NASA announces major overhaul of Artemis moon program amid safety concerns, delays: "We've got to get back to basics"

[jemhouston]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-artem ... -overhaul/


Short version, more flights before landing on the Moon. NASA is adding the equivalent of Apollo 9 & 10 to test the lander in low Earth orbit and maybe Lunar orbit. NASA want to increase the flight rate at least once a year from every three years. They also want to beef up in house talent.

I haven't heard if the landers are on schedule or not.

I'm still betting on Falcon Heavy to get there first. Starship is the wild card.

[kdahm]

The Ars Technica article is better coverage: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/n ... nts-page=1

I haven't heard if the landers are on schedule or not.

I'm still betting on Falcon Heavy to get there first. Starship is the wild card.

Landers are behind schedule. But not that much, because it mostly depends on Starship actually getting working. Development there is a bit slower. The Blue lander is in development hell, with no idea of what's happening. Based on New Glenn development times, it'll be awhile.

I'd take that bet on Falcon Heavy. FH doesn't have the delta-v to get a 4 person capsule plus lander into trans-lunar orbit. If you're looking at Earth orbit transfer, then F9 can get the astronauts up and to a Starship or other transfer vehicle.

[jemhouston]

Do Earth Orbit Rendezvous, FH for crew / lander and FH 2 for booster to Lunar orbit.


One thing that worries me about Starship, if you look at recent lunar lander some have tipped over due to how tall they are.

[Micael]

On Friday afternoon, a new contract was published that confirms NASA's selection of @ulalaunch Vulcan upper stage, the Centaur V, as the new upper stage of the Space Launch System rocket beginning with the Artemis IV mission.

[brovane]

The Ars Technica article is better coverage: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/n ... nts-page=1

I haven't heard if the landers are on schedule or not.

I'm still betting on Falcon Heavy to get there first. Starship is the wild card.

Landers are behind schedule. But not that much, because it mostly depends on Starship actually getting working. Development there is a bit slower. The Blue lander is in development hell, with no idea of what's happening. Based on New Glenn development times, it'll be awhile.

I'd take that bet on Falcon Heavy. FH doesn't have the delta-v to get a 4 person capsule plus lander into trans-lunar orbit. If you're looking at Earth orbit transfer, then F9 can get the astronauts up and to a Starship or other transfer vehicle.

NASA/Congress waited way to long to get around to awarding/funding lunar lander contracts. The lander contract wasn't awarded until April 2021 and both SpaceX and Blue Origin landers have way more capability than the original Apollo LM's. Which means they both have a much more difficult development cycle. You add in the fact that Orion+Service Module cannot get in and out of Low Lunar Orbit like the Apollo CSM. That required a selection of a NRHO (Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit) which means more Delta-V/Performance required for both Artemis HLS landers.

The scrapping of EUS while painful (A lot of money already given to Boeing) let alone the $2B+ spent on ML-2. Yeah that is right, the US govt was spending $2B+ on just the Mobile Tower to support EUS.

The selection of Centaur-V is a solid choice to replace the EUS. While it doesn't have the performance of the planned EUS it still has more performance than the ICPS it is replacing. The Centaur V is already in production for the Vulcan rocket and hopefully should be able to be fast tracked for SLS.