Tag: SpaceX

On Tuesday, June 9, 2026 NASA held a major event to reveal the 4-man crew to fly the upcoming Artemis 3 Earth-orbit rendezvous mission and provide more information on the mission itself.

Originally planned to be the first Artemis mission to return humans to the Moon, Artemis 3 was wisely re-purposed early in 2026 to give astronauts a chance to get a hands-on feel for the vehicles intended to get them from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back again, by testing them in the relative safety of low-Earth orbit. Prior to this re-purposing, the first opportunity any crew would have had to test either vehicle – to be supplied by Blue Origin and SpaceX and referred to a the Human Landing System (HLS) by NASA – in space would have been immediately before the first attempt to land one of the vehicles on the Moon. Needless to say, this was hardly an ideal approach.

Instead, Artemis 3 will now be a 2-week mission (the longest yet for a crewed Orion vehicle) that will be a sort-of updated version of 1969’s Apollo 9 mission, which saw the Apollo Lunar Module tested in orbit around Earth during a 10-day flight. However, there will be a number of obvious and key differences which I’ll be getting to shortly.

The all-male crew for Artemis 3 comprise three US astronauts and one European Space Agency astronaut, with three of the crew highly experienced spaceflight veterans and the fourth making his first trip into space. They are:

Randolph “Randy” James Bresnik, 58 (NASA): Commander

• 

  Born in Fort Knox Kentucky, Bresnik served in the US Marine Corps, logging an impressive 6,000 hours flying 81 different aircraft types, including time served as a test pilot before retiring with the rank of Colonel.

• He joined the NASA astronaut corps in 2004, completing his training two years later.
• First flew in space STS-129 in 2009 aboard space shuttle Atlantis. The 13-day mission was part of the International Space Station (ISS) construction, and he performed two EVAs alongside crewmates Michael Foreman and Robert Satcher respectively, to install external payload / experiment pallets on to the space station.
• In 2011, he participated in the first ESA CAVES mission, a training course in which international astronauts train in a space-analogue cave environments such as might be used on Mars missions. Then in 2014 he commanded the NEEMO 19 mission, another analogue mission type, this one operated by NASA and using an underwater laboratory.
• In 2017, he made his second trip to the ISS, this time launching aboard Soyuz MS-05 and spending 138 days on the space station as a part of the Expedition 52/53 crews, during which he performed three more EVAs, bringing his total “spacewalk” time to 32 hours.

Luca Salvo Parmitano, 49 (ESA): Pilot

• 

  Sicilian-born Parmitano was the first Italian (and third European overall) to command a crew rotation aboard the ISS.

• He was educated in both Italy and the USA, gaining holding a masters degree in political science from University of Naples.
• He served in the Italian Air Force after training with the US Air Force, rising to the rank of Colonel and logging over 2,000 hours on over 40 types of aircraft (both fixed-wing and rotary), including time as a test pilot.
• Joined the European Astronaut Corps in 2009, and made his first flight to the ISS in 2011 aboard Soyuz TMA-09M.
• During this mission he carried out two EVAs, the second called short after he almost drowned when a fault in his spacesuit filled his helmet with coolant water up to his nose, shorting out his communications headset in the process.
• On returning to Earth, he indirectly followed in Bresnik’s footsteps, being selected for the 2014 ESA CAVES mission and then the NASA NEEMO 20 mission in 2015. He also participated in the ESA PANGAEA analogue mission in 2016.
• He returned to the ISS as a part of the Expedition 60 in 2019, flying alongside Christina Koch, one of the Artemis 2 crew. Whilst there, he completed four more EVAs for a total EVA time to 33 hours 9 minutes; became the first DJ to perform a live set from space (as a part of an music festival taking place in Ibiza) and took command of the ISS for 3 months as a part of Expedition 61.
• With a total time of just 59 minutes shy of 367 days in space, he is the second most experienced member of the Artemis 3 crew in terms of time in space.

Francisco “Frank” Carlos Rubio, 50 (NASA): Mission Specialist 1

• 

  A graduate of the United State Military Academy, holding a bachelor’s degree in international relations, he logged over 1,100 hours flying helicopters for the US Army, with 600 hours on combat missions in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

• He then transferred to the Army’s medical service, qualifying as a flight surgeon and then a field surgeon with the US Army Special Forces, rising to the rank of Colonel in the process.
• Joining NASA in 2017, he made his first flight into space aboard Soyuz MS-22.
• Planned for 6 months, as I reported at the time, this mission lasted more than a year after the Soyuz vehicle suffered a serious coolant leak. As a result, he and cosmonauts Sergey Prokopyev and Dmitry Petelin eventually returned to Earth aboard Soyuz MS-23 after completing 2 back-to-back 6-month tours on the ISS.
• As a result of this, he clocked up almost 371 days in orbit, taking the record for the longest continuous time in space for a US astronaut.

Andre Douglas, 40 (NASA): Mission Specialist 2

• 

  The mission rookie, making his first flight in space, he serves in the US Coast Guard (USCG) as a special advisor to the commander of the service. During his career, he served both at sea and on-shore, including time as Commandant of the USCG Academy.

• He holds both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in mechanical engineering; and further three master’s in naval architecture, marine engineering and electrical & computer engineering.
• In 2015 he transitioned from active service to the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of Johns Hopkins University. Here he carried out wide-ranging research, published several papers and collaborated with NASA to assess lunar surface needs for human and robotic missions, and helped to guide technology development in both.
• He joined NASA in 2021, completing his astronaut training in May 2024.
• His first active duty role was on the back-up crew for Artemis 2, training alongside the prime crew ready to replace any one of them in the event of injury or illness. He also served as a member of the launch pad close-out crew responsible for getting the crew safety into their Orion capsule on the day of the mission’s launch.

Following the announcement of the crew, NASA came in for criticism in that it is an all-male team, critics claims the selection was the result of the Trump administration’s determination to eliminate all aspects of DEI from the federal workforce. Responding to the criticism, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman pointed out that crew selection is based on specific criteria notably in this case, the need for well-qualified test pilots (Bresnik and Parmitano) and someone closely involved in the development of lunar flight systems (Douglas), whilst Rubio’s medical experience would enhance the science elements of the mission.

Artemis 3 Mission Profile

As currently defined, Artemis 3 will proceed in four parts.

In the first, Blue Origin will use their New Glenn rocket to launch their Blue Moon MK2 Pathfinder to low Earth orbit. Pathfinder is essentially a working crew module from their actual HLS vehicle, complete with RCS thrusters, solar arrays and a simulated set of cryogenic tanks actual Blue Moon HLS vehicles will require.

With the Pathfinder vehicle in orbit, NASA will launch the Artemis crew aboard an Orion vehicle atop a modified Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. This rocket will lack the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion (ICPS) upper stage replaced by a mass simulator, as the ICPS is not required for the mission. The Orion will then rendezvous with the Pathfinder vehicle to commence two days of vehicle testing. This work will include:

• Docking against Pathfinder’s orbital docking adopter/airlock.
• Testing the airlock system on the Pathfinder vehicle, with two members of the crew boarding the vehicle.
• Testing the module’s life support system through practical use, and also testing the on-board control, data management, navigation and communications systems.
• Carrying out a practical evaluation of the module’s living spaces in micro-gravity.
• Testing the module’s spacesuit storage and dressing spaces, with one of the crew actually donning and doffing one of the new Artemis space suits being developed by Axiom (or a non-functioning prototype thereof, depending on which is available at the time of the mission).

This is a fairly comprehensive test of the Blue Moon MK2 HLS crew module; however, it slips behind Apollo 9 in that there will be no testing of the HLS main propulsion system, and Pathfinder will not detach from Orion for a free-flight test of its RCS systems; Orion will manage all control and manoeuvring of the combined vehicles.

Following the Blue Moon tests, Orion will then shift to a single day of testing the docking system that will form part of the SpaceX Starship derived HLS. This docking system will be sent aloft on a “standard” Starship vehicle which – as of June 9th – is not expected to carry any other elements of the SpaceX HLS, severely limiting the idea of on-orbit system testing.

The fourth part of the mission will be peppered across the entire 2 weeks, comprising a range of science studies. These will include observations and measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere, together with medical and environment studies that build on the human science experiments carried out as a part of Artemis 2, and which are designed to further increase our understanding of dynamic space environments and radiation patterns.

One additional element of the mission has yet to be confirmed, and that is the potential for an EVA test. Details on this are currently sketchy, and it ultimately depends on whether or not Axiom can deliver a working version of the new Artemis space suits. These are intended to be a modular, dual-purpose design so they can either be used as part of surface operations on the Moon or as EVA suits for micro-gravity work aboard the ISS and other space stations, so a test on Artemis 3 would help further validate the suit design for both roles.

If the suit carried aboard the Blue Origin Pathfinder vehicle is fully functional, then there will likely be a full test of the vehicle’s main lunar surface airlock system, including depressurising and repressurising it, testing the hatch mechanisms, etc. However, the individual wearing the suit will not actually exit the vehicle.

That the SpaceX vehicle is unlikely to be equipped with anything other than the HLS / Orion docking adaptor potentially puts SpaceX at a further disadvantage in terms of which HLS craft will be selected for Artemis 4 (and possibly Artemis 5), simply because the tests with the Blue Moon MK2 Pathfinder are liable to give NASA a greater degree of confidence in that vehicle. This is further supported by the fact that Blue Origin have already supplied NASA with two test articles of their lander’s crew module, own of which is fully equipped for ground-based training and simulations. SpaceX are unlikely to achieve this before late 2026 at the earliest.

However, this does suppose that Blue Origin will actually be able to participate in Artemis 3 as currently scheduled. As I’ve previously reported, the only launch pad capable of handling New Glenn was destroyed on May 18th, 2026, during the testing of a New Glenn rocket in preparation for its next flight. Whilst Blue Origin is hoping to have all reconstruction work at LC-36 completed well in time for Artemis 3, there is a huge amount of work to be done in this regard.

Given this, Blue Origin’s Senior Vice President of Lunar Permanence, John Couluris used the June 9th event to indicate that as well as trying to push ahead with on-site investigations and clean-up operations at LC-36 so as to allow rebuilding to commence sooner rather than later, Blue Origin is also seeking to accelerate plans submitted for approval in April 2026 for the construction of a brand new launch facility to support New Glenn operations.

Dubbed SL-36B/11, this is to be built on the company’s current engine test stand located at LC-11, Canaveral Space Force Station and a short distance from LC-36. The hope is that if the approval process can be accelerated, Blue Origin will be able to commence construction even as work continues at LC-36. If so, there is a possibility the company might have two launch pads available for New Glenn flights by the time of Artemis 3.

Obviously, this is a very ambitious plan, and as such there is still the possibility that Artemis 3 might yet be pushed back into 2028 (although political pressure could weigh heavily against this) in order to ensure Blue Origin is in a position to participate. This could also benefit SpaceX, as it might provide them with the opportunity to provide more than just the HLS docking adaptor for Artemis 3 testing (although this would likely be a long shot as well).

In the meantime, one interesting facet that did emerge from the June 9th event was that SpaceX and NASA are in discussions about changing the Artemis mission profiles when using the SpaceX HLS vehicle.

Under current plans, both the Blue Origin and SpaceX HLS vehicles are launched into low-Earth orbit first and (after propellant loading / docking with a transport vehicle in the case of Blue Origin) then proceed to lunar orbit to await the arrival of a crew aboard an Orion spacecraft. However, the SpaceX / NASA discussions revolve around having the Orion vehicle rendezvous and dock with the SpaceX HLS whilst the latter is still in orbit and after it has received the propellant load-out it requires to carry out its lunar mission.

This approach actually makes a lot of sense. For one thing, it means that the crew could potentially make use of the the roomier facilities aboard the SpaceX HLS during the outbound trip to the Moon (and ensure it is all functioning smoothly) and it would potentially provide them was a “lifeboat” capability in the event of an Apollo 13-style accident. As such, it will be interesting to see had far these discussions progress.

As is well-known, the US hopes to make a return to the surface of the Moon with astronauts in 2028. This has been, and remains, a questionable time frame for a number of reasons. As I recently reported, NASA’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report indicating the new xEVA suits Axiom Space is developing for use on the International Space Station (ISS) and in lunar missions might not be ready for lunar operations until 2031.

Another bump in the road for 2028 is the availability of a vehicle to actually get crews from lunar orbit down to the surface of the Moon and back to orbit again. Again as I’ve oft mentioned, two companies are in the running to supply this vehicle – called the Human Landing System (HLS) in NASA parlance: SpaceX and Blue Origin. The two systems are very different to one another, and each has built-in complexities, some of which are down to NASA’s decision making, others are due to the choices being made by the two companies.

The biggest NASA-defined challenge is that both HLS vehicle must utilise cryogenic propulsion using either liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (Blue Origin) or liquid oxygen and liquid methane (SpaceX). The problem here is twofold: mass, and the fact that cryogenic propellants, as the name indicates, require very low temperatures and relatively large volumes in order function, otherwise they will simply (and dangerously) “boil-off”.

The mass of the propellants means that neither HLS system can be launched with the propellant load needed to reach the Moon, enter orbit and then deliver a crew to the surface of the Moon and back to orbit. They have to launched sans propellants and “refuelled” in space. This is turn brings up two issues.

The first is that no-one has ever performed the large-scale (100+ tonnes) transfer of cryogenic propellants in zero gravity (“refuelling” of the International Space Station is commonplace, but uses hypergolic propellants, which are completely different in nature and handling). Thus, both companies must develop and test mechanisms for the transfer of propellants from one vehicle (the “refuelling tanker(s)”) to another, and test then well before 2028 and Artemis 4.

The problem of boil-off is potentially more significant. As noted, cryogenics require extremely low temperatures if they are to remain liquid. Should they rise above the required temperatures they will sublimate to gas (boil off), drastically increasing their volume. Thus, if some of this gaseous propellant is not vented from the tanks, it could end up rupturing them completely, destroying the vehicle. Hence why rockets using cryogenics are seen venting clouds of propellants between fuelling and launch.

In space, any vehicle using cryogenics will spend the majority of its time in temperatures of around 121ºC. Even with tank insulation, this means there is likely to be significant boil off, meaning one of three things (or a possible combination of two of them):

• 

  The excess gases must be vented to space (and the inevitable thrust they cause countered), which in turn will require further propellants to offset such loss prior to the vehicle leaving orbit.

• Or, the vehicle must include some means of capturing the gas, and refrigerating back down and cycling it back to the tanks – all of which increases vehicle complexity and mass.
• Or the vehicle must be equipped with some passive means of keeping the propellants as close as possible to their desired liquid temperatures, minimising boil-off, again potentially increasing vehicle mass and complexity.

Thus, both SpaceX and Blue Origin must both find a way of minimising this propellant loss. In the case of SpaceX, this appears to be primarily in the form of loading as much in the way of propellants as possible into the vehicle so that the overall venting does not impact the vehicle’s capabilities; hence the estimates that 8-16 Starship “refuelling” launches might be required for the SpaceX HLS to carry out its mission.

Rather than relying on a massive HLS vehicle with huge propellant tanks, Blue Origin have opted for a much smaller, lighter vehicle (45 tonnes when loaded with propellants compared to the approx. 238 tonnes of the SpaceX HLS when loaded with propellants). However, it needs to be supported by an additional vehicle: Cislunar Transporter.

The latter is a combination of propellant tanks (which will incorporate some form of “zero boil-off” capability Blue Origin has apparently developed) and space-going tug. Following launch, it is designed to be refuelled by a number of New Glenn launches with around 100 tonnes of propellant. It will then dock with the Blue Origin HLS, once launched, and deliver it to lunar orbit, transferring some of its propellants to the lander’s own tanks so it can carry lout its mission.

In addition, and unlike the SpaceX HLS, the Cislunar Transporter will be capable of returning to Earth, where it can be loaded with further propellants and thus service additional flights of the Blue Origin HLS to / from the lunar surface.

But even with smaller, lower-mass vehicles, Blue Origin faces pretty much the same challenges as SpaceX in terms of propellant loading the storage. So, leaving these issues aside, how is the general development of both systems going and which is likely to get the prestige of returning astronauts to the surface of the Moon first?

On paper, both companies appear to be pretty neck-and-neck in terms of vehicle development. SpaceX for example, has completed around 50 target milestones with its Starship-derived HLS. These include land testing of an airlock test article; the development (with NASA) of an elevator system to be deployed when the vehicle is on the Moon in order to get crews two and from their facilities on the vehicle (roughly 45 metres above the lunar surface) and “ground level”; a “full test” of the life support systems; testing the Raptor engine’s ability to re-light in a wide range of temperature environments; development and testing of the SpaceX-Orion docking system and the vehicle’s avionics, flight and navigation software; mock-ups and testing of pre-launch ground support infrastructure, etc.

Blue Origin has also completed a similar number of tests on both software and hardware, including vacuum testing of the BE-7 engine to be used by their HLS, their cargo lander and the Cislunar Transporter. However, their testing is potentially ahead of SpaceX in some areas, and liable to quickly move ahead in others.

For example, where SpaceX has been testing its airlock design on land, Blue Origin has completed testing their airlock system within NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at the Johnson Space Centre. This has allowed space suited astronauts to test the airlock in similar circumstances to those they will experience on the Moon.

As well as this, the company has an integrated, full-scale mock-up of their HLS vehicle. This has allowed Blue Origin and NASA to collaborate directly on the design of the vehicle, including accessibility to critical systems, placement and operation of manual flight control systems, data displays, life-support systems, and the layout of essential crew facilities (toilet, food preparation air, food and beverage storage, personal spaces, etc.), in readiness for the manufacture of the initial HLS craft.

Further, later this year Blue Origin is due to launch the first of its Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo landers to the Moon. Whilst much smaller than the Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS, and only capable of delivering up to 3 tonnes to the Moon’s surface (no “refuelling” required), Blue Moon Mark 1 uses the same automated flight control, space navigation, landing guidance, data communications and propulsion management software as will be used on the Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS. Thus this first Mark 1 mission, featuring the lander Endurance, will be both a practical mission delivering two NASA experiments to the lunar surface and serve as a “pathfinder” test of these automated systems and the capabilities of the BE-7 engine.

If successful, Endurance will be followed in early-to-mid 2027 by a second cargo mission to deliver NASA’s cancelled-then-resurrected VIPER lunar rover mission to the Moon. Assuming either or both of these missions perform as expected throughout, they will pretty much indicate the flight software and BE-7 are fit-for-use within the Blue Moon HLS.

Currently, Endurance is at Blue Origin’s facilities at Kennedy Space Centre, Florida, where it will be integrated with its launch vehicle. Prior to arriving at KSC, Endurance had undergone extensive thermal vacuum chamber testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Centre, exposed the thermal and pressure environments it will face during its mission, and testing its overall readiness to fly.

The commonality of systems is also seen with the Cislunar Transporter. This was originally going to be developed by Lockheed Martin, but is now an in-house project at Blue Origin. This means that as well as utilising the same BE-7 engine, the overall design of the Transporter borrows heavily from the New Glenn upper stage, greatly reducing its development cycle and allowing it to use the Tanks and engine mounts, etc., from the New Glenn upper stage, greatly simplifying its design whilst enabling it to be manufactured on the same production line.

Like Endurance, an initial Cislunar Transporter prototype spent mid-2024 undergoing extensive vacuum and thermal testing at a facility at Edwards Air Force Base, California. As a result, production of the Transporter is due to start at Blue Origin’s primary plant at Kennedy Space Centre.

It is this progress within Blue Origin, countered by a perceived lack of significant progress by SpaceX on their HLS through 2025, which led NASA’s former Administrator, Sean Duffy to announce the first Artemis crewed landing on the Moon would not be an SpaceX exclusive, but would feature whichever HLS system was fit-for-purpose and ready for a 2028 launch; a decision since confirmed by the current Administrator, Jared Isaacman.

Under Isaacman’s leadership, there is to be a crewed Earth-orbital test of the HLS vehicles in 2027 under the Artemis 3 banner. This test could be with both HLS vehicles, if both are ready in time, or by whichever is available, and will be used in a final determination as to which vehicle Artemis 4 will use.

However, whether Blue Origin or SpaceX will be in position to meet a 2027 HLS test flight is entirely open to debate. Both companies have already asked NASA to push back the test flight from mid-2027 to late 2027, which the agency has done, but Blue Origin remains somewhat tight-lipped about the overall development status of Blue Moon Mk2 and Cislunar Transporter.

Meanwhile, in promising to accelerate its HLS development, SpaceX has set itself some hefty goals for 2026, especially considering we’re fast closing in on being half-way through the year. These include:

• Actually getting a Starship to orbit.
• Demonstrating Starship can reach orbit with a “useful payload” – thus far, the “version 1” and “version 2” variants have either sacrificed payload lift capability in favour of just getting to sub-orbital velocity, or sacrificed the ability to achieve orbit in favour of carrying a modest payload – Starlink demonstrators – to sub-orbital velocity. Thus, hopes are now pinned on “version 3”, due to make it s first launch attempt sometime in the next month.
• Carry out an on-orbit cryogenic refuelling mission.
• Undertake a “long duration” Starship flight. This was initially defined by the SpaceX CEO as a mission to Mars, now all but abandoned for 2026 (and likely the foreseeable future), leaving the context of the flight uncertain.

There is also the matter of actually recovering Starship vehicles as they return to Earth. This is an essential part of the equation for SpaceX, as the company has indicated it will pay for all of the HLS “refuelling” launches, estimated at up to US $400 million a throw if an entirely new vehicle is used for each if these launches.

Given all that has to be achieved in just 18 months, it may yet ben that the Artemis 3 mission might be further pushed back. If so, then Artemis 4 will likely not occur until 2029 at the earliest (assuming the Axiom xEVA space suits are ready by then). If this happens, then the door to which HLS system is used would again be thrown wide open.

However, there are two additional factors outside of development time frames and general vehicle readiness which could play into Blue Origin’s hands, at least as far as the Artemis 4 mission is concerned: a) vehicle size and mass distribution, b) risk mitigation.

The SpaceX Starship HLS is 52 metres tall and 10 metres in diameter, with a relatively narrow landing leg spread compared to its height. When it comes to landing on the Moon, with the majority of its propellant spent, it also has a very high centre of gravity due to the engines and propulsion systems, crew facilities, power and life support systems, etc., all located in the upper third of the vehicle. Blue Moon Mk2 is only 15.3 metres tall and its centre of mass is in is lower third. It also follows the Apollo lunar lander approach of having a broad spread with its landing legs for increased stability and support.

Whilst it is essential all Artemis missions to the Moon minimise the risks faced by their crews, given the “first time” nature of Artemis 4, the use of Blue Origin Mk2 might be seen as the better choice of lander, simply because its squat, low centre of mass design minimises the risk of it toppling over when landing on a unknown surface. The same cannot be said with certainty for the SpaceX design, where even a minor depression directly under one of its landing legs could result in disaster. As such, use of this vehicle might be better suited until after “eyes on the ground” have been able to more accurately determine relatively “safe” areas where it might land.

So, which vehicle do I think will get to fly with Artemis 4? Allowing for the aforementioned caveat of missions being pushed back and assuming SpaceX don’t find a way of testing an uncrewed version of their vehicle to better assess the risk of toppling-on-landing, I do tend to lean towards Blue Origin. While they face challenges – some of them the same as SpaceX, as noted – their approach just comes across as cleaner, more fit-for-purpose. But then, I don’t work for NASA.