NASA starts bolting together Artemis III rocket for 2027 Moon shot
- Reference: 1755620715
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/08/19/nasa_artemis_3_construction/
- Source link:
The [1]buildup has begun at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida with the shift of the SLS engine section and boat tail, which protects the engines during launch, from the Space Systems Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). The VAB already contains the almost complete Artemis II SLS, which is set to launch in early 2026 and carry a crew on a ten-day mission around the Moon.
Artemis III, in 2027, is the landing mission, and planners are aiming for the lunar South Pole.
[2]
There are plenty of ifs and buts around the mission. Artemis III could be the final flight of the SLS, depending on what happens to NASA's budget. In one [3]proposal , the SLS program is canceled after the Artemis III mission. An [4]amendment could, however, keep the program running for a few more missions.
[5]
[6]
Then there is the question of how the astronauts will get down to the lunar surface. The current plan involves a rendezvous with SpaceX's Starship Human Landing System, but the last three test flights of [7]SpaceX's Starship have not gone well, and the most recent rocket exploded before it even left Earth. Musk's rocketeers, therefore, have their work cut out if they are going to meet NASA's 2027 requirement.
[8]NASA boss calls for nuclear reactor on the Moon
[9]One Big Brutal Bill: Ex-NASA brass decry Trump's proposed budget cuts
[10]Saudi CubeSat gets golden ticket on doomed SLS rocket
[11]Boeing warns SLS staff that job cuts could be on the way
No pressure on making a success of the upcoming Starship test flight.
The engine section of the SLS is currently lacking the former Space Shuttle Main Engines, which are due to be shipped from NASA's Stennis Space Center in early 2026. The rest of the Artemis III SLS core stage is at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. It includes the liquid hydrogen tank, liquid oxygen tank, intertank, and forward skirt.
The SLS core stages for Artemis I and II were previously manufactured entirely at the Michoud facility before being transferred to NASA Kennedy for integration with the solid rocket boosters (SRBs), upper stage, and the Orion crew spacecraft. Some parts of the process were shifted to Kennedy to "streamline" the process and, according to NASA, "enable simultaneous production operations of two core stages."
[12]
That is, unless Artemis III ends up using the final SLS – if cancellations and cuts bite. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2025/08/18/nasa-begins-processing-artemis-iii-moon-rocket-at-kennedy/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aKTz997OWsXPNMCfV7K8DQAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/02/nasa_funding_slashed/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/09/us_lawmakers_nasa_response/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aKTz997OWsXPNMCfV7K8DQAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aKTz997OWsXPNMCfV7K8DQAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/18/spacex_starship_10_test/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/08/nasa_boss_calls_for_nuclear/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/nasa_boss_budget_reaction/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/14/saudi_cubesat_sls/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/10/boeing_warns_sls_staff_that/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aKTz997OWsXPNMCfV7K8DQAAAQs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Should SpaceX test far more than putting a Starship in orbit?
Need to get into orbit first. A few years ago Gwynne Shotwell predicted that SpaceX would be landing on the Moon by ... 2022. So far, Starship is a giant boondoggle. There is no scientific reason for Artemis that is worth the expense and it should be cancelled entirely.
Re: Should SpaceX test far more than putting a Starship in orbit?
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. SLS is the Congressional jobs program, not really a rocket. Starship actually has a useful goal, making a fully reusable heavy lift booster... like a Saturn V but not mostly thrown in the ocean.
So that is a hell of a difficult engineering challenge, much like landing a booster and reusing it, so they're going through development hell.
If that happens, and I'm optimistic, it'll enable a ton of things, much like the Falcon 9 has. Hell, just the re-entry protection tech will be worth its weight in gold.
Re: Should SpaceX test far more than putting a Starship in orbit?
Artemis II is basically a repeat of Apollo 8.
And like the Starship lander, the Apollo LM was running WAY behind. It didn't even make it onto the rocket for Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 was too heavy to land and had other unfinished bits.
The Apollo 11 LM was the result of a SWIP (super weight improvement program) that lightened it enough that it could land AND take off again, something Neil & Buzz no doubt appreciated.
So it's not like NASA doesn't have form here.
Re: Should SpaceX test far more than putting a Starship in orbit?
“Artemis II is basically a repeat of Apollo 8.“
In many ways it’s less ambitious that Apollo 8, it will be following a free-return trajectory, that sends it towards the moon, loops around and then returns straight to Earth. Unlike Apollo, which used the SM engine to slow it enough to be captured into lunar orbit, of which it did ten (IIRC), before firing the engine again to accelerate it out of orbit and send it back to Earth.
NASA is usually pretty thorough, if they think the Spacex thing can be made to do the job, I can’t really fault them. They put Ingenuity space helicopter on Mars, plenty of people thought it was impractical or improbable, and it worked!
As for “what is the point,” they haven’t come up with a reasonable justification at all. Just some hand-waving, “opportunity to conduct research” of unknown type or value. It’s like the time they ran out of ideas to be in space so they asked Elementary schools to think of something worthwhile to do in space, and nobody remembers what the kids came up with.
No one believes they'll make the 2027 schedule
For a variety of reasons. If it does I think we should all worry for the safety of the astronauts, as keeping schedule is likely to be the result of management/political interference overruling engineers. Which always goes well.
Ideal conspiracy opportunity
Faking the SLS launch and pocketing the money would be on brand for the current administration
then you would have the democrats as the conspiracy theorists claiming the whole thing was fake and MAGA all insisting that it went to the moon.
Overall: safer, cheaper, lower environmental impact, equally scientifically valuable and a lot more amusing
Re: Ideal conspiracy opportunity
“Faking the SLS launch and pocketing the money would be on brand for the current administration”: oh, that’s just a wild accusation.
Should SpaceX test far more than putting a Starship in orbit?
Shouldn't they test also the in-space refuelling and the lunar lander itself? In one year, without having put a Starship in space yet?