NASA safety watchdog says it's time to rethink Moon landing
- Reference: 1772108756
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/26/nasa_safety_artemis/
- Source link:
Artemis III aims to land astronauts near the lunar South Pole, relying on SpaceX's Starship-derived Human Landing System (HLS) - a vehicle that has yet to achieve orbit, let alone venture anywhere near the Moon. It's an extraordinarily ambitious undertaking, and one the [1]ASAP report has formally classified as high risk.
The problem is that there are an awful lot of firsts associated with the mission. It'll be the first to depend on SpaceX's HLS, the first to need multiple in-space refuelings (the report estimates 15), the first time a crew will use the HLS, and so on.
[2]
ASAP's primary goal is to identify risks and mitigations. It says the solution here is to ease off from doing so much in one mission and consider a more stepwise approach, similar to the Apollo program.
[3]
[4]
The first Apollo crew was launched into orbit with Apollo 7, followed by a mission around the Moon with Apollo 8. Apollo 9 checked out the Lunar Module in Earth orbit, and Apollo 10 did pretty much everything except land. The first lunar landing happened with Apollo 11. Each mission was predicated on the success of the previous.
[5]Artemis II headed back to the bay; helium issues force another delay
[6]NASA points fingers at Boeing and chaotic culture for Starliner debacle
[7]NASA's fill-'er-up Moon rocket 'confidence' test sees mixed results
[8]Smartphones cleared for launch as NASA loosens the rulebook
It makes sense from a technical perspective. However, elsewhere in the report is data that highlights other challenges faced by NASA, including resource constraints. It does not have the human resources it had during the Apollo era, when staffing exceeded 35,000 full-time employees. Today, that figure is dropping fast. According to the report, it neared 15,000 in 2025. The agency also has nowhere near the budget it had during the Apollo Moon missions, and so the desire to fit as much as possible into fewer missions is understandable, even if the report deems doing so in Artemis III "a high risk."
"Rebalancing objectives is thus essential to the safe achievement of the national objective – returning the United States to the Moon," it says.
The lengthy report also covers the [9]Starliner fiasco , the aging ISS, and the obsolete spacesuits in which NASA expects astronauts to work outside the outpost,
[10]
Highlighting the challenges facing the Artemis III mission, however, will amplify calls for the agency to reconsider its objectives.
While there may be a political desire to return astronauts to the Moon within the current US administration, the report highlights the technical and resource realities that must also be considered. Better to rethink the objectives than try to cram too much into just one mission. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/asap/
[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=2aaB8NXq8HkUz349Gi51omwAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] 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=44aaB8NXq8HkUz349Gi51omwAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] 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=33aaB8NXq8HkUz349Gi51omwAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/23/artemis_ii_launch_april_helium_issues/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/19/nasa_starliner_blame/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/16/nasa_has_mixed_results_from/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/06/smartphones_nasa/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/19/nasa_starliner_blame/
[10] 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=44aaB8NXq8HkUz349Gi51omwAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "too many firsts in Artemis III mission"
And "first on the moon" isn't on offer, it's just the first since last time.
So it will all go horriblu wrong and the rocket will blow up at some stage killing the crew.
Trump will then give a lonh rambling speech calling the mission a stunning success and a triumph of american engineering. He will then sneer about how it only happen with him in charge.
In case you haven'r noticed, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
If it kills any American crew, it'll all be Biden's fault. Or possibly Obama's.
If it goes well, it was Trump's influence. But then also probably "job done, don't need any more funding"
Outburst?
I'm waiting for an outburst from the Orange One about how 'unamerican' the report is and how it's biased (towards what? Who knows?).
Firsts
Make it the first manned mission to the Moon achieved solely with the aid of AI. For added assurance of the success of the mission, from the supplier side, the CEO of the company that supplied the AI tech and the CEO of Boeing to be onboard. From the government side, who better than the commander in chief, Donald Trump.
Success of the mission is guaranteed.
Don't anyone mention the Titan submersible
Re: Firsts
Just to be sure, make it a one-way mission. You know about the millions to one chance...
Re: Firsts
It will certainly cost less - they can task the AI to figure out a way back using the resources on the Moon
So before they can go to the moon, they have to build many filling stations on the route.
How did the Apollo missions manage to get there and back without refuelling?
Obviously became Apollo didn't have all these pinko woke liberal environmental climate change laws
The new mission will be coal powered
I so wish I had more upvotes.
Upvoted for sarcasm. I'll have to tilt my screen to let the sarcasm drip out now :).
Much smaller craft. The Orion is about the same mass as an Apollo CSM but carries a lot less fuel, it can't get itself into low Lunar orbit whereas Apollo could put the CSM and docked Lunar Module there. HLS is 8-10 times the mass of the Lunar Module and even by pessimistic estimates could carry a couple of LMs as cargo.
HLS is 8-10 times the mass of the Lunar Module
Well the HLS is being made by a car manufacturer. Maybe Elmo is trying to squeeze through a CAFE loophole for fleet fuel economy. They already did the roadster, now it's time for an SUV.
Apollo's CSM & LM were light weight and with the help of the Saturn V were actually capable of getitng to Lunar orbit.
Orion is an overweight pig that with SLS help can't even reach a proper lunar orbit you can land from.
Of course in the 60s Health & Safety was not what it is today and NASA were very, very, very lucky not to lose any crew after Apollo 1.
Very, very lucky or very, very careful?
Both
Have you seen renders of SpaceX's HLS on the moon? It's so fecking tall it's going to have a crane to get astronauts in & out.
(Disclaimer: I think SpaceX's design is a very bad idea - but I'm not rocket scientist)
Because they were a very different missions and spacecraft.
Note that they launched each Apollo mission on a single stack, but that the lander massed a little under 5 tons dry.
The HLS based on SS is likely to have a dry mass of ~20 times that.
The Apollo stack was also fully expended, whilst the aim with HLS is to recover the SH booster, as well as all the ships (other than the HLS itself which won't return from lunar orbit).
The SLS/Orion stack is closer to the SV stack... The Apollo CSM was ~12 tons, the Orion is ~ 9 ton from the capsule and a further 6 for the service module.
It's substantially less capable as a heavy lift than the SV (140 tons) with just 95 tons to LEO in early iterations - it does play a bit of catchup with 130 targetted for block2.
I have an idea. As I understand it, the Trump administration are in favour of Battleships. So all they need to do, is to fit a Wave Motion Generator to one of the 4 Iowa class battleships. I suggest Wisconsin, which had the latest refit - but you can pick, depending on who pays the biggest bribe needs their museum ship least. Make a few compartments airtight, fit a few space toilets and fill 'er up with fuel. Bish! Bash! Bosh! New spaceship. Get it up there, do a few tests in LEO - then off to the Moon, plant flags, take photos, few quick samples, game of golf, back in time for tea and medals.
I believe they've got very good machine shops on these. So could also drop by the Hubble space telescope and give that a quick service - maybe pop to Mars and do some maintenance on all the rovers and fix up that helicopter - or even take a new one.
So all they need to do, is to fit a Wave Motion Generator to one of the 4 Iowa class battleships. I suggest Wisconsin, which had the latest refit - but you can pick, depending on who pays the biggest bribe needs their museum ship least.
The US can't even figure out how to put training wheels on a shuttle to move it. But not this battleship-
https://www.youtube.com/@BattleshipNewJersey
Because Ryan produces a lot of great videos about New Jersey, battleships in general, and why the US Navy is going 'Ok Boss!'. But the next 'battleship' probably won't be a BB, but more likely a CG & Ticonderoga replacement. Even though it would please my soul to see a real BB with 18" guns.. Which the US probably doesn't have the capability to manufacture any more.
The American space program is a weak shadow of its former self, not because Americans are fundamentally incompetent or technologically deficient, but because they have become lazy, complacent, and almost child-like in their thinking - on the rare occasion that they can be bothered to think at all.
American leadership is now modeled on graft, exploitation, and power-by-threat - or murder; quality education is in the doldrums; competence and expertise run a distant second, third, or fourth to brand, fealty, and social approbation. A much larger than zero percentage of the population have learned to *like* seeing people harmed, humbled, and humiliated
Most disappointing is that they did this to themselves, literally choosing this model, these actions, these incompetent but extractive leaders - sorry, "leaders" - to guide them to exactly this outcome.
It's all bread and circuses - the Las Vegas prototype edition - but the bread is mouldy, the entertainment is as cheap as it is vicious, and the outcomes are all bad. Perhaps more regrettably, they're getting it all over everyone else, too.
This is not an environment conducive to success, especially not in fields as complex and risk-laden as space exploration. America is done. Last one out please turn off the lights.
At this point, the only external solutions are isolating the U.S., firewalling against local contamination, and preparing a robust defense.
To repeat an old statement, we're fully OK with Trump restarting his Wall project. Europe may even spring for the roof.
I mostly agree except that for most presidential appointments competence is not considered at all - only loyalty matters.
Also, the other key components for Artemis are time, money and goal. The schedule is limited by the theoretical end of the current president's term in office. More time is needed. In reality more money is needed but in some weird alternate reality SLS could be cancelled and the money spent on something useful for cost effective Lunar missions. Lastly there is the goal which is spiralling towards a repeat of Apollo trimmed down to "Flags and footprints 2". Been there, done that and China could still repeat it first. The US could actually win a race to the first permanently manned Moon base - if they set that as the real goal, abandon the current schedule and fund it properly. Excuse me while I ride a cuckoo to the clouds and feed some rainbows to my unicorns.
Firsts
The report includes a pretty picture captioned: "First-time mile stones for the Artemis III mission" which includes
First mission dependent on the Human Landing System
First mission requiring approximately 15 fueling launches
First use of LEO Depot station including Cryo refueling
First HLS launch from Cape Canaveral on a new launch pad
First HLS uncrewed Lunar Landing
First HLS uncrewed demonstration of a successful Lunar ascent
First HLS crewed landing on the Moon
First Lunar EVA since 1972
First HLS crewed ascent from the Lunar surface to Lunar Orbit
Several of those are from the demo portion of the contract SpaceX which has to complete before Artemis III starts. The demo portion could include a few RUDs and do-overs (at SpaceX expense) like Boeing had to repeat their uncrewed Starliner mission because the first one did not get to the ISS. Artemis III will not include the first HLS, first set of refueling launches, first use of a cryo propellant depot, first HLS launch from Cap Canaveral (on a launch pad that will definitely have been used for the depot, some tankers and probably some Starlink launches.) The uncrewed ascent is not part of the contract but SpaceX have promised to do it anyway. If that RUDs then I hope Artemis III will be delayed until after the second HLS uncrew Lunar landing.
NASA could (and probably should) include some extra steps but no matter how many are added one of them will be the first HLS crewed landing on the Moon - unless the project is cancelled. Hopefuly that will be followed by the first HLS crewed ascent. Artemis might not include the first Lunar EVA since 1972. That will depend on the progress China makes and if the US sticks to a schedule linked to presidential legal terms in office over a schedule based on thorough testing of all the components.
Re: Firsts
We're trying to do something which is "new" of course there will be firsts.
There are always firsts in a new program, particularly if you abuse the use of first to include "first in this programme", or "first with this specific technology"
Let's see Artemis II successfully deliver a crew around the moon and back
Not to be the Grim Reaper here, but Artemis III launching a crew to land on the moon in 2028 depends a lot on Artemis II succeeding.
That flight has now been delayed several times, for a total delay of almost 3 years (and counting). In an article written yesterday I read that April 1 is the next targeted launch date, but in the same article it said the crew has been released from quarantine to continue training-- which means they will not be ready to fly in 3 days.
It's like they're still engineering the thing, which doesn't bode well for a successful flight in the next month.
Re: Let's see Artemis II successfully deliver a crew around the moon and back
April isn't in three days (we've got all of March first)... but there is a reasonable chance they still won't be ready in April.
"too many firsts in Artemis III mission"
Vastly outnumbering the more or less desirable firsts, are all the opportunities space travel offers gratis for fatally tragic firsts.
Being the first men in the Moon, no matter how deep, is hardly a desirable alternative to being the first on the Moon.