NASA is proposing SpaceX Starship now handles translunar injection (TLI) propulsion and the full landing role, while SLS/Orion is limited to LEO only.
This shrinks Boeing’s role and gives more to SpaceX Starship.
Artemis III (2027) — LEO Docking Test (Almost Unchanged, Now a Perfect Dress Rehearsal)
Before today’s proposal (Feb 27 baseline):
Orion (with 4 astronauts) launches on SLS into LEO. It practices rendezvous, docking, and joint operations with one or both commercial Human Landing Systems (HLS) — SpaceX’s Starship variant and/or Blue Origin’s Blue Moon. Full tests of life support, communications, propulsion, new xEVA suits, and docking procedures. No trip to the Moon. This was explicitly designed as a low-risk “Apollo 9-style” shakedown.
After today’s proposal, It is virtually identical, The LEO docking with Starship is exactly the first step of the new landing architecture. Artemis III becomes the ideal rehearsal for the Earth-orbit rendezvous + Starship TLI that Artemis IV will actually fly. No major hardware changes needed for this mission. It still launches in mid-2027 and remains the risk-reduction flight before any landing attempt.
Artemis IV (2028) — First Crewed Lunar Landing (Biggest Change) OLD PLAN
SLS launches Orion + crew on a direct path toward the Moon (using the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage or similar for TLI to send Orion into a near-rectilinear halo orbit or lunar orbit). A pre-launched, refueled Starship HLS would meet Orion in lunar orbit, crew transfers, Starship descends to the surface (South Pole region), spends ~6–7 days on the Moon, ascends, redocks, and Orion returns the crew to Earth.
Artemis IV (2028 NEW)
Completely chagned.
SLS launches Orion + crew only into LEO (no TLI burn from SLS — that expensive upper-stage role is eliminated).
In LEO, Orion docks with a Starship (the HLS variant, already refueled via Starship tankers if needed).
Starship performs the entire TLI burn, propelling the docked Orion + Starship stack all the way to lunar orbit.
In lunar orbit (now likely a simpler low-lunar orbit instead of NRHO), crew transfers to Starship for landing, surface ops, ascent, redock with Orion, and Earth return.
This cuts costs fpr SLS upper stages, enables more propellant margin, and simplifies the mission.
First landing still targeted for 2028 (possibly early in the year).
Artemis V (Late 2028) — Second Landing (Same New Architecture)
OLD PLAN
Identical to the old Artemis IV profile SLS sends Orion most of the way to the Moon, lunar-orbit docking with a second Starship (or Blue Moon) HLS.
NEW PLAN
Exactly the same new flow as New Artemis IV: SLS → Orion to LEO only.
LEO docking with Starship.
Starship TLI + landing + ascent.
NASA is now aiming for two landings in 2028 (IV and V) and one per year thereafter. The new architecture makes that cadence far more realistic because Starship can be reused/refueled faster than redesigning SLS flights.
Risk reduction, Artemis III now tests the exact docking that IV/V will use.
The plan has been internally approved at NASA. Isaacman is holding a summit this Tuesday (March 25) with SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin to finalize implementation details and acceleration. Formal public confirmation is expected soon after. Starship still needs to demonstrate orbital refueling and human-rating, but the 2027 Artemis III test buys critical time.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Wow! Someone at NASA just woke up from a l-o-n-g snooze.
Could Orion and its service module be launched on the Starship 1st stage booster? Much cheaper and a mission to the moon every week… 🙂
I guess the “biggee” here is restarting the development of the Saturn moon rocket?
NASA has had the embarrassing distinction of “wasting” the “NASA Apprentices” back in the 1980s until they “aged out” and got snapped up by SpaceX.
Just look at the timeline, both that which was needed to happen, and the management failures of the then NASA Administration in the 1980s/1990s.
1/ “Project Paperclip” brought the NAZI Rocket Team to America for ICBM development after the close of WW2, and the State Department slut-washed their, ahem, “humanitarian failures”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
2/ The designer of the “Saturn-5” lunar rocket was (very correctly) expelled from America, once his wartime NAZI atrocities were publicly exposed. But, that ended Saturn rocket development entirely as he was the only person capable of such a feat as designing a fully functional lunar rocket at that particular time in America (1950-1990).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rudolph
3/ Dr Werner Von Braun died, the only person in NASA with an Asperger Brain that could fully understand all of the “Global requirements” required for a lunar mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
4/ NASA was sidetracked by political interference (Congress) into building the ISS as a way of engaging the Soviet Union during it’s breakup.
https://www.popsci.com/brief-history-space-stations-before-iss
So then, a solution?
1/ Save all of the NASA “F-1” rocket engine test facilities and make them operational!
2/ Modernize the F-1 for 3D printing, mass production, and begin testing them.
3/ Employ new engineering recruits at NASA to be involved with industry in reverse engineering the three remaining Saturn-5s, to restore “in house” NASA engineering competence and lay the foundations of a new space industry in America, devoid of all the failed, political funded, boondoggles of the past (Boeing/LockheedMartin/Grumman).
4/ Modernize the F-1 and begin 3D printing engines for test runs prior to using them again (utilizing already existing American industry). Same basic design burning LOX and Kerosine, but with a growth path to eventual Hydrogen/LOX combustion.
5/ 3D print a new “Saturn-20” test launch vehicle without SRBs capable of reuse with enough DeltaV to place a 8000 Kg “upper stack” into LEO.
6/ The “upper stack” would be the Orion capsule, Blue Moon-1 Lunar lander (or derivative thereof) , Trans-lunar Injection Stage with 4 vacuum rated “F-1” engines. The upper stage to be repurposed into becoming modules for the proposed Lunar Gateway in low lunar orbit, detaching and recycling the upper stage F-1 engines back to Earth with a new “lunar re-supply cargo module” to be designed and introduced later.
Time to first launch: Three years. (Target date, 2030, for first lunar mission). This leaves ample time to complete the early Artemis missions.
Initial cost: 2 trillion dollars. (Half of a single Artemis launch vehicle!)
Over time, this first Saturn-20 Kerosene burning reusable launcher will be replaced with a production run of three modernized hydrogen burning replacements that will keep Lunar and Mars missions underway for NASA manned spaceflight into the foreseeable future on a monthly launch schedule.
https://au.pinterest.com/pin/1113655814128731580
SLS does has one huge advantage – if you love savory pork.
The picture at the top of the post bothers me.
The unmanned lunar landings over the last few years show that the lander should be wider than it is tall or there is a *large* risk of the lander falling over.
But that was landings by companies that didn’t have a huge track record of vertically landing taller than wide rockets within inches of their intended location.
Typically those craft didn’t fall over because they were tippy, they fell over because they landed still having significant horizontal velocity.
Wouldn’t landing on even a very modest slope still leave a problem even if there is zero horizontal velocity?
Is SpaceX including adjustable length landing legs in their plans? That might keep that mobile tower vertical.
I don’t see why there’s a need for SLS then. Any “Falcon 9” could carry astronauts into Earth orbit.
If Starship is capable of refueling itself for a lunar mission, it’s certainly capable of delivering Starlinks (and maybe AI satellites, though I’m not sure it’s worth doing). That implies that there will be >100 flights per year around the time of the first lunar mission.
It’ll probably be a while before we trust the chopsticks to catch astronauts without fail. But launch looks pretty conventional. How’s this for a mission architecture?
Build a Starship with a hatch big enough to fit a Dragon capsule through. Launch it with a Dragon capsule installed, with astronauts in the capsule. Add whatever habitable volume you like, connected to the capsule.
Once in orbit, or transiting to the Moon, or whatever, the astronauts can have lots of space, with the capsule as a completely independent lifeboat. I doubt the astronauts would complain about staying in orbit for a few weeks while the fuel transfers were happening.
On the way back from the Moon, the astronauts get in the Dragon, disconnect from the Starship, and float out the giant hatch. Starship reenters and lands. Dragon reenters and lands.
Can’t they just eliminate SLS at all ? Use one starship to reach LEO, then transfer to another starship for TLI.
I’m a bit puzzled: What exactly is the Orion capsule doing for the mission, that the Dragon capsule couldn’t?
Never mind, looked it up: Getting votes.
Long duration, deep space missions?
Returning from lunar orbit?
Once you’ve got Starship, that’s already covered.
I agree with long duration, deep space missions since HLS has to handle that already. But what about lunar return. Starship hasn’t come close to proving that its heat shield can survive at lunar return speeds. Do you assume that it can propulsively return to LEO?
Starship was engineered to survive coming back from Mars. It’s not proven that it can survive lunar return, but it’s not implausible.
(Dragon was originally engineered to survive lunar return. PICA worked for OSIRIS-REx, hotter than lunar return.)
The HLS is not intended for reentry, so it lacks a heat shield. (I’m speaking prospectively, of course.) But you could equip the Dragon capsule with a drop tank to increase its propellant capacity enough to reduce reentry speed.
Dragon isn’t rated for the return velocities with the heat shield. I believe that its life support system won’t last for the needed period also.
How surmountable those problems are I’m not sure.
pork belly…