(twelfth in a series)
Artemis III
The next crewed Artemis mission wil be Artemis III, planned for June 2027. Originally planned for the first crewed return to the lunar surface, Artemis III was reprogrammed to new objectives by NASA once it became clear that the “human landing system (HLS)—the moon landers—would not be ready next year. Rather than endure a long delay, NASA chose to fly Artemis III in a low-Earth-orbit test, sending Orion’s crew up to dock with the two maturing lander designs.
Neither lander will be ready in 2027 to attempt a Moon landing, but SpaceX and Blue Origin plan to orbit their landers with the necessary docking systems to enable Orion to rendezvous and link with each lander in turn. The Artemis III crew will meet SpaceX’s Starship and dock at its nose, but there won’t be a crew compartment inside, so astronauts will not enter the Starship.
Blue Origin plans to have a partially outfitted cockpit on its Blue Moon Mk 2 lander, enabling the astronauts to dock, then transfer inside Blue Moon for a short visit. If NASA can dock Orion sequentially at both candidate landers, and each one performs well while Orion visits, then NASA may be ready to attempt a crew transfer and landing attempt on Artemis IV. When that landing attempt will come isn’t known, but NASA hopes one or both machines might be ready in 2028.
Pathfinders to the Moon
While NASA readies its human lander docking tests for Artemis III, now planned for June of 2027, it is forging ahead with robotic lunar exploration missions to prepare for an astronaut return to the Moon. The agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program is harnessing a number of commercial space companies to test needed technologies and scout the location for astronaut landings and an eventual Moon base. NASA has 17 contracts signed for delivery of lunar scientific and commercial experiments through 2028, including sending 60+ agency instruments to the Moon.
One robotic lander is Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander, called Endurance, which is aiming at a launch early in 2027. Blue Moon Mk 1 is a large lander, powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, and will test a system to offload big cargo elements on the surface. Its launcher is the Blue Origin New Glenn rocket, and Endurance is the first of four Mk 1 landers. This design is the basis for the human lander to be tested on Artemis III.
Firefly Aerospace is preparing its Blue Ghost 2 lander to reach the lunar farside. Following up on the success of the Blue Ghost 1 in March 2025, this lander will carry the LuSEE-Night radio telescope to the quiet farside and deploy a United Arab Emirates rover to explore the surface. Blue Ghost 2 launches next year on a Falcon 9 rocket.
Intuitive Machines is preparing its third robotic mission, the Nova-C lander, Trinity, for a science mission to the enigmatic Reiner Gamma region of the nearside. Burning LOX and methane (CH4), Trinity will carry both scientific and commercial payloads, including rovers and a plant growth experiment. The company’s first two landers tipped over upon touchdown, so Intuitive Machines is intent on “sticking the landing” with Nova-C Trinity.
Voyager Lunar Systems is building the Griffin-1 lander, carrying the AstroLab FLIP rover to the Moon’s South Pole. Temperatures there range from -334 to +130 degrees F. The 500-kg (over a thousand pounds) FLIP rover will demonstrate how to unload large cargo elements in the rugged polar terrain. Griffin-1 may launch on a Falcon Heavy in late 2026.
Eventually, NASA and its partners will have to focus on the search for water ice—a foundational resource for oxygen and rocket fuel—with an eye toward its lunar base. A robot, like the postponed VIPER ice-seeking rover, will penetrate the murky depths of a shadowed crater, tackling those very chilly temperatures (as low as -410°F, or -246°C in permanently dark terrain). There it will dig into the soil to determine the state of the water ice. Is it lying around like snowflakes? Are there little ice pellets mixed in with the dirt? Will it find slabs of ice a couple of feet down? Nobody knows.
With hard information about the physical state of these ice deposits in hand, an astronaut crew at the lunar South Pole can begin the process of exploiting that resource.
Artemis IV
The Artemis IV mission is currently planned to execute NASA’s historic human return to the Moon. Its crew will land in either the Starship or Blue Moon descent craft and explore the area for a couple of weeks. The astronauts will search for ice resources and gather rocks from the surrounding South Pole/Aitken Basin, the largest and oldest impact crater on the Moon. Those rock samples from the deep mantle of the moon should give us a glimpse into the Moon’s very early history and the composition of its otherwise inaccessible interior.
Artemis IV’s crew will rocket from the surface to rejoin Orion in lunar orbit. After transferring crew and lunar samples to Orion, the reunited crew would then fire the main engine to start for home.
The actual landing site hasn’t yet been chosen. Scientists have identified thirteen likely targets to receive further scrutiny and analysis; NASA may not decide on the exact site until close to the Artemis IV mission itself.
When Artemis IV flies depends on the progress of Starship and Blue Moon testing. I’m impressed by SpaceX’s launch record, pace, and ability to recover and reuse its boosters via a rocket-powered landing. Today the company gets NASA cargo and astronauts to the space station reliably and safely.
But adapting Starship, a satellite truck, to the lunar landing mission gives me pause. The Starship and its Super Heavy first-stage booster have lagged consistently behind schedule. Instead of being ready for landing in 2024, the second-stage Starship after thirteen tests has yet to achieve orbital flight.
The first obstacle is complexity. The Starship concept depends on orbital refueling, requiring about fifteen successful Super Heavy launches and fuel transfers to the orbital depot to fuel the Moon-bound lander. The first stage booster and second-stage tankers are to be reused; if one or more is lost, propellant replenishment will halt. How long will it take to launch enough fuel for a single Starship lander?
Second, the Starship’s tall, slender configuration could give it trouble landing on uneven terrain. With its narrow landing legs, Starship’s stability is a concern; two Intuitive Machine robot landers have tipped over at lunar touchdown. Third, Starship will need an elevator to get its crew and cargo down to the surface. That elevator’s reliability will be a key crew safety issue.
Finally, Starship in thirteen flights (more pending) has flown only suborbital missions, and the propellant depot and lunar operations and landing tests still loom large. As someone who helped put the space station together, I’m particularly worried about pulling off more than a dozen robotic dockings and propellant transfers without a hitch, just to enable a single Moon landing for NASA. SpaceX will have to achieve that level of perfection repeatedly for every subsequent surface expedition.
NASA’s backup lander, from Blue Origin, also requires some orbital refueling, but details on that strategy are still lacking. And the propellants are, like Starship, LOX and liquid methane, which tend to boil off and require active refrigeration to survive the weeks from orbital refueling through conclusion of a lunar expedition. One plus: the shorter Blue Moon is a more low-slung design than Starship, less susceptible to tipping.
Once on the Moon, extended presence is what NASA is after. That means an outpost, visited periodically, to learn how we can operate on another planet, and support ourselves with the water and mineral resources there. Those skills will enable us to reach more distant destinations: the nearby asteroids and Mars. We’ll talk about those crucial, enabling resource strategies next time.
Next: This Time to Stay
I share many of your lunar landing concerns, Tom. Add to them: what happens to the lander after ascent and rendezvous/crew transfer with Orion in lunar orbit? If we plan to crash the expended lander onto the Moon, our experience with a Falcon 9 upper stage’s lunar impact last month does not bode well for future lunar infrastructure above, on, or below the lunar surface (ref. my post at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7498140120156524544/).
If only we weren’t in a self-imposed race back to the Moon, the U.S. could address concerns like a top-heavy Starship lander. Given more time, Elon could send a cadre of his “Optimus” AI robots to the Moon, where they’d pre-emplace a Starship landing pad, complete with chopsticks and elevator. Not having to carry landing gear and elevator hardware, a crewed Starship would have appreciably greater performance and safety margins.
Oh, and I should add a semi-obvious remark about top-heavy human landers. Until they can be refueled for launch on the Moon, they’ll have considerable propellant for ascent aboard when they land. If they fall over upon touchdown, the resulting explosion will not be survivable.
Dan: I agree with your points. Lunar landers should be refurbished and reused, or disposed of in a solar orbit, not abandoned in lunar orbit. It’s a great idea to robotically emplace a landing pad at the future outpost site, to avoid high-speed dust damage and to stabilize spacecraft touching down. You’re absolutely right that a fueled lander touching down must stick the landing, first time and every time. And because Starship has only one stage, a descent abort must use the descent engines to kill all downward velocity and haul all the landing fuel back to a safe lunar orbit. Likely, there will be a point below which such an abort isn’t possible.