of hand-waved the Falcon Heavy fairing question. As I understand it, the regular Falcon clamshell is too short for the Mk2. Does anyone know whether the extended fairing has enough room?

 

[Fatesrider]

Why do I get the sense that this has the flavor of a "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" interview?

I can't speak to the probabilities of future specific outcomes, since they can be a bit unpredictable in the rocket field. But based on what's happened, and the plans for the future, I sense a disconnect from reality. That's largely because what the plans are for the future seem to be blind to, if not deliberately ignoring, what's happened to date (in both good and bad things).

But one thing I know about rocket science: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. ESPECIALLY when doing new things.

Time will tell, I suppose...

 

[dmsilev]

It sounds like he kind of hand-waved the Falcon Heavy fairing question. As I understand it, the regular Falcon clamshell is too short for the Mk2. Does anyone know whether the extended fairing has enough room?

The other question is how big is this test-flight lander compared to the full Mk 2, since the main engines and presumably the LH2/LOX tanks will be left off it. The interview just said "intermediate between Mk 1 and Mk 2", which is just a tad vague.

 

[Dtiffster]

It sounds like he kind of hand-waved the Falcon Heavy fairing question. As I understand it, the regular Falcon clamshell is too short for the Mk2. Does anyone know whether the extended fairing has enough room?

It didn't sound like to me that it was a mark 2 though, they said it would be in between marks 1 and 2. It sounds like the mark 2 crew compartment and some storable propulsion module. They said it would have no cryogenics on board, just RCS. I would gather it is considerably smaller than a mark 2, he mentioned the fairing was the concern and then said it could launch on FH, so I don't consider that a hand wave so much as saying yes without providing exact details.

 

[rhgedaly]

It sounds like he kind of hand-waved the Falcon Heavy fairing question. As I understand it, the regular Falcon clamshell is too short for the Mk2. Does anyone know whether the extended fairing has enough room?

According to the article, the BO test vehicle will not be a Mk2, but rather something in-between a Mk1 and Mk2. Also, it will not be carrying cryogenics, so that also simplifies launching on a Falcon Heavy if necessary.

 

[flattop100]

Why do I get the sense that this has the flavor of a "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" interview?

I can't speak to the probabilities of future specific outcomes, since they can be a bit unpredictable in the rocket field. But based on what's happened, and the plans for the future, I sense a disconnect from reality. That's largely because what the plans are for the future seem to be blind to, if not deliberately ignoring, what's happened to date (in both good and bad things).

But one thing I know about rocket science: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. ESPECIALLY when doing new things.

Time will tell, I suppose...

I really get the opposite vibe. It feels to me like the shackles of incumbent aerospace have been thrown off. There's no "cost+ vibes" to this interview that I used to get from interviews about SLS. I don't doubt that deadlines will be missed, but if anything, I'm more worried about Go Fever.

 

[SinclairZX81]

It didn't sound like to me that it was a mark 2 though, they said it would be in between marks 1 and 2. It sounds like the mark 2 crew compartment and some storable propulsion module. They said it would have no cryogenics on board, just RCS. I would gather it is considerably smaller than a mark 2, he mentioned the fairing was the concern and then said it could launch on FH, so I don't consider that a hand wave so much as saying yes without providing exact details.

I had the same take from the article. It's easy to extrapolate from the little he did say that it'll be a (essentially prototype) Mk.2 crew cabin with some (mostly RCS) of the Mk.1 propulsion system integrated. From his discussion of stack control, I presume the RCS hardware and software are expected to be "close enough" to what they'll be on Mk.2 to validate the link to the Orion control system.

 

[theradicalmoderate]

I wish you'd asked about what's required for Starship HLS to push the Orion around eyeballs-out. That seems like a decent-sized risk. Do they plan to test that while Orion and Starship are docked?

 

[sigan7]

The MK1 cargo lander tests the cryogenics and propulsion systems. The MK 1.5 demonstrator tests the crew module, RPOD, and life support. Combine the two in a bigger vehicle and you get the MK2 that will fly crew to the lunar surface. While the timelines may be in doubt, the plan seems logical.

 

[sapphir8]

I just don't feel they'll hit that mid-2027 target. Not on the SLS side, but on the lander side. I can't think of any program that has launched on time.

 

[saltyfrog]

Why do I get the sense that this has the flavor of a "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" interview?

Because it does.
From the fine article:

So was it a gut punch? Absolutely. But we’re moving forward.

Then, in the middle of the next paragraph:

For me, when I step back and talk to the team, it wasn’t so much a gut punch.

Uh huh. Right.

 

[rhgedaly]

I suppose Starship has to launch AFTER the crew launch on SLS due to the issue of cryogenic boil off. But that's not the way you would typically like to operate. Normally, you want all your target components in orbit before you commit to a crew launch. This suggests to me that the BO test vehicle is considered vital to the mission objective but the Starship docking is lower priority. This may be telling us which lander NASA thinks will be ready first.

 

[EricBerger]

I really get the opposite vibe. It feels to me like the shackles of incumbent aerospace have been thrown off. There's no "cost+ vibes" to this interview that I used to get from interviews about SLS. I don't doubt that deadlines will be missed, but if anything, I'm more worried about Go Fever.

This is where I'm at as well. First time I've interviewed Parsons and I found him to be straightforward and genuine. Obviously they have a ton of work ahead of them, but I didn't feel like he was spinning me a line of bullshit. Had I done so, I would have reported this differently.

 

[jandrese]

Why do I get the sense that this has the flavor of a "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" interview?

I can't speak to the probabilities of future specific outcomes, since they can be a bit unpredictable in the rocket field. But based on what's happened, and the plans for the future, I sense a disconnect from reality. That's largely because what the plans are for the future seem to be blind to, if not deliberately ignoring, what's happened to date (in both good and bad things).

But one thing I know about rocket science: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. ESPECIALLY when doing new things.

Time will tell, I suppose...

The sense I got out of that interview is "Corporate will not let me tell the truth". It's pretty clear that the existing deadlines are a pipe dream, but he is not allowed to say that until the PR department figures out the right spin, and probably not until the next funding cycle is locked down. You always have to be careful when your funding is controlled by Congress, you never know when some random congressman is going to get a bug up his butt and try to slash your funding.

 

[Dtiffster]

The sense I got out of that interview is "Corporate will not let me tell the truth". It's pretty clear that the existing deadlines are a pipe dream, but he is not allowed to say that until the PR department figures out the right spin, and probably not until the next funding cycle is locked down. You always have to be careful when your funding is controlled by Congress, you never know when some random congressman is going to get a bug up his butt and try to slash your funding.

I don't really believe A3 will happen on the schedule, but they are definitely taking concrete steps to start to do things differently. Not just accepting the interminable scrubs of LH2, but actually redesigning the interface. Hurrying to get the next core stage and boosters stacked to test that out ahead of the rest of the stacking. Building the dummy stage adapter lickety split. Shit canning gateway, rescoping A3 and allowing starship to try and boost Orion eyeballs out. Yeah this is a change in the status quo, they are attempting to move more quickly and be more agile, and they may stumble at first but it will payoff in the long run.

 

[theradicalmoderate]

The BM1 is supposedly 3.1m in width (this from Wikipedia, "So It's Gotta Be True!"). Counting squares on the graph paper in the diagram, the BM2-IL, if the legs are still fixed, would make it 7.6m in diameter. That's bigger than the static envelope of the New Glenn, so something must be done to collapse the legs and those stairs. I can't see it being much narrower than about 5m, though.

The F9/FH static payload diameter is 4.64m. That'd be quite a squeeze. However, I guess they could take the legs off completely for the Arty 3 test, which would make the test article 4.5m, which would fit. They'd also have a problem with the full height (15.3m). However, if they lop off the LOX and LH2 tanks, the crew module and (dummy) thrust structure are only 5.3m high, which would fit into the standard fairing.

I assume that Vulcan Centaur would have roughly the same restrictions, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

Bottom line: Looks like, for Arty 3, Blue gets a thorough test of their ECLSS and cabin ergonomics, and nothing on the propulsion side, while Starship HLS gets a docking test and maybe a propulsion test with the Orion hooked-up for eyeballs-out (backward) acceleration, but nothing on the ECLSS and ergonomics side. Given how roomy the Starship crew module is, that's probably a reasonable trade-off.

 

[SoCalSpace]

One is integrated stack control. You have a very large Starship vehicle, and [a] much smaller Orion. Also, your avionics flight software is always tricky to integrate. You can test on the ground, but until you’re up there commanding, those are things that you really want to check out.

Certainly. But only if the stack is representative of the operational equipment. To understand the dynamics, Starship would not only have to be the correct total mass but the mass would have to be distributed in a way representative of the fixed hardware (like engines), a crew module mass up top, tanks at various states based on flight phase, etc. That would require mocking up mass modules within the vehicle. You can't just dock with and maneuver a shell if you want to know how the loaded vehicle is going to fly.

For a vehicle "in between Mk 1 and Mk 2," same problem. It will be a much more mature system from the waist up with an operational crew module, but the lower portions won't be representative of a Mk 2 unless they make the effort to add the required masses and put them at the appropriate centers of inertia.

You don't learn nothing, but you aren't retiring the risk on your operational model either.

 

[sigan7]

The BM1 is supposedly 3.1m in width (this from Wikipedia, "So It's Gotta Be True!"). Counting squares on the graph paper in the diagram, the BM2-IL, if the legs are still fixed, would make it 7.6m in diameter. That's bigger than the static envelope of the New Glenn, so something must be done to collapse the legs and those stairs. I can't see it being much narrower than about 5m, though.

The F9/FH static payload diameter is 4.64m. That'd be quite a squeeze. However, I guess they could take the legs off completely for the Arty 3 test, which would make the test article 4.5m, which would fit. They'd also have a problem with the full height (15.3m). However, if they lop off the LOX and LH2 tanks, the crew module and (dummy) thrust structure are only 5.3m high, which would fit into the standard fairing.

I assume that Vulcan Centaur would have roughly the same restrictions, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

What are you counting squares on? The MK 1.5 is not depicted. The graph paper is showing the original MK2. For all we know, the MK 1.5 could be the same width as MK1.

Separately, Vulcan already has an extended fairing, and one exists for Falcon Heavy - height is not likely to be an issue here.

 

[theradicalmoderate]

What are you counting squares on? The MK 1.5 is not depicted. The graph paper is showing the original MK2. For all we know, the MK 1.5 could be the same width as MK1.

Separately, Vulcan already has an extended fairing, and one exists for Falcon Heavy - height is not likely to be an issue here.

Parsons says above, "It's the same lunar crew module," which indicates it's BM2 scaling.

If I did the arithmetic right, even with the extended fairing (which is presuming a long-lead-time item), the cylindrical section of the FH's static envelope is only 12.2m high. So the BM2 still wouldn't fit. However, since they don't need the cryogenic tanks, it's probably not an issue; everything'll fit in the standard fairing.

 

[dmsilev]

The BM1 is supposedly 3.1m in width (this from Wikipedia, "So It's Gotta Be True!"). Counting squares on the graph paper in the diagram, the BM2-IL, if the legs are still fixed, would make it 7.6m in diameter. That's bigger than the static envelope of the New Glenn, so something must be done to collapse the legs and those stairs. I can't see it being much narrower than about 5m, though.

The full-up version of BM Mk 2 might be waiting on the bigger NG 9x4 with its larger fairing (however long that takes); notice that the interview asks whether this intermediate Artemis-III version of the lander will fit in the 7x2 fairing, not whether the final version will fit. Or maybe BO is planning on making that wider fairing an option on 7x2 for the ultimate BM Mk 2.

 

[sigan7]

Parsons says above, "It's the same lunar crew module," which indicates it's BM2 scaling.

You're reading too much into that. He qualifies that with: "same avionics, same flight software, so we’re going to get all of that component testing done." The renders we have actually seen of it show a close resemblance to MK1.

But let's say you're right. If we take the 15.3m height of MK2, across 40 squares, and divide that, we get 0.3825m per square. The MK2 crew module is about 15 squares wide. That's 5.7 meters without the legs. That already won't fit in a 5m-class fairing, before you even add the protrusions like solar panels and radiators.

What Parsons did say definitively later is that the MK 1.5 would be able to launch on other vehicles with 5m-class fairings. This vehicle has to have a diameter smaller than the original MK2.

 

[uhuznaa]

I wish you'd asked about what's required for Starship HLS to push the Orion around eyeballs-out. That seems like a decent-sized risk. Do they plan to test that while Orion and Starship are docked?

They will certainly have to look into this, because originally nothing like that was required from the docking system as well as Orion and its service module. When all of this was specced Orion and HLS were meant to just dock in lunar orbit for the sole purpose of crew transfer.

Orion probably will have this designed in because there certainly are scenarios where it could see some decent negative acceleration (like with an early abort during launch when after the escape motor burns out the capsule would slam hard into still dense atmosphere head-on). The service module maybe not.

And while the SpaceX HLS docking system to Orion has already been ground-tested thoroughly more than two years ago, I doubt a lot that this involved anything like pushing the full Orion stack with about 26 tonnes on its nose through TLI which will mean some serious structural loads it may not have been designed and tested for (on both sides). This depends on the acceleration of course and a fully tanked HLS will be a quite heavy monster.

I wouldn't call this risky when you design and engineer for it, but of course you have to do that, and this wasn't part of the original specifications.

 

[bb-15]

Blue Origin just blew up, and Starship has yet to have a fully successful launch.
I don't think they are going to keep to projections.

Agreed, the Artemis lll & lV timeline projections from this current NASA administration are going to be missed.

** This leads to China possibly landing their taikonauts (astronauts) on the Moon, in an Apollo type mission, in 2030 (which is their plan) before the US is able to do the same as part of the Artemis program.

** This would get attention because China also plans to have a human crewed base at the lunar South Pole by 2035.
— If China is in the lead in progress towards setting up a lunar South Pole base, I am expecting an eventual outcry in the US from politicians and the media urging NASA with Artemis to surpass China.

 

[r0twhylr]

The other question is how big is this test-flight lander compared to the full Mk 2, since the main engines and presumably the LH2/LOX tanks will be left off it. The interview just said "intermediate between Mk 1 and Mk 2", which is just a tad vague.

I was assuming that the lander might still end up being full height to account for all the crew-accessible areas, but with other components removed for mass and cost savings. If they're just putting up the top 50% of the lander, then it becomes a much different question. But they are also planning to launch it with RCS and "storeable propellents", so some of that mass and size will need to be factored back in.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

They will certainly have to look into this, because originally nothing like that was required from the docking system as well as Orion and its service module. When all of this was specced Orion and HLS were meant to just dock in lunar orbit for the sole purpose of crew transfer.

Orion probably will have this designed in because there certainly are scenarios where it could see some decent negative acceleration (like with an early abort during launch when after the escape motor burns out the capsule would slam hard into still dense atmosphere head-on). The service module maybe not.

And while the SpaceX HLS docking system to Orion has already been ground-tested thoroughly more than two years ago, I doubt a lot that this involved anything like pushing the full Orion stack with about 26 tonnes on its nose through TLI which will mean some serious structural loads it may not have been designed and tested for (on both sides). This depends on the acceleration of course and a fully tanked HLS will be a quite heavy monster.

I wouldn't call this risky when you design and engineer for it, but of course you have to do that, and this wasn't part of the original specifications.

Orion was designed for an eyes-out TLI burn using Altair so this is a return to its original mission profile. MoonShip's docking port will likely need to be reinforced but Ship is pretty beefy and they should have plenty of mass margin in case the fairing needs bracing.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I was assuming that the lander might still end up being full height to account for all the crew-accessible areas, but with other components removed for mass and cost savings. If they're just putting up the top 50% of the lander, then it becomes a much different question. But they are also planning to launch it with RCS and "storeable propellents", so some of that mass and size will need to be factored back in.

The hydrogen tank alone is half of BM-2's height. Ditch that and the O2 tank and it isn't going to be as tall as BM-1 even with an RCS stacked on top.

 

[Edified]

Blue will launch first

Interesting prognostication.

 

[theradicalmoderate]

I wouldn't call this risky when you design and engineer for it, but of course you have to do that, and this wasn't part of the original specifications.

Well, they did originally design it for eyeballs-out, because that's what Altair would have done with the CEV, back in the Constellation era. The problem is gonna be that 15 years and who know how many zillion ECOs have passed since then, and I suspect reviewing all of them for eyeballs-out tolerance was low on the list of priorities.

 

[stefan_lec]

Well, they did originally design it for eyeballs-out, because that's what Altair would have done with the CEV, back in the Constellation era. The problem is gonna be that 15 years and who know how many zillion ECOs have passed since then, and I suspect reviewing all of them for eyeballs-out tolerance was low on the list of priorities.

Compressive axial load limit for the docking adapter is 300kN:

https://internationaldeepspacestand...oads/2026/01/M2M-IDSS-IDD-Rev-G-1-23-2026.pdf

See page 65, trans-lunar column

 

[theradicalmoderate]

You're reading too much into that. He qualifies that with: "same avionics, same flight software, so we’re going to get all of that component testing done." The renders we have actually seen of it show a close resemblance to MK1.

I suspect that's Eric's emdash, not Parsons'.

Couluris refers to "the Artemis III Mk2 lunar crew module". That seems pretty definitive. That said, the BMx in the animations does look kinda thin to be a Mk2 as we've known it.

But let's say you're right. If we take the 15.3m height of MK2, across 40 squares, and divide that, we get 0.3825m per square. The MK2 crew module is about 15 squares wide. That's 5.7 meters without the legs. That already won't fit in a 5m-class fairing, before you even add the protrusions like solar panels and radiators.

I agree with your arithmetic, and that's a pretty good argument.

That graph-paper graphic has been kicking around for a while. Maybe they've decided to narrow the crew module a bit for Mk2? It really does sound there's only One Crew Module to Rule Them All.

What Parsons did say definitively later is that the MK 1.5 would be able to launch on other vehicles with 5m-class fairings. This vehicle has to have a diameter smaller than the original MK2.

Then I suspect that means that the BM2-IL crew module is a little narrower. That might not be a terrible thing, because it'll take the mass down, and Blue's margins with this transfer stage (presumably a stripped-down BM1 with expanded tankage so it just barely fits into the 7x2 fairing) are gonna be none too cushy.

One Crew Module to Rule Them All seems like a no-brainer, because it's pointless to do a bunch of ergonomic tests on a sub-scale module. They don't want to miss the Arty 3 boat, because it'll look really, really bad. If that means that BM2-IL winds up being a little narrower, then maybe they do a full-diameter BM3 for the SLT task orders. That might still mean that BM2-IL has a full-diameter thrust structure and tankage. Probably gives more room to tuck in the legs and stairs, for the time being.

 

[theradicalmoderate]

Compressive axial load limit for the docking adapter is 300kN:

https://internationaldeepspacestand...oads/2026/01/M2M-IDSS-IDD-Rev-G-1-23-2026.pdf

See page 65, trans-lunar column

Yeah, I've seen that table. I've also had back-and-forths with somebody on NSF who's a docking port specialist (jarmumd), and he's especially dismissive of that table. He says everybody's docking port is purpose-built for the mission at hand. That table is barely even a suggestion.

I'm pretty sure that Orion uses the actual NDS, designed by Boeing a zillion years ago, so it likely inherited whatever Boeing thought was best. However, I'm pretty sure Boeing had Altair in mind when they did NDS, so it's probably a bit beefier than it would be otherwise.

Meanwhile, I'd be amazed if SpaceX isn't going to use an active/passive implementation on Starship HLS, and it's probably been specced to support two HLSes docking together. (You can use a D2 and two HLSes to implement an end-to-end lunar architecture that needs neither SLS nor Orion.) Just managing the bending moments of the two Ships probably guarantees its compressive loading is more than adequate to handle a lowly Orion.

If there's a problem, it's gonna be on the Orion side. However, I doubt that the docking systems are the big deal. I'm much more worried about MMH and MON plumbing. When you turn hypergolic systems upside-down, prop gets into new and novel places. None of those places are conducive to risk reduction.

 

[dmsilev]

Kind of glossed over NO LIFE SUPPORT on Starship !!!
Not like you Eric.

From the article:

Ars: And then there’s Starship. Unlike the Blue Moon lander, you’re not sending astronauts inside Starship. There won’t be any life support. I have to admit I was surprised by that. Tell me about the decision-making process that led you to that outcome.

(emphasis added). I've at times been critical of Eric's coverage of SpaceX the company, but how exactly is he glossing over that question?

 

[beb01]

Since SLS is the launch vehicle designated for Artemus through mission 6, with further missions being undefined, it is little need to test eyeballs-out travel on Orion at this time.