Former NASA Chief exposed Truth on Artemis HLS — Dumps New Glenn, Starship's Big Issue...

I do, um, I worry, uh, that we don't have a lander, uh, the, the SLS rocket is working, you know, it's been criticized a lot because of costs and time and everything else, but the bottom line is. The first time SLS launched, it was rated for crew and it was ready to go to the moon. NASA's ambitious Artemis program may be facing its biggest challenge yet. The agency has selected both lunar landers for its next major mission, but right now both are showing serious warning signs. Blue Origin's Blue Moon is facing a launch crisis after the New Glenn explosion. This left major questions about how the lander will even reach orbit. Meanwhile, SpaceX is racing to solve potential reliability issues with Starship version three, the very vehicle NASA is counting on to validate key technologies for its future human landing system. Yet, despite those risks, NASA is still moving forward with both spacecraft for a critical Artemis mission planned for 2027. So why is NASA willing to take that gamble? What backup plans could already be waiting behind the scenes? And are these problems simply growing pains or early signs of a much larger threat to America's return to the moon? As excitement builds toward Artemis three, NASA has taken another major step forward by officially answering the question, which lunar lander would support Artemis SpaceX's Starship 8LS Blue Origins Blue Moon, or potentially both? NASA's latest mission architecture reveals the answer both vehicles will participate. That decision creates a remarkably complex mission profile involving three separate launches and two major orbital docking operations. The sequence begins with Blue Origin. A Blue Moon test vehicle will be launched into orbit and remain there while waiting for the rest of the mission elements to arrive. To make that possible, the spacecraft must be capable of operating in space for up to 90 days without losing significant amounts of propellant through boil off. Next comes NASA's space launch system carrying Orion and its four person crew. After reaching low Earth orbit, Orion will rendezvous and dock with Blue Moon. The astronauts are expected to spend approximately three days evaluating the lander testing life support systems, opening hatches, verifying software interfaces, and validating operational procedures. Throughout the process, Orion will remain responsible for controlling the combined spacecraft stack. The third and final launch will be SpaceX's Starship HLS. This version of Starship is expected to use the standard version three platform equipped with a docking adapter. Once Blue Moon separates, Orion will dock with Starship for roughly a day. The shorter timeline is intentional. Unlike Blue Moon, Starship will not be configured for crew access during this mission. There will be no crew cabin to enter, no life support hardware to evaluate, and no hatch operations to perform. The objective is simply to validate docking procedures and spacecraft interactions. After completing those tests, Orion will undock and return to Earth, bringing the two week mission to a close. NASA's test strategy is surprisingly methodical. Blue Moon will undergo a far more extensive evaluation than Starship largely because it resembles the type of spacecraft NASA has operated for decades. Its compact size and conventional architecture make it an ideal platform for validating fundamental crew operations such as docking hatch procedures, software integration, and vehicle access. Starship presents a very different challenge. Standing approximately 165 feet tall, it is unlike anything NASA has ever docked with before. Rendezvousing Orion with a vehicle of that scale introduces an entirely different set of operational considerations. By testing Blue Moon first, NASA can establish confidence in its baseline procedures before moving on to the more demanding Starship demonstrations. Blue Moon faces another challenge that may be even more difficult endurance. Because it launches first, the spacecraft must survive in orbit while Orion and Starship are prepared and launched. Maintaining stable systems for that long creates significant thermal management requirements. Both Blue Moon variants rely on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. While liquid hydrogen delivers exceptional performance, it is notoriously difficult to store. The fuel must remain near minus 253 degrees Celsius. Any heat entering the tank causes the hydrogen to evaporate, slowly reducing the spacecraft's available propellant. Blue Origin's solution begins before launch. The spacecraft is loaded with its full supply of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen immediately before liftoff, maximizing the amount of usable propellant available for the mission and compensating for the small losses that naturally occur over time. The more impressive solution happens once the spacecraft reaches orbit. Blue Origin is developing a zero-boil-off storage system that actively prevents hydrogen loss. The technology uses cryocoolers, essentially highly specialized space refrigerators, to continuously cool the propellant tanks and recondense hydrogen vapor before it can escape. The tanks are also wrapped in advanced multilayer insulation and connected through specially designed low-heat interfaces that minimize external heat transfer. According to Blue Origin, the technology successfully completed a major demonstration last July and met NASA's performance objectives, marking an important step toward long-duration hydrogen storage in space. Additionally, for such a long time, Blue Moon would be operating alone in low-Earth orbit without a crew on board. During that entire period, the spacecraft must function as a fully autonomous vehicle maintaining its health monitoring critical systems and holding its assigned orbit while waiting for Orion and Starship to arrive. There is also a major logistical question hanging over the mission how to launch Blue Moon in the first place. Following the explosion at Launch Complex 36, the status of New Glenn's availability for a Blue Moon mission remains uncertain. NASA has not publicly detailed how it intends to address that challenge. However, if the agency continues moving forward with this mission architecture, it is reasonable to assume that contingency plans already exist behind the scenes. Compared to Blue Moon, Starship HLS appears to face considerably less pressure during this particular mission. The spacecraft's primary role is to serve largely as a docking target, allowing NASA to verify the performance of the docking adapter and validate interactions between Orion's systems and Starship's hardware. In many ways, the vehicle's role resembles that of the Agena target vehicles used during the Gemini program, which helped astronauts practice rendezvous and docking techniques long before lunar missions became possible. Significant HLS features such as the landing engines, which may number between nine and twelve per vehicle, and surface landing systems will not be tested during this mission. These complex systems are expected to be tested during an uncrewed end-to-end landing demonstration prior to the Artemis IV mission. By limiting Starship's responsibilities to docking and proximity operations, NASA appears to be taking a pragmatic approach. The agency can continue advancing Artemis milestones while reducing development risk and giving SpaceX additional time to mature the more complex elements of the human landing system. That urgency becomes even clearer when looking at Starship's current development status. As of today, SpaceX has only flown version three once, with its debut test flight taking place in late May. This is the version NASA cares about most because it incorporates many of the hardware changes intended to support the future HLS program. For that reason, every flight of version three is being watched closely, not only by SpaceX, but also by NASA. Viewed as a whole, flight 12 was a meaningful step forward compared with the first flights of previous Starship generations. Yet the mission also exposed several warning signs that cannot be ignored. The most serious issues occurred on the Super Heavy booster. While all 33 Raptor engines ignited successfully at liftoff, the boost-back burn quickly unraveled. Multiple engines failed to restart as planned, forcing the burn to end after only about 20 seconds instead of the intended one minute. Without sufficient thrust, the booster lost attitude. Control began tumbling and ultimately impacted the Gulf at speeds exceeding 1,400 kilometers per hour, more than 300 kilometers away from its planned splashdown zone. The Starship upper stage delivered a stronger performance. The vehicle successfully reached space, completed stage separation, and deployed its Starlink mass simulators. Although an engine issue required in-flight adjustments, Starship survived atmospheric reentry and completed a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean. That outcome creates a mixed picture for SpaceX. The Raptor 3 engine was expected to be a breakthrough with fewer parts, fewer welds, and higher thrust to end Starship's reliability nightmare. However, the failure of multiple engines during a critical operation like boost-back burn reveals a systemic flaw in the new design. Notably, the previous Raptor 2 series never experienced similar serious problems with the thrust stage during testing. If the issue proves to be systemic rather than isolated, SpaceX will need to identify and correct it quickly. Time is becoming increasingly valuable. Fortunately for SpaceX, progress toward Flight 13 appears to be moving at an aggressive pace. Booster 20, currently expected to support the next mission, completed its first cryogenic proof test on June 6th with encouraging results. The vehicle is expected to return to the production site for engine installation before heading to Pad 2 for static fire testing. Meanwhile, Ship 40 is rapidly approaching flight readiness. Pad 2 emerged from the previous mission with little visible damage, allowing SpaceX to move directly into post-flight verification activities. Teams have already tested major systems, including the chopstick arms and quick disconnect hardware. Observers also noticed that the landing rails on the chopstick arms have been removed. The most likely explanation is that SpaceX is preparing an upgraded configuration for future catch attempts. The primary external hurdle remains regulatory approval. The FAA has opened an investigation into the Flight 12 booster anomaly, focusing on issues that occurred during the boostback and landing phases. However, SpaceX typically conducts hardware modifications and testing in parallel with the investigative process, meaning the review itself is unlikely to become the pacing item for Flight 13. As a result, the next launch could arrive surprisingly soon. The gap between Starship flights continues to shrink, and current indicators suggest Flight 13 could fly within the next week.