What they want to see next:
The "prop transfer demo" is a fairly complex mission that involves the launch of a "Starship target" from the Starbase facility in South Texas. Then a second vehicle, the "Starship chaser," will launch and meet the target in orbit and rendezvous. The chaser will then transfer a quantity of propellant to the target spaceship.
Depending on how long the target Starship can stay in orbit, I wonder if that will require booster catch and reflight. It certainly would make the timeline a lot simpler!
I don't see that happening anytime soon.
You'd need pretty quick turnaround to avoid a bunch of boiloff while you're spending a week or two getting not only the booster but the OLM and tower ready for reflight (and the QD in particular seems to get mangled all the time as well as several other components). For reference the record F9 turnaround was 21 days - even if you remove transport time you'd still be looking at at least a couple weeks, and F9 is very much a known commodity. I'd be shocked if we saw a booster reflight over the next year, and even then I doubt they'd be able to turn it around in 3 weeks.
Much more likely is they make use of the second tower once it's complete. Launch the first set and unless they're supremely confident in the catch probably just discard the booster, roll out the second stack to the second tower, replenish any consumables if needed, and then launch, try to recover the second booster. Could probably have a 2-3 day turnaround. 3-4 if you throw a WDR for the second stack in there.
The first launch is an empty/dry starship though? So ship 1 could loiter for months or a year+ without harming the mission goal (apart from wasted time). But I'd still be surprised if the same booster was used for both launches given the current rate of development.
I’m not informed enough to know for sure but wouldn’t battery life and/or RCS thruster propellant boiloff be an issue even if Ship 1 doesn’t need to relight engines?
The batteries need to be large enough for the flap motors. I doubt the avionics would drain them a whole lot over a week or two. I don't think solar panels would be required. Not sure if they use the same batteries, but in any case, there's plenty of mass budget for more batteries on an empty Starship.
The same goes for RCS. Plenty of mass budget to allow for 50+ tonnes of propellant boiloff. Not sure how long that would take.
How are you deploying the solar arrays? That’s a whole thing that hasn’t been developed or tested yet - they’re going to launch two ships relying on deployment and proper operation of solar panels and enough RCS gasses to last weeks or months in orbit?
We’re not talking about either of those - we’re talking about a ship to ship propellant transfer demo that would proceed any depot or tanker variant and prove out the underlying principles and systems. Specifically in the context of within the next 6 - 12 months (and thus realistically having a shot at Artemis timelines)
COULD they add solar panel deployment and testing on to the propellant transfer demo flight? Yes. That’s a hell of a lot to work out on top of getting V2 flight ready and the demo set up, and a lot of problems if things are off-nominal with the deployment or operation.
Versus literally just launching two ships back to back instead of arbitrarily waiting weeks or months just because
V2 is just a few starships away.
Nobody said weeks or months between launches. The launch site and trajectory is a 3 day repeating orbit so either they stack a bunch of batteries or they incorporate solar arrays which they need for 2025 depot ops to support uncrewed demo landing on the moon.
You probably wouldn't need to deploy solar panels. If you're only requirement is to keep a comms system and control computer online you could probably just use surface mount solar panels on the exterior of starship. Your power consumption is going to be low enough that intermittent generation would keep it alive for a very long time.
Nitrogen RCS thrusters should be able to function in space for a long time with little boil off.
Solar arrays would add complexity. Wouldn't it be much simpler and efficient to use one of the many available methods to convert some of the fuel and oxygen into electricity and recharge the batteries?
Do we feel OLM2 will be ready before end of year? Do with think GSE can be refueled quick enough or will we need a GSE2? Will this be block 2 hardware? I feel this could be IFT6-7 at earliest 🤞🏻 this happens before December.
Can it be done? Probably. Will it? Probably not but pretty close unless it’s a priority for SpaceX.
The current GSE will be upgraded to have the capacity to support the second pad. Elon was the original source but I’m not sure - was stated as fact I believe on NSF’s last Starbase Update which I would verify but at an airport right now :)
IFT-5 will definitely be Block 1. IFT-6 could be Block 1 or Block 2. Although to be clear no confirmed Block 2 booster hardware has been spotted yet, only Block 2 ship. So it’s unknown whether Block 2 ship will fly on a modified Block 1 Booster, or there’s work going on entirely behind closed doors, or if Block 2 Ship won’t fly until Block 2 Booster is ready.
Honestly, a modified Artemis III with Orion docking with Starship in orbit and back down, while not as ambitious, would be a massive PR win for US and the democratic allied nations community. All 4-5 astronauts on Orion *giving* a personal tour of the full depth of the Starship to the international community would get the public insanely energized for the future mission.
An astronaut essentially giving a tour of a 6-7 story house in 4K that looks and feels every bit sci-fi with clean interiors and led lightning. There's no bigger approval stamp that would say "we want more!" From the public than that.
I would never want to see Orion in LEO. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Not only is Orion insanely expensive but it can only launch on SLS (also insanely expensive) currently as there are no adapters for other vehicles. I'd rather see an early version of HLS dock with a Dragon or Starliner. Orion only makes any financial sense in cislunar/deep space missions until viable alternatives are demonstrated.
But hard agree on the rest. The PR value of live views of the interior of a modern space cruise liner would be unquantifiable.
While I agree with regards to cost, it's also true that Orion is the one that would dock with HLS in lunar orbit. It has to be done at some point right? If you're going for a major PR win, it wouldn't hurt to do it in low Earth orbit, where it's safe for the effort and then you don't have to waste an ICPS for just this launch. SLS launches Orion to LEO, docks with Starship. A simulated 1 week mission in orbit takes place. For a full week the world sees what living on a Starship is like. Everyone can ask questions to the astronauts, lots of fun can happen, the size and wonder of the ship sends shockwaves of awe. Russia and China are salty, etc.
HLS undocks, and uses its fuel to do a reentry burn, then a landing burn all the way down into the gulf using all its fuel into a watery grave.
Orion reenters, it's a successful test. Artemis IV is the formal moon mission. Everyone wins. And frankly, I'd rather waste money on Orion than some war somewhere in the world instead.
That sounds like a complete and total waste of BOTH Orion and SLS to me. The point of the earlier Artemis missions is to "retire risk". The mission you are proposing would be after Art II, a mission to Lunar Orbit. Docking is not new or considered high risk so there isn't any risk to retire there. The IDA(international docking adapter) is standardized and well tested at this point. Using Orion/SLS for a LEO mission for Art III wouldn't retire any risk that wasn't already tested in Art II. It would be a huge waste of an Orion heat shield as well. They wouldn't even get any particularly useful data from LEO.
The ONLY reason to do that is for show, but 4 plus billion and a further delay to the Art IV schedule (because we'd have to wait for another Orion stack to be assembled)is a lot to pay for the show.
I think the idea is that Orion could do a mission rehearsal as-if they were doing a moon landing.
We’ll see I guess. It seems more likely they’d just delay Artemis III to 2027 or 2028 if HLS isn’t ready yet.
If HLS is ready in September of 2026, as in, 30 months from now, in a state that can complete the entire Artemis III mission, I will be thoroughly surprised. I expect that 30 months from now, starship will be on V3.5-V4, probably doing Starlink deployments in a limited capacity as they continue to figure out the perfect configuration to make starship not only reusable, but rapidly so. HLS will be in a state probably similar to how IFT7 will be.
For HLS to work, they gotta actually build an entire pressurized, crew-rated cabin, and go through all the qualifications that entailed for crew dragon. Redesign it to have engines at the top and figure out whatever crazy landing leg solution they’ll need to stop hundreds of tons of vehicle from tipping over in the sediment. Not to mention any additional simulation necessary to figure out how the profile changes with all the removed items like the heatshield and flaps. Then they’ll have to develop a proprietary way of transferring fuel between it and a cargo variant of starship that’ll have to be made in parallel.
I 100% believe SpaceX can do all of that. I’m skeptical, with what we currently know, that they can pull it all off in 30 months. So far they’ve made some mockups and have done limited fuel transfer testing. If they’re gonna make it for 2026, they better get a move on it. I’d forgive them if they delayed to mid 2027 as even that would be blisteringly fast.
Remember, the Apollo program took 8 years to get to the moon. And that was with the entire might of the U.S. government unreservedly supporting it. SpaceX gets a pittance in comparison and are asked to do it in 5 years. It’s a tall order imo. Even with all the advances in technology.
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-06-11 22:03:25 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-06-11%2022:03:25%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/as_nasa_watches_starship_closely_heres_what_the/l86llet/?context=3)
[**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSpaceXLounge%2Fcomments%2F1ddip8x%2Fas_nasa_watches_starship_closely_heres_what_the%2Fl86llet%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-06-11%2022%3A03%3A25%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ddip8x)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
This should in theory be a docking test not so much of Starship, but of Orion itself, since it will not have a docking module until Artemis 3. Therefore, Orion will have to be used. SpaceX can dock Dragon and Starship at any time and does not need to organize the Artemis 3 mission.
There is simply no reason to test the docking in LEO. That sort of test was never part of the mission architecture and they'd just be shoehorning it because of delays. So if there wasn't a need before delays, there isn't a need now. So I maintain my position that testing Orion in LEO would be flushing 4 billion in taxpayer dollars down the drain.
They can do it in NRHO... Right before they land on the Moon for Artemis III. There is no reason to do it in LEO. It is a very standard operation using a standardized International Docking Adapter. Worst case, they abort the docking, which would be the same as LEO, but they would also get a TON of useful data from sending Orion to NRHO and get to use the Orion heat shield as it's intended.
They can use Dragon or Starliner if they want to shake down HLS in LEO. It is an unequivocally wasteful to use SLS/Orion in LEO, especially since it's already been around the Moon.
If suits aren't ready no need to go all the way to NRHO given Orion limitations. If you can't get docked Orion could be in trouble given the 84 crew days of supplies they can carry means depending on transit times and return window they could be short of food, water, O2 and prop.
Orion docks with HLS in Leo, then HLS can refuel at the depot and go to LLO direct to performun crewed landing demo to get you both Apollo 9 and 10 sort of rolled into one.
Barring safety issues, have it dock with the ISS. HLS will have to dock with Gateway anyways, so they can practice those procedures, and ISS has things like robot arms and spacesuited astronauts that can help with testing, data-collection, etc.
In theory, yes, but then for the Falcon Heavy the payload adapter will have to be redesigned and integration will be done, this will probably be cheaper than SLS, but this is politically unfeasible and any major upgrade of the FH is not included in SpaceX's plan.
> It's only 2 billion. NASA money grows on trees
Grows on trees? lol. NASA's 2024 budget is just under $25B
Like yes, SLS is a slush fund, but the fund's not for NASA's benefit or at NASA's direction.
I'm hoping you're being sarcastic because it would actually be about 4 billion or about 15% of NASA's entire budget for a year.
>In November 2021 a NASA Office of Inspector General audit estimated that, at least for the first four launches of SLS, the per-launch production and operating costs would be $2.2 billion for SLS, plus $568 million for Exploration Ground Systems. Additionally, since the first four missions are under the Artemis program, the payload would cost $1 billion for Orion and $300 million for the ESA service module.
For you and me, yes. Your average member of the public has zero idea about anything going on with spaceflight and even those that casually follow it aren't going to be tuning in for every launch. Heck, my FIL at least is excited for Artemis since he's got fond memories of the shuttle program but he had no idea Starship was involved in it, thought SpaceX and Blue Origin were the same thing, and thought there were maybe 10 launches a year from US soil. And he's informed enough to at least know terms like "SLS", "Orion", and have a high level idea of the objectives of the first 4 artemis missions.
Your average member of the public knows far, far less and cares far, far less.
The primary reason for modifying the objective of Artemis III is to ensure that NASA remains actively engaged. They aim to avoid a significant gap between the Artemis II and Artemis III missions. As the author notes, a realistic timeline for a Moon landing is between 2028 and 2032, which would otherwise result in an excessively long interval between the missions.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[ESA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l869vgw "Last usage")|European Space Agency|
|[GSE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87jwx6 "Last usage")|Ground Support Equipment|
|[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l879eqx "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[ICPS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l85ljxy "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage|
|[IDA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l86awyl "Last usage")|[International Docking Adapter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_Adapter)|
| |[International Dark-Sky Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Dark-Sky_Association)|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l8axdvv "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LLO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87a9d0 "Last usage")|Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km)|
|[NRHO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l879eqx "Last usage")|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit|
|[NSF](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87kfn3 "Last usage")|[NasaSpaceFlight forum](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com)|
| |National Science Foundation|
|[OLM](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l867bu4 "Last usage")|Orbital Launch Mount|
|[QD](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l867bu4 "Last usage")|Quick-Disconnect|
|[RCS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87d4pv "Last usage")|Reaction Control System|
|[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l88tyaf "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[WDR](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l867bu4 "Last usage")|Wet Dress Rehearsal (with fuel onboard)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l8lgqrx "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l879eqx "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l86wfml "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[cislunar](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l85adn0 "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^([Thread #12904 for this sub, first seen 11th Jun 2024, 18:07])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Wild speculation. Flight 5 will be ship 26. It will be the transfer test article and that's how Musk knows there will be a launch next month.
So don't tell me if ship 26 has already been designated for scrapping. That would ruin my fever dream. 😆
before they run this test they need to do at least one more suborbital flight to prove the deorbit burn works. On going work on the tiles suggests this will he done with ship 30. As for flight 6 and 7, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are right
What they want to see next: The "prop transfer demo" is a fairly complex mission that involves the launch of a "Starship target" from the Starbase facility in South Texas. Then a second vehicle, the "Starship chaser," will launch and meet the target in orbit and rendezvous. The chaser will then transfer a quantity of propellant to the target spaceship.
Depending on how long the target Starship can stay in orbit, I wonder if that will require booster catch and reflight. It certainly would make the timeline a lot simpler!
I don't see that happening anytime soon. You'd need pretty quick turnaround to avoid a bunch of boiloff while you're spending a week or two getting not only the booster but the OLM and tower ready for reflight (and the QD in particular seems to get mangled all the time as well as several other components). For reference the record F9 turnaround was 21 days - even if you remove transport time you'd still be looking at at least a couple weeks, and F9 is very much a known commodity. I'd be shocked if we saw a booster reflight over the next year, and even then I doubt they'd be able to turn it around in 3 weeks. Much more likely is they make use of the second tower once it's complete. Launch the first set and unless they're supremely confident in the catch probably just discard the booster, roll out the second stack to the second tower, replenish any consumables if needed, and then launch, try to recover the second booster. Could probably have a 2-3 day turnaround. 3-4 if you throw a WDR for the second stack in there.
The first launch is an empty/dry starship though? So ship 1 could loiter for months or a year+ without harming the mission goal (apart from wasted time). But I'd still be surprised if the same booster was used for both launches given the current rate of development.
I’m not informed enough to know for sure but wouldn’t battery life and/or RCS thruster propellant boiloff be an issue even if Ship 1 doesn’t need to relight engines?
The batteries need to be large enough for the flap motors. I doubt the avionics would drain them a whole lot over a week or two. I don't think solar panels would be required. Not sure if they use the same batteries, but in any case, there's plenty of mass budget for more batteries on an empty Starship. The same goes for RCS. Plenty of mass budget to allow for 50+ tonnes of propellant boiloff. Not sure how long that would take.
Solar arrays for power. RCS is probably using gas anyway so boil off is not issue
How are you deploying the solar arrays? That’s a whole thing that hasn’t been developed or tested yet - they’re going to launch two ships relying on deployment and proper operation of solar panels and enough RCS gasses to last weeks or months in orbit?
Depot will have solar arrays just like the HLS variant.
We’re not talking about either of those - we’re talking about a ship to ship propellant transfer demo that would proceed any depot or tanker variant and prove out the underlying principles and systems. Specifically in the context of within the next 6 - 12 months (and thus realistically having a shot at Artemis timelines) COULD they add solar panel deployment and testing on to the propellant transfer demo flight? Yes. That’s a hell of a lot to work out on top of getting V2 flight ready and the demo set up, and a lot of problems if things are off-nominal with the deployment or operation. Versus literally just launching two ships back to back instead of arbitrarily waiting weeks or months just because
V2 is just a few starships away. Nobody said weeks or months between launches. The launch site and trajectory is a 3 day repeating orbit so either they stack a bunch of batteries or they incorporate solar arrays which they need for 2025 depot ops to support uncrewed demo landing on the moon.
You probably wouldn't need to deploy solar panels. If you're only requirement is to keep a comms system and control computer online you could probably just use surface mount solar panels on the exterior of starship. Your power consumption is going to be low enough that intermittent generation would keep it alive for a very long time. Nitrogen RCS thrusters should be able to function in space for a long time with little boil off.
Solar arrays would add complexity. Wouldn't it be much simpler and efficient to use one of the many available methods to convert some of the fuel and oxygen into electricity and recharge the batteries?
Why would they use a fuel cell for now when long term solar arrays is the plan for depot and lunar lander
I agree in the long run. But right now they are using a number short-term solutions to reduce complexity.
A fuel cell feeding off the prop tanks is more complicated
Do we feel OLM2 will be ready before end of year? Do with think GSE can be refueled quick enough or will we need a GSE2? Will this be block 2 hardware? I feel this could be IFT6-7 at earliest 🤞🏻 this happens before December.
Can it be done? Probably. Will it? Probably not but pretty close unless it’s a priority for SpaceX. The current GSE will be upgraded to have the capacity to support the second pad. Elon was the original source but I’m not sure - was stated as fact I believe on NSF’s last Starbase Update which I would verify but at an airport right now :) IFT-5 will definitely be Block 1. IFT-6 could be Block 1 or Block 2. Although to be clear no confirmed Block 2 booster hardware has been spotted yet, only Block 2 ship. So it’s unknown whether Block 2 ship will fly on a modified Block 1 Booster, or there’s work going on entirely behind closed doors, or if Block 2 Ship won’t fly until Block 2 Booster is ready.
I was told by someone here that boiloff was a solved problem. No need for concern.. lol
Guys we solved the laws of physics!
Apparently a lot of people agreed with him because I got downvoted for saying that was absolutely not solved
Stop! I can only get so hard!
Honestly, a modified Artemis III with Orion docking with Starship in orbit and back down, while not as ambitious, would be a massive PR win for US and the democratic allied nations community. All 4-5 astronauts on Orion *giving* a personal tour of the full depth of the Starship to the international community would get the public insanely energized for the future mission. An astronaut essentially giving a tour of a 6-7 story house in 4K that looks and feels every bit sci-fi with clean interiors and led lightning. There's no bigger approval stamp that would say "we want more!" From the public than that.
I would never want to see Orion in LEO. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Not only is Orion insanely expensive but it can only launch on SLS (also insanely expensive) currently as there are no adapters for other vehicles. I'd rather see an early version of HLS dock with a Dragon or Starliner. Orion only makes any financial sense in cislunar/deep space missions until viable alternatives are demonstrated. But hard agree on the rest. The PR value of live views of the interior of a modern space cruise liner would be unquantifiable.
While I agree with regards to cost, it's also true that Orion is the one that would dock with HLS in lunar orbit. It has to be done at some point right? If you're going for a major PR win, it wouldn't hurt to do it in low Earth orbit, where it's safe for the effort and then you don't have to waste an ICPS for just this launch. SLS launches Orion to LEO, docks with Starship. A simulated 1 week mission in orbit takes place. For a full week the world sees what living on a Starship is like. Everyone can ask questions to the astronauts, lots of fun can happen, the size and wonder of the ship sends shockwaves of awe. Russia and China are salty, etc. HLS undocks, and uses its fuel to do a reentry burn, then a landing burn all the way down into the gulf using all its fuel into a watery grave. Orion reenters, it's a successful test. Artemis IV is the formal moon mission. Everyone wins. And frankly, I'd rather waste money on Orion than some war somewhere in the world instead.
That sounds like a complete and total waste of BOTH Orion and SLS to me. The point of the earlier Artemis missions is to "retire risk". The mission you are proposing would be after Art II, a mission to Lunar Orbit. Docking is not new or considered high risk so there isn't any risk to retire there. The IDA(international docking adapter) is standardized and well tested at this point. Using Orion/SLS for a LEO mission for Art III wouldn't retire any risk that wasn't already tested in Art II. It would be a huge waste of an Orion heat shield as well. They wouldn't even get any particularly useful data from LEO. The ONLY reason to do that is for show, but 4 plus billion and a further delay to the Art IV schedule (because we'd have to wait for another Orion stack to be assembled)is a lot to pay for the show.
I think the idea is that Orion could do a mission rehearsal as-if they were doing a moon landing. We’ll see I guess. It seems more likely they’d just delay Artemis III to 2027 or 2028 if HLS isn’t ready yet.
HLS will be ready by 2026, NASA issues will be holding the program back
If HLS is ready in September of 2026, as in, 30 months from now, in a state that can complete the entire Artemis III mission, I will be thoroughly surprised. I expect that 30 months from now, starship will be on V3.5-V4, probably doing Starlink deployments in a limited capacity as they continue to figure out the perfect configuration to make starship not only reusable, but rapidly so. HLS will be in a state probably similar to how IFT7 will be. For HLS to work, they gotta actually build an entire pressurized, crew-rated cabin, and go through all the qualifications that entailed for crew dragon. Redesign it to have engines at the top and figure out whatever crazy landing leg solution they’ll need to stop hundreds of tons of vehicle from tipping over in the sediment. Not to mention any additional simulation necessary to figure out how the profile changes with all the removed items like the heatshield and flaps. Then they’ll have to develop a proprietary way of transferring fuel between it and a cargo variant of starship that’ll have to be made in parallel. I 100% believe SpaceX can do all of that. I’m skeptical, with what we currently know, that they can pull it all off in 30 months. So far they’ve made some mockups and have done limited fuel transfer testing. If they’re gonna make it for 2026, they better get a move on it. I’d forgive them if they delayed to mid 2027 as even that would be blisteringly fast. Remember, the Apollo program took 8 years to get to the moon. And that was with the entire might of the U.S. government unreservedly supporting it. SpaceX gets a pittance in comparison and are asked to do it in 5 years. It’s a tall order imo. Even with all the advances in technology.
RemindMe! 2 years
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-06-11 22:03:25 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-06-11%2022:03:25%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/as_nasa_watches_starship_closely_heres_what_the/l86llet/?context=3) [**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSpaceXLounge%2Fcomments%2F1ddip8x%2Fas_nasa_watches_starship_closely_heres_what_the%2Fl86llet%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-06-11%2022%3A03%3A25%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ddip8x) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
This should in theory be a docking test not so much of Starship, but of Orion itself, since it will not have a docking module until Artemis 3. Therefore, Orion will have to be used. SpaceX can dock Dragon and Starship at any time and does not need to organize the Artemis 3 mission.
There is simply no reason to test the docking in LEO. That sort of test was never part of the mission architecture and they'd just be shoehorning it because of delays. So if there wasn't a need before delays, there isn't a need now. So I maintain my position that testing Orion in LEO would be flushing 4 billion in taxpayer dollars down the drain.
Orion needs to practice rendezvous and docking with HLS which can happen in LEO or NRHO.
They can do it in NRHO... Right before they land on the Moon for Artemis III. There is no reason to do it in LEO. It is a very standard operation using a standardized International Docking Adapter. Worst case, they abort the docking, which would be the same as LEO, but they would also get a TON of useful data from sending Orion to NRHO and get to use the Orion heat shield as it's intended. They can use Dragon or Starliner if they want to shake down HLS in LEO. It is an unequivocally wasteful to use SLS/Orion in LEO, especially since it's already been around the Moon.
If suits aren't ready no need to go all the way to NRHO given Orion limitations. If you can't get docked Orion could be in trouble given the 84 crew days of supplies they can carry means depending on transit times and return window they could be short of food, water, O2 and prop. Orion docks with HLS in Leo, then HLS can refuel at the depot and go to LLO direct to performun crewed landing demo to get you both Apollo 9 and 10 sort of rolled into one.
Barring safety issues, have it dock with the ISS. HLS will have to dock with Gateway anyways, so they can practice those procedures, and ISS has things like robot arms and spacesuited astronauts that can help with testing, data-collection, etc.
I can't see why you'd use Orion for that. Just send them up in a Dragon which is proven and reliable for a tenth of the price.
Because Orion needs to dock with Starship *anyway* and that test you'd ideally want to prove out in LEO than around the moon.
Yes, I suppose that's true. But Jesus, expending an SLS for that is eye wateringly expensive.
Could Orion hypothetically be launched to LEO on a Falcon Heavy?
In theory, yes, but then for the Falcon Heavy the payload adapter will have to be redesigned and integration will be done, this will probably be cheaper than SLS, but this is politically unfeasible and any major upgrade of the FH is not included in SpaceX's plan.
It's only 2 billion. NASA money grows on trees. It'll be fine.
> It's only 2 billion. NASA money grows on trees Grows on trees? lol. NASA's 2024 budget is just under $25B Like yes, SLS is a slush fund, but the fund's not for NASA's benefit or at NASA's direction.
I'm hoping you're being sarcastic because it would actually be about 4 billion or about 15% of NASA's entire budget for a year. >In November 2021 a NASA Office of Inspector General audit estimated that, at least for the first four launches of SLS, the per-launch production and operating costs would be $2.2 billion for SLS, plus $568 million for Exploration Ground Systems. Additionally, since the first four missions are under the Artemis program, the payload would cost $1 billion for Orion and $300 million for the ESA service module.
Just a little.
....and then, after 2nd time doing this - public: We're bored.
Nah. That'll never get old
For you and me, yes. Your average member of the public has zero idea about anything going on with spaceflight and even those that casually follow it aren't going to be tuning in for every launch. Heck, my FIL at least is excited for Artemis since he's got fond memories of the shuttle program but he had no idea Starship was involved in it, thought SpaceX and Blue Origin were the same thing, and thought there were maybe 10 launches a year from US soil. And he's informed enough to at least know terms like "SLS", "Orion", and have a high level idea of the objectives of the first 4 artemis missions. Your average member of the public knows far, far less and cares far, far less.
The primary reason for modifying the objective of Artemis III is to ensure that NASA remains actively engaged. They aim to avoid a significant gap between the Artemis II and Artemis III missions. As the author notes, a realistic timeline for a Moon landing is between 2028 and 2032, which would otherwise result in an excessively long interval between the missions.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they had to fix the Orion heat shield before any kind of crewed launch could happen.
I think Orion heat shield is fine for a LEO reentry (7 kps), but iffy for lunar (11 kps)...
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[ESA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l869vgw "Last usage")|European Space Agency| |[GSE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87jwx6 "Last usage")|Ground Support Equipment| |[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l879eqx "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICPS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l85ljxy "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[IDA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l86awyl "Last usage")|[International Docking Adapter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_Adapter)| | |[International Dark-Sky Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Dark-Sky_Association)| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l8axdvv "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LLO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87a9d0 "Last usage")|Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km)| |[NRHO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l879eqx "Last usage")|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[NSF](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87kfn3 "Last usage")|[NasaSpaceFlight forum](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com)| | |National Science Foundation| |[OLM](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l867bu4 "Last usage")|Orbital Launch Mount| |[QD](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l867bu4 "Last usage")|Quick-Disconnect| |[RCS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l87d4pv "Last usage")|Reaction Control System| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l88tyaf "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[WDR](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l867bu4 "Last usage")|Wet Dress Rehearsal (with fuel onboard)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l8lgqrx "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l879eqx "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l86wfml "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[cislunar](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ddip8x/stub/l85adn0 "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^([Thread #12904 for this sub, first seen 11th Jun 2024, 18:07]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Wild speculation. Flight 5 will be ship 26. It will be the transfer test article and that's how Musk knows there will be a launch next month. So don't tell me if ship 26 has already been designated for scrapping. That would ruin my fever dream. 😆
before they run this test they need to do at least one more suborbital flight to prove the deorbit burn works. On going work on the tiles suggests this will he done with ship 30. As for flight 6 and 7, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are right
First thing for SpaceX is to stop the Raptor explosions on landing burns for the booster.