Kennedy Space Center

nasa-officials-sidestepped-questions-on-artemis-ii-risks—there’s-a-reason-why

NASA officials sidestepped questions on Artemis II risks—there’s a reason why

artemis, artemis II, human spaceflight, Kennedy Space Center, moon, NASA, orion, Space, space launch system / /

“This ought to make for some good reading,” NASA’s mission management team chair said.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman joins the Artemis II crew for a press conference at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on January 17, 2026. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

When talking about risk during a press conference on Thursday, the NASA officials in charge of the upcoming Artemis II Moon mission hedged their answers.

Reporters’ questions on the risks were certainly valid and appropriate. In an open society, it is vital to set expectations for any hazardous venture such as spaceflight—most importantly for the astronauts actually making the journey, but also for NASA’s workforce, the White House, lawmakers, and members of the public paying for the endeavor.

What’s more, Artemis II will be the first mission since 1972 to fly humans to the vicinity of the Moon. This is not following the well-trodden yet perilous path that astronauts take to reach the International Space Station, just a few hundred miles above Earth.

Artemis II will travel more than 1,000 times farther from Earth than the ISS, departing on a trajectory taking the mission several thousand miles beyond the far side of the Moon. The mission will last nine days from liftoff in Florida to splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. The four-person crew will ride a rocket and spacecraft—the Space Launch System and Orion—that have flown together just once before. The sheer novelty of the mission makes it difficult to quantify the risk, NASA officials said Thursday.

Load and go

With just a single data point from flight testing—the unpiloted Artemis I demo mission in 2022—NASA managers were reluctant to publicize the bottom-line number from the probabilistic risk assessment for Artemis II.

Lori Glaze, NASA’s acting associate administrator for exploration system development, said the agency completed an assessment for Artemis II, but questioned the exercise’s usefulness.

“I think sometimes we get tricked into believing that those numbers are somehow really telling us something critically important,” Glaze said. “I think they’re valuable. I think we can do things in a relative sense to measure what’s more risky or less risky.”

Glaze and other members of the Artemis II management team were speaking with reporters at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center following a flight readiness review. The two-day conclave in Florida provided the forum for a “very open” and “transparent” discussion of NASA’s “risk posture” heading into the Artemis II launch, and “how we’re mitigating those risks,” Glaze said.

The decision-makers present for the meeting unanimously agreed to continue final preparations for the Artemis II mission, now scheduled for liftoff no earlier than April 1 at 6: 24 pm EDT (22: 24 UTC). “It is a test flight, and it is not without risk, but our team and our hardware are ready,” Glaze said.

The four astronauts training to fly on Artemis II joined the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) virtually from their home base in Houston. Their participation included discussion of the Orion spacecraft’s heat shield and reentry trajectory, a topic that prompted additional review from NASA leadership after Jared Isaacman took the helm as the agency’s administrator last year.

Super-telephoto view of the Orion spacecraft’s heat shield tiles.

Credit: Trevor Mahlmann

Super-telephoto view of the Orion spacecraft’s heat shield tiles. Credit: Trevor Mahlmann

“The question was, ‘Are we going to be able to hit that entry interface and get them back on Earth safely,’” Glaze said of the crew’s comments during the FRR. “They were listening to make sure that we have that really nailed down, and we’ll be able to hit that entry interface. Understanding communication challenges and making sure that they’ll be able to maintain communication with Earth. That’s one of the things. They were looking at those risks. The environmental control and life support systems, power systems, things like that, the things that could cause challenges to them while they’re in flight.”

The Artemis II launch was supposed to take place in early February, but engineers ran into problems with a leaky hydrogen seal in the SLS rocket’s fueling line, followed by an issue loading helium into the rocket’s upper stage. The latter problem forced NASA to return the rocket to the hangar for repairs. It will return to the launch pad next week.

Mission managers have opted not to put the rocket through another fueling test. Before rolling the rocket off the launch pad last month, the launch team completed a successful countdown rehearsal that showed fresh hydrogen seals were leak-tight. “At this point, we’ve demonstrated that the seals that we have are the best seals that we’ve ever seen on the SLS,” Glaze said. “The next time we tank the vehicle will be when we’re attempting to launch.”

NASA has six launch opportunities in early April—officials just added April 2 to the list of possible launch dates—or else will have to wait until the end of April for the next series of launch attempts.

Are the numbers trash?

John Honeycutt, chair of the Artemis II mission management team, discussed the mission’s risk uncertainties in an uncharacteristically blunt fashion for a NASA official.

NASA wants to avoid succumbing to a failure of imagination, a term invoked by astronaut Frank Borman after the fatal fire inside the Apollo 1 spacecraft on its launch pad in 1967. “We use that term a lot in human spaceflight,” Honeycutt said. “We want to be sure that we’re thinking about everything that can possibly go wrong, and have we assessed and adjudicated all the risk to put us in the best posture to be successful.”

So, what is the risk of a catastrophic accident on Artemis II? Honeycutt said NASA has “grappled” with the risk probability for some time. “What I would say is we understand the risk associated with the individual components, the subsystems, and then the overall systems.”

Statistically, Honeycutt said, about half of all rockets fail on their first flights. This is essentially true, with the global success rate for new types of orbital-class rockets somewhere between 50 and 60 percent over the last decade, depending on what exactly qualifies as a new launch vehicle. The SLS rocket performed marvelously after clearing the launch pad on Artemis I.

John Honeycutt, chair of NASA’s Mission Management Team for the Artemis II mission, speaks during a news conference at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 16, 2026.

Credit: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

John Honeycutt, chair of NASA’s Mission Management Team for the Artemis II mission, speaks during a news conference at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 16, 2026. Credit: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Honeycutt, who managed the SLS program before taking over the Artemis mission management team, said he and Glaze want to bring the probability of a failure on an Artemis flight below 1 in 50. Achieving a 2 percent failure rate would assume NASA was “really getting after it and staying on a good cadence,” Honeycutt said. (NASA’s inspector general, in a report released earlier this week, wrote that the agency’s “loss of crew threshold” is 1 in 30 for Artemis missions overall. A NASA spokesperson said Thursday the agency would release more context on the risk assessment, but did not provide additional information by press time.)

The lull between Artemis missions comes with its own risks. Taking so much time—nearly three-and-a-half years—between flights doesn’t improve safety. This is apparent to Isaacman, who announced last month a program shake-up to fly the next mission—Artemis III—next year to low-Earth orbit to demonstrate docking with a commercial lunar lander in low-Earth orbit. Under the previous plan, Artemis III would have gone all the way to the Moon. The audacity of such a mission, wrapping so many untried things into a single flight, meant Artemis III would not have launched for at least two more years, and probably more like three, four, or more.

Now, Artemis IV is in line to attempt the program’s first human landing at the Moon’s south pole. Isaacman hopes to launch Artemis IV in 2028, but the schedule hinges on near-flawless execution on Artemis II, Artemis III, and speeding up the availability of human-rated Moon landers undergoing development by SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Long breaks between launches are “not a recipe for success,” Isaacman said last month. Honeycutt said Artemis II’s risk assessment falls short of the 1-in-50 goal.

“On the second or third time, with this gap that we’ve got, it’s probably not even 1 in 50,” Honeycutt said of Artemis II. “It’s probably not 1 in 2 … but it’s probably closer to 1 in 2. That basically means we’re probably not 1 in 50 on the mission exactly like we want it to be, but we’re probably not 1 in 2 like we were on the first flight.

“I think we’re being really careful not to really lay probabilistic numbers on the table for this mission, just given the small amount of data.” Honeycutt continued with an uninhibited appraisal of NASA’s ability to quantify risk.

“It’s interesting that I didn’t get this question asked of me too much on Artemis I, and I understand why,” he said. “We’ve got people on the rocket this time, so people go, ‘Oh, shit’ … I know we have pursued loss of mission, loss of crew type number assessments, but I’m not sure we understand what they mean, in reality.”

Honeycutt used the danger of falling foam on the space shuttle as an example. This is what led to the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia on reentry in 2003, killing seven astronauts at the end of a research mission in low-Earth orbit. The failure was precipitated by an event during launch 16 days earlier.

In order to correctly assess the risk of foam loss, NASA would have had to not only calculate the probability of foam falling from the shuttle’s external fuel tank, but also all the other variables that could lead to a catastrophic failure. “It’s got to be in the right place, and then you’ve got to work the demise chain,” Honeycutt said. “What’s it going to hit? What if it does hit that? What can it do? If you work through all that from a technical standpoint, you can put yourself in a better place rather than just solely relying on a probabilistic number.”

The loss of mission and loss of crew assessments are not the same. Unlike the shuttle, the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft have a Launch Abort System, giving the astronauts the ability to escape a rocket failure during ascent into space.

The Artemis II crew virtually joined the flight readiness review held at Kennedy Space Center this week.

Credit: NASA/Amber Jean Notvest

The Artemis II crew virtually joined the flight readiness review held at Kennedy Space Center this week. Credit: NASA/Amber Jean Notvest

Facing reality

The way NASA is assessing and communicating risk for Artemis II sharply contrasts with how the agency formulated and discussed risk assessments for several recent notable missions.

On Artemis I, NASA assessed there was a 1-in-125 probability that the Orion spacecraft could be lost in flight, an estimate that far exceeds Honeycutt’s evaluation of statistical risk. Before Artemis I’s launch in 2022, NASA said the probability took into account known failure modes, redundancy in the rocket and the spacecraft, and “common cause failures” that might take out multiple systems in flight.

The top risk for Artemis I was the potential for collisions with small pieces of space junk or tiny naturally occurring fragments of asteroids or comets. The catch-all term for this material is micrometeoroids and orbital debris (MMOD). NASA officials also cited risks with avionics and software on the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft’s heat shield propulsion system.

Honeycutt and Glaze are not the first NASA officials to question the validity of probabilistic risk assessments, which rely on numerical and statistical inputs, many of which are grounded in assumptions, especially for flights early in a program.

Bill Gerstenmaier, the former longtime chief of NASA’s human spaceflight programs and now a SpaceX vice president, has cited the agency’s erroneous risk assessment ahead of the first space shuttle flight in 1981. Engineers estimated a 1-in-500 to 1-in-5,000 chance of losing the crew on that mission. In retrospect, the first shuttle flight actually had a 1-in-10 to 1-in-12 chance of killing the crew. The odds of crew loss for each Apollo mission were about the same. By the end of the shuttle program, after two fatal disasters, NASA calculated that the risk of losing the crew on any single mission was about 1 in 90.

NASA assessed 1-in-276 odds for loss of crew on the first flight of astronauts aboard SpaceX’s Crew Dragon in 2020. For Boeing’s Starliner in 2024, the probability was 1 in 295. You wouldn’t be wrong to question those numbers given the proven performance of Dragon and Starliner.

This chart from NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance describes the agency’s process for conducting probabilistic risk assessments.

Credit: NASA

This chart from NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance describes the agency’s process for conducting probabilistic risk assessments. Credit: NASA

So, what do the Artemis II astronauts make of all this?

The mission’s commander, Reid Wiseman, said the crew members were trying to prepare their families “honestly and openly” for the hazards of a circumlunar flight.

“I went on a walk with my kids, and I told them, ‘Here’s where the will is, here’s where the trust documents are, and if anything happens to me, here’s what’s going to happen to you,’” Wiseman said. “That is a part of this life. I actually wish more people in everyday life talked to their families that way because you never know what the next day is going to bring.”

Any sailor knows you can’t stay in the harbor forever. Test pilots and astronauts take calculated risks for a living.

“When you see numbers like Mach 39 at entry, when you see numbers like 38,000 miles, 250,000 miles, and 5 or 6 million pounds on the pad, those are just insane numbers,” Wiseman said. “These numbers, you don’t even comprehend. There’s risk in that. We don’t know what we don’t know right now, so we’ll go learn all that [on the mission].

Despite the unknowns, Wiseman is ready: “For me, I actually feel completely 100 percent bought in. When I get into Orion, it’s like climbing into my bed, and I’ll feel warm and tucked in.”

The formal risk matrix for Artemis II is similar to that of Artemis I, with MMOD again at the top of the list. Matt Ramsey, NASA’s Artemis II mission manager, told Ars in January that the Orion spacecraft’s environmental control and life support system, which didn’t fly with its full capability on Artemis I, is the second-highest risk for Artemis II. “Those two are my biggest worries,” said Ramsey, who has been with NASA since 2002.

Honeycutt, a 36-year NASA veteran, has a different view.

“When have the last two events occurred?” Honeycutt said, referring to the root causes of NASA’s Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters. “Going uphill, in that highly energetic event, that’s when it occurred. We can fool ourselves sometimes into thinking, ‘Really, is that the biggest risk to the mission, MMOD?’

“When we’ve got the most dynamic activities going on, like during ascent, when we’re doing those burns, doing the perigee raise, and then we’re doing the TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) burn, those are going to be the times that we’re introducing the most risk into the whole mission,” Honeycutt said. “There’s a lot of time where we’re steady state, and we’re going to be feeling pretty good about what’s going on in the mission.”

Ramsey’s role as mission manager will transition to Honeycutt two days before launch. The Launch Abort System reduces the risk of a rocket failure harming the crew, Ramsey said. “That mitigates a lot of the ascent risk,” he said. “Certainly, the entry, descent, landing is risky. You’ve got to get the parachutes out and that sort of thing.”

“At the end of the day, we want to accomplish as many goals as we’ve laid out for ourselves in the mission,” Honeycutt said. “But the main thing that I want to do is I want to hit that damn entry interface right down the middle and make sure that I’m bringing the crew home safely.”

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

NASA officials sidestepped questions on Artemis II risks—there’s a reason why Read More »

no-fooling:-nasa-targets-april-1-for-artemis-ii-launch-to-the-moon

No fooling: NASA targets April 1 for Artemis II launch to the Moon

artemis, artemis II, human spaceflight, Kennedy Space Center, moon, NASA, Space, space launch system / /

NASA has fixed the problem that forced the removal of the rocket for the Artemis II mission from its launch pad last month, but it will be a couple of weeks before officials are ready to move the vehicle back into the starting blocks at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The 322-foot-tall (98-meter) rocket could have launched as soon as this week after it passed a key fueling test on February 21. During that test, NASA loaded the Space Launch System rocket with super-cold propellants without any major problems, apparently overcoming a persistent hydrogen leak that prevented the mission from launching in early February.

However, another problem cropped up just one day after the successful fueling demo. Ground teams were unable to flow helium into the rocket’s upper stage. Unlike the connections to the core stage, which workers can repair at the launch pad, the umbilical lines leading to the upper stage higher up the rocket are only accessible inside the cavernous Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at Kennedy.

Mission managers quickly decided to roll the rocket back to the assembly building for troubleshooting. The rocket returned to the VAB on February 25, and within a week, engineers found the source of the helium flow issue. Inspections revealed that a seal in the quick disconnect, through which helium flows from ground systems into the rocket, was obstructing the pathway, according to NASA.

Sealing the deal

“The team removed the quick disconnect, reassembled the system, and began validating the repairs to the upper stage by running a reduced flow rate of helium through the mechanism to ensure the issue was resolved,” NASA said in an update posted Tuesday. “Engineers are assessing what allowed the seal to become dislodged to prevent the issue from recurring.”

No fooling: NASA targets April 1 for Artemis II launch to the Moon Read More »

nasa-reports-no-significant-leaks-in-artemis-ii-fueling-test,-eyes-march-6-launch

NASA reports no significant leaks in Artemis II fueling test, eyes March 6 launch

artemis, artemis II, human spaceflight, Kennedy Space Center, moon, NASA, Space, space launch system / /

A second fueling test on NASA’s Space Launch System rocket ended Thursday night, giving senior managers enough confidence to move forward with plans to launch four astronauts around the Moon as soon as March 6.

Unlike the first attempt to load propellants into the SLS rocket on February 2, there were no major leaks during Thursday’s practice countdown at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Technicians swapped seals at the launch pad after hydrogen gas leaked from the rocket’s main fueling line earlier this month. This time, the seals held.

“For the most part, those fixes all performed pretty well yesterday,” said Lori Glaze, acting associate administrator for NASA’s exploration programs. “We were able to fully fuel the SLS rocket within the planned timeline.”

The results keep the Artemis II mission on track for liftoff as soon as next month. NASA gave up on a series of February launch opportunities after encountering a persistent hydrogen leak during the first Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR).

“We’re now targeting March 6 as our earliest launch attempt,” Glaze said. “I am going to caveat that. I want to be open, transparent with all of you that there is still pending work. There’s work, a lot of forward work, that remains.”

If teams complete all of that work, liftoff of the Artemis II mission could occur within a two-hour window opening at 8: 29 pm EST on March 6 (01: 29 UTC on March 7). NASA has other launch dates available on March 7, 8, 9, and 11, but the mission may have to wait until April. There are approximately five days per month that the mission can depart the Earth after accounting for the position of the Moon in its orbit, the flight’s trajectory, and thermal and lighting constraints.

The Artemis II mission will last between nine and 10 days, taking NASA’s Orion spacecraft with commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, and mission specialists Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen around the far side of the Moon before returning to Earth for splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. Wiseman’s crew will set the record for the farthest humans have ever traveled from Earth, and will become the first people to fly to the vicinity of the Moon since 1972.

NASA reports no significant leaks in Artemis II fueling test, eyes March 6 launch Read More »

nasa-has-a-new-problem-to-fix-before-the-next-artemis-ii-countdown-test

NASA has a new problem to fix before the next Artemis II countdown test

artemis, artemis II, artemis iii, human spaceflight, jared isaacman, Kennedy Space Center, NASA, orion, Science, Space, space launch system / /

John Honeycutt, chair of NASA’s Artemis II mission management team, said the decision to relax the safety limit between Artemis I and Artemis II was grounded in test data.

“The SLS program, they came up with a test campaign that actually looked at that cavity, the characteristics of the cavity, the purge in the cavity … and they introduced hydrogen to see when you could actually get it to ignite, and at 16 percent, you could not,” said Honeycutt, who served as NASA’s SLS program manager before moving to his new job.

Hydrogen is explosive in high concentrations when mixed with air. This is what makes hydrogen a formidable rocket fuel. But it is also notoriously difficult to contain. Molecular hydrogen is the smallest molecule, meaning it can readily escape through leak paths, and poses a materials challenge for seals because liquified hydrogen is chilled to minus 423 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 253 degrees Celsius).

So, it turns out NASA used the three-year interim between Artemis I and Artemis II to get comfortable with a more significant hydrogen leak, instead of fixing the leaks themselves. Isaacman said that will change before Artemis III, which likewise is probably at least three years away.

“I will say near-conclusively for Artemis III, we will cryoproof the vehicle before it gets to the pad, and the propellant loading interfaces we are troubleshooting will be redesigned,” Isaacman wrote.

Isaacman took over as NASA’s administrator in December, and has criticized the SLS program’s high cost—estimated by NASA’s inspector general at more than $2 billion per rocket—along with the launch vehicle’s torpid flight rate.

NASA’s expenditures for the rocket’s ground systems at Kennedy Space Center are similarly enormous. NASA spent nearly $900 million on Artemis ground support infrastructure in 2024 alone. Much of the money went toward constructing a new launch platform for an upgraded version of the Space Launch System that may never fly.

All of this makes each SLS rocket a golden egg, a bespoke specimen that must be treated with care because it is too expensive to replace. NASA and Boeing, the prime contractor for the SLS core stage, never built a full-size test model of the core stage. There’s currently no way to completely test the cryogenic interplay between the core stage and ground equipment until the fully assembled rocket is on the launch pad.

Existing law requires NASA continue flying the SLS rocket through the Artemis V mission. Isaacman wrote that the Artemis architecture “will continue to evolve as we learn more and as industry capabilities mature.” In other words, NASA will incorporate newer, cheaper, reusable rockets into the Artemis program.

The next series of launch opportunities for the Artemis II mission begin March 3. If the mission doesn’t lift off in March, NASA will need to roll the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to refresh its flight termination system. There are more launch dates available in April and May.

“There is still a great deal of work ahead to prepare for this historic mission,” Isaacman wrote. “We will not launch unless we are ready and the safety of our astronauts will remain the highest priority. We will keep everyone informed as NASA prepares to return to the Moon.”

NASA has a new problem to fix before the next Artemis II countdown test Read More »

nasa-stage-show-explores-“outer”-outer-space-with-henson’s-fraggles

NASA stage show explores “outer” outer space with Henson’s Fraggles

A Space-y Adventure, artemis, Cotterpin, doozer, Florida, Fraggle, fraggle rock, Gobo, Henson Creature Shop, international space station, John Tartaglia, Kennedy Space Center, KSCVC, NASA, RED, Space, Space Coast, Space exploration, space history, stage show, The Jim Henson Company, Uncle Traveling Matt, Universe Theater, Visitor Complex / /

(Asked why Traveling Matt would not have recognized the Moon from his time in outer space, Tartaglia said that perhaps he did see it, but only as a thin crescent, and did not equate the two. Or maybe it was that he was “so forward-driven” that he never bothered to look up.)

A postcard with a picture of a “cookie” helps lead Gobo, Red, and Uncle Traveling Matt to learning about the moon and how NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems team is enabling astronaut missions to the lunar surface.

Credit: Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex

A postcard with a picture of a “cookie” helps lead Gobo, Red, and Uncle Traveling Matt to learning about the moon and how NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems team is enabling astronaut missions to the lunar surface. Credit: Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex

As Gobo, Red, and Traveling Matt step through the Fraggle hole onto the stage at Kennedy, they are no longer hand-operated puppets but full-body “walk-around” characters. And to remain to scale, that meant up-scaling another character, too.

“When we scaled up the Fraggles to be costume-size, so they could dance and move without being encumbered by being just puppets, we realized that one of the Doozers would have to become puppet-size. That was really fun to do because the real Doozers are six inches tall, and they are animatronic. They’re teeny, and now they get to have their glory as hand puppets,” said Tartaglia, who also voices Gobo for the show and performs as him when in puppet size.

Down at Fraggle Rock

When NASA first contacted the Jim Henson Company about bringing the Fraggles to the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, Tartaglia and his team knew it would be cool. And once they decided to have Uncle Traveling Matt be the show’s central character, the plot came together fairly quickly.

“He’s a great character to learn from because he is so oblivious, and he thinks he knows everything, and he really doesn’t. So he’s a great character to use as a bridge for the audience to be able to learn all these awesome facts and figures about NASA,” said Tartaglia.

He and his team also came to appreciate how much Fraggle Rock shares with the space agency, its activities, and goals.

“We all started talking and realized really quickly that Fraggles and Doozers and the whole message of Fraggle Rock—especially about Uncle Matt—is about exploring new worlds, making discoveries, and the whole fragile ecosystem. All of these different worlds need each other and want to work to learn more about each other. It sounded all very aligned with what NASA does and the whole purpose of space exploration,” said Tartaglia.

“So our two worlds that on paper wouldn’t seem connected, made a lot of sense to connect,” he said.

NASA stage show explores “outer” outer space with Henson’s Fraggles Read More »

the-fastest-human-spaceflight-mission-in-history-crawls-closer-to-liftoff

The fastest human spaceflight mission in history crawls closer to liftoff

artemis, artemis II, Christina Koch, human spaceflight, Jeremy Hansen, Kennedy Space Center, moon, NASA, orion, Reid Wiseman, Science, Space, space launch system, victor glover / /

After a remarkably smooth launch campaign, Artemis II reached its last stop before the Moon.

NASA’s Space Launch System rocket rolls to Launch Complex 39B on Saturday. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida—Preparations for the first human spaceflight to the Moon in more than 50 years took a big step forward this weekend with the rollout of the Artemis II rocket to its launch pad.

The rocket reached a top speed of just 1 mph on the four-mile, 12-hour journey from the Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Complex 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. At the end of its nearly 10-day tour through cislunar space, the Orion capsule on top of the rocket will exceed 25,000 mph as it plunges into the atmosphere to bring its four-person crew back to Earth.

“This is the start of a very long journey,” said NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. “We ended our last human exploration of the moon on Apollo 17.”

The Artemis II mission will set several notable human spaceflight records. Astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen will travel farther from Earth than any human in history. They won’t land. That distinction will fall to the next mission in line in NASA’s Artemis program.

But the Artemis II astronauts will travel more than 4,000 miles beyond the far side of the Moon (the exact distance depends on the launch date), setting up for a human spaceflight speed record during their blazing reentry over the Pacific Ocean a few days later. Koch will become the first woman to fly to the vicinity of the Moon, and Hansen will be the first non-US astronaut to do the same.

“We really are ready to go,” said Wiseman, the Artemis II commander, during Saturday’s rollout to the launch pad. “We were in a sim [in Houston] for about 10 hours yesterday doing our final capstone entry and landing sim. We got in T-38s last night and we flew to the Cape to be here for this momentous occasion.”

The rollout began around sunrise Saturday, with NASA’s Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule riding a mobile launch platform and a diesel-powered crawler transporter along a throughway paved with crushed Alabama river rock. Employees, VIPs, and guests gathered along the crawlerway to watch the 11 million-pound stack inch toward the launch pad. The rollout concluded about an hour after sunset, when the crawler transporter’s jacking system lowered the mobile launch platform onto pedestals at Pad 39B.

Hitting the launch window

The rollout keeps the Artemis II mission on track for liftoff as soon as next month, when NASA has a handful of launch opportunities on February 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11.

The big milestone leading up to launch day will be a practice countdown or Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR), currently slated for around February 2, when NASA’s launch team will pump more than 750,000 gallons of super-cold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen into the rocket. NASA had trouble keeping the cryogenic fluids at the proper temperature, then encountered hydrogen leaks when the launch team first tried to fill the rocket for the unpiloted Artemis I mission in 2022. Engineers implemented the same fixes on Artemis II that they used to finally get over the hump with propellant loading on Artemis I.

So, what are the odds NASA can actually get the Artemis II mission off the ground next month?

“We’ll have to have things go right,” said Matt Ramsey, NASA’s Artemis II mission manager, in an interview with Ars on Saturday. “There’s a day of margin there for weather. There’s some time after WDR that we’ve got for data reviews and that sort of thing. It’s not unreasonable, but I do think it’s a success-oriented schedule.”

The Moon has to be in the right position in its orbit for the Artemis II launch to proceed. There are also restrictions on launch dates to ensure the Orion capsule returns to Earth and reenters the atmosphere at an angle safe for the ship’s heat shield. If the launch does not happen in February, NASA has a slate of backup launch dates in early March.

Ars was at Kennedy Space Center for the rocket’s move to the launch pad Saturday. The photo gallery below shows the launcher emerging from the Vehicle Assembly Building, the same facility once used to stack Saturn V rockets during the Apollo Moon program. The Artemis II astronauts were also on hand for a question and answer session with reporters.

Around the clock

The first flight of astronauts on the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft is running at least five years late. The flight’s architecture, trajectory, and goals have changed multiple times, and technical snags discovered during manufacturing and testing repeatedly shifted the schedule. The program’s engineering and budgetary problems are well documented.

But the team readying the rocket and spacecraft for launch has hit a stride in recent months. Technicians inside the Vehicle Assembly Building started stacking the SLS rocket in late 2024, beginning with the vehicle’s twin solid-fueled boosters. Then ground teams added the core stage, upper stage, and finally installed the Orion spacecraft on top of the rocket last October.

Working nearly around the clock in three shifts, it took about 12 months for crews at Kennedy to assemble the rocket and prepare it for rollout. But the launch campaign inside the VAB was remarkably smooth. Ground teams shaved about two months off the time it took to integrate the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft for the Artemis I mission, which launched on the program’s first full-up unpiloted test flight in 2022.

“About a year ago, I was down here and we set the rollout date, and we hit it within a day or two,” said Matt Ramsey, NASA’s mission manager for Artemis II. “Being able to stay on schedule, it was a daily grind to be able to do that.”

Engineers worked through a handful of technical problems last year, including an issue with a pressure-assisted device used to assist the astronauts in opening the Orion hatch in the event of an emergency. More recently, NASA teams cleared a concern with caps installed on the rocket’s upper stage, according to Ramsey.

The most significant engineering review focused on proving the Orion heat shield is safe to fly. That assessment occurred in the background from the perspective of the technicians working on Artemis II at Kennedy.

The Artemis II team is now focused on activities at the launch pad. This week, NASA plans to perform a series of tests extending and retracting the crew access mark. Next, the Artemis II astronauts will rehearse an emergency evacuation from the launch pad. That will be followed by servicing of the rocket’s hydraulic steering system.

The big question mark

All of this leads up to the crucial practice countdown early next month. The astronauts won’t be aboard the rocket for the test, but almost everything else will look like launch day. The countdown will halt around 30 seconds prior to the simulated liftoff.

It took repeated tries to get through the Wet Dress Rehearsal for the Artemis I mission. There were four attempts at the countdown practice run before the first actual Artemis I launch countdown. After encountering hydrogen leaks on two scrubbed launch attempts, NASA performed another fueling test before finally successfully launching Artemis I in November 2022.

The launch team repaired a leaky hydrogen seal and introduced a gentler hydrogen loading procedure to overcome the problem. Hydrogen is an extremely efficient fuel for rockets, but its super-cold temperature and the tiny size of hydrogen molecules make it prone to leakage. The hydrogen feeds the SLS rocket’s four core stage engines and single upper stage engine.

“Artemis I was a test flight, and we learned a lot during that campaign getting to launch,” said Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, NASA’s Artemis II launch director. “The things that we’ve learned relative to how to go load this vehicle, how to load LOX (liquid oxygen), how to load hydrogen, have all been rolled in to the way in which we intend to load the Artemis II vehicle.”

NASA is hesitant to publicly set a target launch date until the agency gets through the dress rehearsal, but agency officials say a February launch remains feasible.

“We’ve held schedule pretty well getting to rollout today,” Isaacman said. “We have zero intention of communicating an actual launch date until we get through wet dress. But look, that’s our first window, and if everything is tracking accordingly, I know the teams are prepared, I know this crew is prepared, we’ll take it.”

“Wet dress is the driver to launch,” Blackwell-Thompson said. “With a wet dress that is without significant issues, if everything goes to plan, then certainly there are opportunities within February that could be achievable.”

One constraint that threw a wrench into NASA’s Artemis I launch campaign is no longer a significant factor for Artemis II. On Artemis I, NASA had to roll the rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) after the wet dress rehearsal to complete final installation and testing on its flight termination system, which consists of a series of pyrotechnic charges designed to destroy the rocket if it flies off course and threatens populated areas after liftoff.

The US Space Force’s Eastern Range, responsible for public safety for all launches from Florida’s Space Coast, requires the flight termination system be retested after 28 to 35 days, a clock that started ticking last week before rollout. During Artemis I, technicians could not access the parts of the rocket they needed to in order to perform the retest at the launch pad. NASA now has structural arms to give ground teams the ability to reach parts higher up the rocket for the retest without returning to the hangar.

With this new capability, Artemis II could remain at the pad for launch opportunities in February and March before officials need to bring it back to the VAB to replace the flight termination system’s batteries, which still can’t be accessed at the pad.

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

The fastest human spaceflight mission in history crawls closer to liftoff Read More »

managers-on-alert-for-“launch-fever”-as-pressure-builds-for-nasa’s-moon-mission

Managers on alert for “launch fever” as pressure builds for NASA’s Moon mission

artemis, artemis II, human spaceflight, Kennedy Space Center, moon, NASA, orion, Science, Space, space launch system / /

“Putting crew on the rocket and taking the crew around the Moon, this is going be our first step toward a sustained lunar presence,” Honeycutt said. “It’s 10 days [and] four astronauts going farther from Earth than any other human has ever traveled. We’ll be validating the Orion spacecraft’s life support, navigation and crew systems in the really harsh environments of deep space, and that’s going to pave the way for future landings.”

NASA’s 322-foot-tall (98-meter) SLS rocket inside the Vehicle Assembly Building on the eve of rollout to Launch Complex 39B.

Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky

NASA’s 322-foot-tall (98-meter) SLS rocket inside the Vehicle Assembly Building on the eve of rollout to Launch Complex 39B. Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky

There is still much work ahead before NASA can clear Artemis II for launch. At the launch pad, technicians will complete final checkouts and closeouts before NASA’s launch team gathers in early February for a critical practice countdown. During this countdown, called a Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR), Blackwell-Thompson and her team will oversee the loading of the SLS rocket’s core stage and upper stage with super-cold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants.

The cryogenic fluids, particularly liquid hydrogen, gave fits to the Artemis launch team as NASA prepared to launch the Artemis I mission—without astronauts—on the SLS rocket’s first test flight in 2022. Engineers resolved the issues and successfully launched the Artemis I mission in November 2022, and officials will apply the lessons for the Artemis II countdown.

“Artemis I was a test flight, and we learned a lot during that campaign getting to launch,” Blackwell-Thompson said. “And the things that we’ve learned relative to how to go load this vehicle, how to load LOX (liquid oxygen), how to load hydrogen, have all been rolled in to the way in which we intend to do for the Artemis II vehicle.”

Finding the right time to fly

Assuming the countdown rehearsal goes according to plan, NASA could be in a position to launch the Artemis II mission as soon as February 6. But the schedule for February 6 is tight, with no margin for error. Officials typically have about five days per month when they can launch Artemis II, when the Moon is in the right position relative to Earth, and the Orion spacecraft can follow the proper trajectory toward reentry and splashdown to limit stress on the capsule’s heat shield.

In February, the available launch dates are February 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, with launch windows in the overnight hours in Florida. If the mission isn’t off the ground by February 11, NASA will have to stand down until a new series of launch opportunities beginning March 6. The space agency has posted a document showing all available launch dates and times through the end of April.

John Honeycutt, chair NASA’s Mission Management Team for the Artemis II mission, speaks during a news conference at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 16, 2026.

Credit: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

John Honeycutt, chair NASA’s Mission Management Team for the Artemis II mission, speaks during a news conference at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 16, 2026. Credit: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

NASA’s leaders are eager for Artemis II to fly. NASA is not only racing China, a reality the agency’s former administrator acknowledged during the Biden administration. Now, the Trump administration is pushing NASA to accomplish a human landing on the Moon by the end of his presidential term on January 20, 2029.

One of Honeycutt’s jobs as chair of the Mission Management Team (MMT) is ensuring all the Is are dotted and Ts are crossed amid the frenzy of final launch preparations. While the hardware for Artemis II is on the move in Florida, the astronauts and flight controllers are wrapping up their final training and simulations at Johnson Space Center in Houston.

“I think I’ve got a good eye for launch fever,” he said Friday.

“As chair of the MMT, I’ve got one job, and it’s the safe return of Reid, Victor, Christina, and Jeremy. I consider that a duty and a trust, and it’s one I intend to see through.”

Managers on alert for “launch fever” as pressure builds for NASA’s Moon mission Read More »

nasa-rewraps-boeing-starliner-astrovan-ii-for-artemis-ii-ride-to-launch-pad

NASA rewraps Boeing Starliner Astrovan II for Artemis II ride to launch pad

Airstream, artemis II, artemis program, Astrovan II, Boeing, Canoo, CDDT, countdown demonstration test, crew transport vehicle, CTV, Kennedy Space Center, NASA, Space, Space exploration, space history, starliner / /

Artemis II, meet Astrovan II.

NASA’s first astronauts who will fly by the moon in more than 50 years participated in a practice launch countdown on Saturday, December 20, including taking their first trip on a transport vehicle steeped in almost the entire span of US space history—from Apollo through to the ongoing commercial crew program.

Three men and a woman wearing bright orange pressure suits pose for a photo next to a motor coach.

Artemis II astronauts (from right to left) Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen pose for photographs before boarding the Astrovan II crew transport vehicle for a ride to their rocket during a rehearsal of their launch-day activities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Saturday, Dec. 20, 2025. Credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, and mission specialist Christina Koch (all with NASA) and mission specialist Jeremy Hansen, an astronaut with the Canadian Space Agency, began the rehearsal at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, proceeding as they will when they are ready to fly next year (the Artemis II launch is slated for no earlier than the first week of February and no later than April 2026).

Parked outside of their crew quarters and suit-up room was their ride to their rocket, “Astrovan II,” a modified Airstream motorhome. The almost 25-foot-long (8-meter) crew transport vehicle (CTV) was custom-wrapped with graphics depicting the moon, the Artemis II mission patch, and program insignia.

From Canoo to coach

Airstream’s Atlas Touring Coach, though, was not originally planned as NASA’s Artemis CTV. In July 2023, NASA took delivery of three fully electric vans from Canoo Technologies after the company, a startup based in Torrance, California, was awarded the contract the year before. At the time, NASA touted its selection as focusing on the “crews’ safety and comfort on the way to the [launch] pad.”

Three vans with rounded corners are parked side by side in front of a large building and an overcast sky.

The three Canoo Technologies’ specially designed, fully-electric, environmentally friendly crew transportation vehicles for Artemis missions arrived at Kennedy Space Center on July 11, 2023. The company now bankrupt, the CTVs will serve as a backup to the Astrovan II. Credit: NASA/Isaac Watson

Six months later, Canoo filed for bankruptcy, and NASA ceased active use of the electric vans, citing a lack of support for its mission requirements. Instead, the agency turned to another of its commercial partners, Boeing, which had its own CTV but no astronauts at present to use it.

NASA rewraps Boeing Starliner Astrovan II for Artemis II ride to launch pad Read More »

rivals-object-to-spacex’s-starship-plans-in-florida—who’s-interfering-with-whom?

Rivals object to SpaceX’s Starship plans in Florida—who’s interfering with whom?

cape canaveral space force station, Kennedy Space Center, launch, military space, NASA, new glenn, Space, spacex, starship, united launch alliance, US Space Force / /

“We’re going to continue to treat any LOX-methane vehicle with 100 percent TNT blast equivalency.”

Artist’s illustration of Starships stacked on two launch pads at the Space Force’s Space Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Credit: SpaceX

The commander of the military unit responsible for running the Cape Canaveral spaceport in Florida expects SpaceX to begin launching Starship rockets there next year.

Launch companies with facilities near SpaceX’s Starship pads are not pleased. SpaceX’s two chief rivals, Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance, complained last year that SpaceX’s proposal of launching as many as 120 Starships per year from Florida’s Space Coast could force them to routinely clear personnel from their launch pads for safety reasons.

This isn’t the first time Blue Origin and ULA have tried to throw up roadblocks in front of SpaceX. The companies sought to prevent NASA from leasing a disused launch pad to SpaceX in 2013, but they lost the fight.

Col. Brian Chatman, commander of a Space Force unit called Space Launch Delta 45, confirmed to reporters on Friday that Starship launches will sometimes restrict SpaceX’s neighbors from accessing their launch pads—at least in the beginning. Space Launch Delta 45, formerly known as the 45th Space Wing, operates the Eastern Range, which oversees launch safety from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and NASA’s nearby Kennedy Space Center.

Chatman’s unit is responsible for ensuring all personnel remain outside of danger areas during testing and launch operations. The range’s responsibility extends to public safety outside the gates of the spaceport.

“There is no better time to be here on the Space Coast than where we are at today,” Chatman said. “We are breaking records on the launch manifest. We are getting capability on orbit that is essential to national security, and we’re doing that at a time of strategic challenge.”

SpaceX is well along in constructing a Starship launch site on NASA property at Kennedy Space Center within the confines of Launch Complex-39A, where SpaceX also launches its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket. The company wants to build another Starship launch site on Space Force property a few miles to the south.

“Early to mid-next year is when we anticipate Starship coming out here to be able to launch,” Chatman said. “We’ll have the range ready to support at that time.”

Enter the Goliath

Starship and its Super Heavy booster combine to form the largest rocket ever built. Its newest version stands more than 400 feet (120 meters) tall with more than 11 million pounds (5,000 metric tons) of combustible methane and liquid oxygen propellants. That will be replaced by a taller rocket, perhaps as soon as 2027, with about 20 percent more propellant onboard.

While there’s also risk with Starships and Super Heavy boosters returning to Cape Canaveral from space, safety officials worry about what would happen if a Starship and Super Heavy booster detonated with their propellant tanks full. The concern is the same for all rockets, which is why officials evacuate predetermined keep-out zones around launch pads that are fueled up for flight.

But the keep-out zones around SpaceX’s Starship launch pads will extend farther than those around the other launch sites at Cape Canaveral. First, Starship is simply much bigger and uses more propellant than any other rocket. Secondly, Starship’s engines consume methane fuel in combination with liquid oxygen, a blend commonly known as LOX/methane or methalox.

And finally, Starship lacks the track record of older rockets like the Falcon 9, adding a degree of conservatism to the Space Force’s risk calculations. Other launch pads will inevitably fall within the footprint of Starship’s range safety keep-out zones, also known as blast danger areas, or BDAs.

SpaceX’s Starship and Super Heavy booster lift off from Starbase, Texas, in March 2025. Credit: SpaceX

The danger area will be larger for an actual launch, but workers will still need to clear areas closer to Starship launch pads during static fire tests, when the rocket fires its engines while remaining on the ground. This is what prompted ULA and Blue Origin to lodge their protests.

“They understand neighboring operations,” Chatman said in a media roundtable on Friday. “They understand that we will allow the maximum efficiency possible to facilitate their operations, but there will be times that we’re not going to let them go to their launch complex because it’s neighboring a hazardous activity.”

The good news for these other companies is that Eastern Range’s keep-out zones will almost certainly get smaller by the time SpaceX gets anywhere close to 120 Starship launches per year. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is currently launching at a similar cadence. The blast danger areas for those launches are small and short-lived because the Space Force’s confidence in the Falcon 9’s safety is “extremely high,” Chatman said.

“From a blast damage assessment perspective, specific to the Falcon 9, we know what that keep-out area is,” Chatman said. “It’s the new combination of new fuels—LOX/methane—which is kind of a game-changer as we look at some of the heavy vehicles that are coming to launch. We just don’t have the analysis on to be able to say, ‘Hey, from a testing perspective, how small can we reduce the BDA and be safe?’”

Methane has become a popular fuel choice, supplanting refined kerosene, liquid hydrogen, or solid fuels commonly used on previous generations of rockets. Methane leaves behind less soot than kerosene, easing engine reusability, while it’s simpler to handle than liquid hydrogen.

Aside from Starship, Blue Origin’s New Glenn and ULA’s Vulcan rockets use liquified natural gas, a fuel very similar to methane. Both rockets are smaller than Starship, but Blue Origin last week unveiled the design of a souped-up New Glenn rocket that will nearly match Starship’s scale.

A few years ago, NASA, the Space Force, and the Federal Aviation Administration decided to look into the explosive potential of methalox rockets. There had been countless tests of explosions of gaseous methane, but data on detonations of liquid methane and liquid oxygen was scarce at the time—just a couple of tests at less than 10 metric tons, according to NASA. So, the government’s default position was to assume an explosion would be equivalent to the energy released by the same amount of TNT. This assumption drives the large keep-out zones the Space Force has drawn around SpaceX’s future Starship launch pads, one of which is seen in the map below.

This map from a Space Force environmental impact statement shows potential restricted access zones around SpaceX’s proposed Starship launch site at Space Launch Complex-37. The restricted zones cover launch pads operated by United Launch Alliance, Relativity Space, and Stoke Space. Credit: SpaceX

Spending millions to blow stuff up

Chatman said the Space Force is prepared to update its blast danger areas once its government partners, SpaceX, and Blue Origin complete testing and analyze their results. Over dozens of tests, engineers are examining how methane and liquid oxygen react to different kinds of accidents, such as impact velocity, pressure, mass ratio, or how much propellant is in the mix.

“That is ongoing currently,” Chatman said. “[We are] working in close partnership with SpaceX and Blue Origin on the LOX/methane combination and the explicit equivalency to identify how much we can … reduce that blast radius. Those discussions are happening, have been happening the last couple years, and are looking to culminate here in ’26.

“Until we get that data from the testing that is ongoing and the analysis that needs to occur, we’re going to continue to treat any LOX-methane vehicle with 100 percent TNT blast equivalency, and have a maximized keep-out zone, simply from a public safety perspective,” Chatman said.

The data so far show promising results. “We do expect that BDA to shrink,” he said. “We expect that to shrink based on some of the initial testing that has been done and the initial data reviews that have been done.”

That’s imperative, not just for Starship’s neighbors at the Cape Canaveral spaceport, but for SpaceX itself. The company forecasts a future in which it will launch Starships more often than the Falcon 9, requiring near-continuous operations at multiple launch pads.

Chatman mentioned one future scenario in which SpaceX might want to launch Starships in close proximity to one another from neighboring pads.

“At that point in the future, I do anticipate the blast damage assessments to shrink down based on the testing that will have been accomplished and dataset will have been reviewed, [and] that we’ll be in a comfortable set to be able to facilitate all launch operations. But until we have that data, until I’m comfortable with what that data shows, with regards to reducing the BDA, keep-out zone, we’re going to continue with the 100 percent TNT equivalency just from a public safety perspective.”

SpaceX has performed explosive LOX/methane tests, including the one seen here, at its development facility in McGregor, Texas. Credit: SpaceX

The Commercial Space Federation, a lobbying group, submitted written testimony to Congress in 2023 arguing the government should be using “existing industry data” to inform its understanding of the explosive potential methane and liquid oxygen. That data, the federation said, suggests the government should set its TNT blast equivalency to no greater than 25 percent, a change that would greatly reduce the size of keep-out zones around launch pads. The organization’s members include prominent methane users SpaceX, Blue Origin, Relativity Space, and Stoke Space, all of which have launch sites at Cape Canaveral.

The government’s methalox testing plans were expected to cost at least $80 million, according to the Commercial Space Federation.

The concern among engineers is that liquid oxygen and methane are highly miscible, meaning they mix together easily, raising the risk of a “condensed phase detonation” with “significantly higher overpressures” than rockets with liquid hydrogen or kerosene fuels. Small-scale mixtures of liquid oxygen and liquified natural gas have “shown a broad detonable range with yields greater than that of TNT,” NASA wrote in 2023.

SpaceX released some basic results of its own methalox detonation tests in September, before the government draws its own conclusions on the matter. The company said it conducted “extensive testing” to refine blast danger areas to “be commensurate with the physics of new launch systems.”

Like the Commercial Space Federation, SpaceX said government officials are relying on “highly conservative approaches to establishing blast danger areas, simply because they lack the data to make refined, accurate clear zones. In the absence of data, clear areas of LOX/methane rockets have defaulted to very large zones that could be disruptive to operations.”

More like an airport

SpaceX said it has conducted sub-scale methalox detonation tests “in close collaboration with NASA,” while also gathering data from full-scale Starship tests in Starbase, Texas, including information from test flights and from recent ground test failures. SpaceX controls much of the land around its South Texas facility, so there’s little interruption to third parties when Starships launch from there.

“With this data, SpaceX has been able to establish a scientifically robust, physics-based yield calculation that will help ‘fill the gap’ in scientific knowledge regarding LOX/methane rockets,” SpaceX said.

The company did not disclose the yield calculation, but it shared maps showing its proposed clear areas around the future Starship launch sites at Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center. They are significantly smarter than the clear areas originally envisioned by the Space Force and NASA, but SpaceX says it uses “actual test data on explosive yield and include a conservative factor of safety.”

The proposed clear distances will have no effect on any other operational launch site or on traffic on the primary north-south road crossing the spaceport, the company said. “SpaceX looks forward to having an open, honest, and reasonable discussion based on science and data regarding spaceport operations with industry colleagues.”

SpaceX will have that opportunity next month. The Space Force and NASA are convening a “reverse industry day” in mid-December during which launch companies will bring their ideas for the future of the Cape Canaveral spaceport to the government. The spaceport has hosted 101 space launches so far this year, an annual record dominated by SpaceX’s rapid-fire Falcon 9 launch cadence.

Chatman anticipates about the same number—perhaps 100 to 115 launches—from Florida’s Space Coast next year, and some forecasts show 300 to 350 launches per year by 2035. The numbers could go down before they rise again. “As we bring on larger lift capabilities like Starship and follow-on large launch capabilities out here to the Eastern Range, that will reduce the total number of launches, because we can get more mass to orbit with heavier lift vehicles,” Chatman said.

Blue Origin’s first recovered New Glenn booster returned to the company’s launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, last week after a successful launch and landing. Credit: Blue Origin

Launch companies have some work to do to make those numbers become real. Space Force officials have identified their own potential bottlenecks, including a shortage of facilities for preparing satellites for launch and the flow of commodities like propellants and high-pressure gases into the spaceport.

Concerns as mundane as traffic jams are now enough of a factor to consider using automated scanners at vehicle inspection points and potentially adding a dedicated lane for slow-moving transporters carrying rocket boosters from one place to another across the launch base, according to Chatman. This is becoming more important as SpaceX, and now Blue Origin, routinely shuttle their reusable rockets from place to place.

Space Force officials largely attribute the steep climb in launch rates at Cape Canaveral to the launch industry’s embrace of automated self-destruct mechanisms. These pyrotechnic devices have largely replaced manual flight termination systems, which require ground support from a larger team of range safety engineers, including radar operators and flight control officers with the authority to send a destruct command to the rocket if it flies off course. Now, that is all done autonomously on most US launch vehicles.

The Space Force mandated that launch companies using military spaceports switch to autonomous safety systems by October 1 2025, but military officials issued waivers for human-in-the-loop destruct devices to continue flying on United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket, NASA’s Space Launch System, and the US Navy’s ballistic missile fleet. That means those launches will be more labor-intensive for the Space Force, but the Atlas V is nearing retirement, and the SLS and the Navy only occasionally appear on the Cape Canaveral launch schedule.

Listing image: SpaceX

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Rivals object to SpaceX’s Starship plans in Florida—who’s interfering with whom? Read More »

with-another-record-broken,-the-world’s-busiest-spaceport-keeps-getting-busier

With another record broken, the world’s busiest spaceport keeps getting busier

cape canaveral, cape canaveral space force station, Commercial space, falcon 9, Kennedy Space Center, launch, Science, Space, spacex / /

It’s not just the number of rocket launches, but how much stuff they’re carrying into orbit.

With 29 Starlink satellites onboard, a Falcon 9 rocket streaks through the night sky over Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on Monday night. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida—Another Falcon 9 rocket fired off its launch pad here on Monday night, taking with it another 29 Starlink Internet satellites to orbit.

This was the 94th orbital launch from Florida’s Space Coast so far in 2025, breaking the previous record for the most satellite launches in a calendar year from the world’s busiest spaceport. Monday night’s launch came two days after a Chinese Long March 11 rocket lifted off from an oceangoing platform on the opposite side of the world, marking humanity’s 255th mission to reach orbit this year, a new annual record for global launch activity.

As of Wednesday, a handful of additional missions have pushed the global figure this year to 259, putting the world on pace for around 300 orbital launches by the end of 2025. This will more than double the global tally of 135 orbital launches in 2021.

Routine vs. complacency

Waiting in the darkness a few miles away from the launch pad, I glanced around at my surroundings before watching SpaceX’s Falcon 9 thunder into the sky. There were no throngs of space enthusiasts anxiously waiting for the rocket to light up the night. No line of photographers snapping photos. Just this reporter and two chipper retirees enjoying what a decade ago would have attracted far more attention.

Go to your local airport and you’ll probably find more people posted up at a plane-spotting park at the end of the runway. Still, a rocket launch is something special. On the same night that I watched the 94th launch of the year depart from Cape Canaveral, Orlando International Airport saw the same number of airplane departures in just three hours.

The crowds still turn out for more meaningful launches, such as a test flight of SpaceX’s Starship megarocket in Texas or Blue Origin’s attempt to launch its second New Glenn heavy-lifter here Sunday. But those are not the norm. Generations of aerospace engineers were taught that spaceflight is not routine for fear of falling into complacency, leading to failure, and in some cases, death.

Compared to air travel, the mantra remains valid. Rockets are unforgiving, with engines operating under extreme pressures, at high thrust, and unable to suck in oxygen from the atmosphere as a reactant for combustion. There are fewer redundancies in a rocket than in an airplane.

The Falcon 9’s established failure rate is less than 1 percent, well short of any safety standard for commercial air travel but good enough to be the most successful orbital-class in history. Given the Falcon 9’s track record, SpaceX seems to have found a way to overcome the temptation for complacency.

A Chinese Long March 11 rocket carrying three Shiyan 32 test satellites lifts off from waters off the coast of Haiyang in eastern China’s Shandong province on Saturday. Credit: Guo Jinqi/Xinhua via Getty Images

Following the trend

The upward trend in rocket launches hasn’t always been the case. Launch numbers were steady for most of the 2010s, following a downward trend in the 2000s, with as few as 52 orbital launches in 2005, the lowest number since the nascent era of spaceflight in 1961. There were just seven launches from here in Florida that year.

The numbers have picked up dramatically in the last five years as SpaceX has mastered reusable rocketry.

It’s important to look at not just the number of launches but also how much stuff rockets are actually putting into orbit. More than half of this year’s launches were performed using SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, and the majority of those deployed Starlink satellites for SpaceX’s global Internet network. Each spacecraft is relatively small in size and weight, but SpaceX stacks up to 29 of them on a single Falcon 9 to max out the rocket’s carrying capacity.

All this mass adds up to make SpaceX’s dominance of the launch industry appear even more absolute. According to analyses by BryceTech, an engineering and space industry consulting firm, SpaceX has launched 86 percent of all the world’s payload mass over the 18 months from the beginning of 2024 through June 30 of this year.

That’s roughly 2.98 million kilograms of the approximately 3.46 million kilograms (3,281 of 3,819 tons) of satellite hardware and cargo that all the world’s rockets placed into orbit during that timeframe.

The charts below were created by Ars Technica using publicly available launch numbers and payload mass estimates from BryceTech. The first illustrates the rising launch cadence at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, located next to one another in Florida. Launches from other US-licensed spaceports, primarily Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, and Rocket Lab’s base at Māhia Peninsula in New Zealand, are also on the rise.

These numbers represent rockets that reached low-Earth orbit. We didn’t include test flights of SpaceX’s Starship rocket in the chart because all of its launches to have intentionally flown on suborbital trajectories.

In the second chart, we break down the payload upmass to orbit from SpaceX, other US companies, China, Russia, and other international launch providers.

Launch rates are on a clear upward trend, while SpaceX has launched 86 percent of the world’s total payload mass to orbit since the beginning of 2024. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica/BryceTech

Will it continue?

It’s a good bet that payload upmass will continue to rise in the coming years, with heavy cargo heading to orbit to further expand SpaceX’s Starlink communications network and build out new megaconstellations from Amazon, China, and others. The US military’s Golden Dome missile defense shield will also have a ravenous appetite for rockets to get it into space.

SpaceX’s Starship megarocket could begin flying to low-Earth orbit next year, and if it does, SpaceX’s preeminence in delivering mass to orbit will remain assured. Starship’s first real payloads will likely be SpaceX’s next-generation Starlink satellites. These larger, heavier, more capable spacecraft will launch 60 at a time on Starship, further stretching SpaceX’s lead in the upmass war.

But Starship’s arrival will come at the expense of the workhorse Falcon 9, which lacks the capacity to haul the next-gen Starlinks to orbit. “This year and next year I anticipate will be the highest Falcon launch rates that we will see,” said Stephanie Bednarek, SpaceX’s vice president of commercial sales, at an industry conference in July.

SpaceX is on pace for between 165 and 170 Falcon 9 launches this year, with 144 flights already in the books for 2025. Last year’s total for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy was 134 missions. SpaceX has not announced how many Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches it plans for next year.

Starship is designed to be fully and rapidly reusable, eventually enabling multiple flights per day. But that’s still a long way off, and it’s unknown how many years it might take for Starship to surpass the Falcon 9’s proven launch tempo.

A Starship rocket and Super Heavy booster lift off from Starbase, Texas. Credit: SpaceX

In any case, with Starship’s heavy-lifting capacity and upgraded next-gen satellites, SpaceX could match an entire year’s worth of new Starlink capacity with just two fully loaded Starship flights. Starship will be able to deliver 60 times more Starlink capacity to orbit than a cluster of satellites riding on a Falcon 9.

There’s no reason to believe SpaceX will be satisfied with simply keeping pace with today’s Starlink growth rate. There are emerging market opportunities in connecting satellites with smartphones, space-based computer processing and data storage, and military applications.

Other companies have medium-to-heavy rockets that are either new to the market or soon to debut. These include Blue Origin’s New Glenn, now set to make its second test flight in the coming days, with a reusable booster designed to facilitate a rapid-fire launch cadence.

Despite all of the newcomers, most satellite operators see a shortage of launch capacity on the commercial market. “The industry is likely to remain supply-constrained through the balance of the decade,” wrote Caleb Henry, director of research at the industry analysis firm Quilty Space. “That could pose a problem for some of the many large constellations on the horizon.”

United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket, Rocket Lab’s Neutron, Stoke Space’s Nova, Relativity Space’s Terran R, and Firefly Aerospace and Northrop Grumman’s Eclipse are among the other rockets vying for a bite at the launch apple.

“Whether or not the market can support six medium to heavy lift launch providers from the US alone—plus Starship—is an open question, but for the remainder of the decade launch demand is likely to remain high, presenting an opportunity for one or more new players to establish themselves in the pecking order,” Henry wrote in a post on Quilty’s website.

China’s space program will need more rockets, too. That nation’s two megaconstellations, known as Guowang and Qianfan, will have thousands of satellites requiring a significant uptick on Chinese launches.

Taking all of this into account, the demand curve for access to space is sure to continue its upward trajectory. How companies meet this demand, and with how many discrete departures from Earth, isn’t quite as clear.

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

With another record broken, the world’s busiest spaceport keeps getting busier Read More »

nasa’s-next-moonship-reaches-last-stop-before-launch-pad

NASA’s next Moonship reaches last stop before launch pad

artemis, artemis II, human spaceflight, Kennedy Space Center, launch, Lockheed Martin, moon, NASA, orion, Science, Space, space launch system, vehicle assembly building / /

The Orion spacecraft, which will fly four people around the Moon, arrived inside the cavernous Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida late Thursday night, ready to be stacked on top of its rocket for launch early next year.

The late-night transfer covered about 6 miles (10 kilometers) from one facility to another at the Florida spaceport. NASA and its contractors are continuing preparations for the Artemis II mission after the White House approved the program as an exception to work through the ongoing government shutdown, which began on October 1.

The sustained work could set up Artemis II for a launch opportunity as soon as February 5 of next year. Astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen will be the first humans to fly on the Orion spacecraft, a vehicle that has been in development for nearly two decades. The Artemis II crew will make history on their 10-day flight by becoming the first people to travel to the vicinity of the Moon since 1972.

Where things stand

The Orion spacecraft, developed by Lockheed Martin, has made several stops at Kennedy over the last few months since leaving its factory in May.

First, the capsule moved to a fueling facility, where technicians filled it with hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide propellants, which will feed Orion’s main engine and maneuvering thrusters on the flight to the Moon and back. In the same facility, teams loaded high-pressure helium and ammonia coolant into Orion propulsion and thermal control systems.

The next stop was a nearby building where the Launch Abort System was installed on the Orion spacecraft. The tower-like abort system would pull the capsule away from its rocket in the event of a launch failure. Orion stands roughly 67 feet (20 meters) tall with its service module, crew module, and abort tower integrated together.

Teams at Kennedy also installed four ogive panels to serve as an aerodynamic shield over the Orion crew capsule during the first few minutes of launch.

The Orion spacecraft, with its Launch Abort System and ogive panels installed, is seen last month inside the Launch Abort System Facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Credit: NASA/Frank Michaux

It was then time to move Orion to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), where a separate team has worked all year to stack the elements of NASA’s Space Launch System rocket. In the coming days, cranes will lift the spacecraft, weighing 78,000 pounds (35 metric tons), dozens of stories above the VAB’s center aisle, then up and over the transom into the building’s northeast high bay to be lowered atop the SLS heavy-lift rocket.

NASA’s next Moonship reaches last stop before launch pad Read More »

starship-will-soon-fly-over-towns-and-cities,-but-will-dodge-the-biggest-ones

Starship will soon fly over towns and cities, but will dodge the biggest ones

cape canaveral, Commercial space, Federal Aviation Administration, Kennedy Space Center, launch, methane, NASA, Space, space force, spacex, starship / /

Starship’s next chapter will involve launching over Florida and returning over Mexico.

SpaceX’s Starship vehicle is encased in plasma as it reenters the atmosphere over the Indian Ocean on its most recent test flight in August. Credit: SpaceX

Some time soon, perhaps next year, SpaceX will attempt to fly one of its enormous Starship rockets from low-Earth orbit back to its launch pad in South Texas. A successful return and catch at the launch tower would demonstrate a key capability underpinning Elon Musk’s hopes for a fully reusable rocket.

In order for this to happen, SpaceX must overcome the tyranny of geography. Unlike launches over the open ocean from Cape Canaveral, Florida, rockets departing from South Texas must follow a narrow corridor to steer clear of downrange land masses.

All 10 of the rocket’s test flights so far have launched from Texas toward splashdowns in the Indian or Pacific Oceans. On these trajectories, the rocket never completes a full orbit around the Earth, but instead flies an arcing path through space before gravity pulls it back into the atmosphere.

If Starship’s next two test flights go well, SpaceX will likely attempt to send the soon-to-debut third-generation version of the rocket all the way to low-Earth orbit. The Starship V3 vehicle will measure 171 feet (52.1 meters) tall, a few feet more than Starship’s current configuration. The entire rocket, including its Super Heavy booster, will have a height of 408 feet (124.4 meters).

Starship, made of stainless steel, is designed for full reusability. SpaceX has already recovered and reflown Super Heavy boosters, but won’t be ready to recover the rocket’s Starship upper stage until next year, at the soonest.

That’s one of the next major milestones in Starship’s development after achieving orbital flight. SpaceX will attempt to bring the ship home to be caught back at the launch site by the launch tower at Starbase, Texas, located on the southernmost section of the Texas Gulf Coast near the US-Mexico border.

It was always evident that flying a Starship from low-Earth orbit back to Starbase would require the rocket to fly over Mexico and portions of South Texas. The rocket launches to the east over the Gulf of Mexico, so it must approach Starbase from the west when it comes in for a landing.

New maps published by the Federal Aviation Administration show where the first Starships returning to Texas may fly when they streak through the atmosphere.

Paths to and from orbit

The FAA released a document Friday describing SpaceX’s request to update its government license for additional Starship launch and reentry trajectories. The document is a draft version of a “tiered environmental assessment” examining the potential for significant environmental impacts from the new launch and reentry flight paths.

The federal regulator said it is evaluating potential impacts in aviation emissions and air quality, noise and noise-compatible land use, hazardous materials, and socioeconomics. The FAA concluded the new flight paths proposed by SpaceX would have “no significant impacts” in any of these categories.

SpaceX’s Starship rocket shortly before splashing into the Indian Ocean in August. Credit: SpaceX

The environmental review is just one of several factors the FAA considers when deciding whether to approve a new commercial launch or reentry license. According to the FAA, the other factors are public safety issues (such as overflight of populated areas and payload contents), national security or foreign policy concerns, and insurance requirements.

The FAA didn’t make a statement on any public safety and foreign policy concerns with SpaceX’s new trajectories, but both issues may come into play as the company seeks approval to fly Starship over Mexican towns and cities uprange from Starbase.

The regulator’s licensing rules state that a commercial launch and reentry should each pose no greater than a 1 in 10,000 chance of harming or killing a member of the public not involved in the mission. The risk to any individual should not exceed 1 in 1 million.

So, what’s the danger? If something on Starship fails, it could disintegrate in the atmosphere. Surviving debris would rain down to the ground, as it did over the Turks and Caicos Islands after two Starship launch failures earlier this year. Two other Starship flights ran into problems once in space, tumbling out of control and breaking apart during reentry over the Indian Ocean.

The most recent Starship flight last month was more successful, with the ship reaching its target in the Indian Ocean for a pinpoint splashdown. The splashdown had an error of just 3 meters (10 feet), giving SpaceX confidence in returning future Starships to land.

This map shows Starship’s proposed reentry corridor. Credit: Federal Aviation Administration

One way of minimizing the risk to the public is to avoid flying over large metropolitan areas, and that’s exactly what SpaceX and the FAA are proposing to do, at least for the initial attempts to bring Starship home from orbit. A map of a “notional” Starship reentry flight path shows the vehicle beginning its reentry over the Pacific Ocean, then passing over Baja California and soaring above Mexico’s interior near the cities of Hermosillo and Chihuahua, each with a population of roughly a million people.

The trajectory would bring Starship well north of the Monterrey metro area and its 5.3 million residents, then over the Rio Grande Valley near the Texas cities of McAllen and Brownsville. During the final segment of Starship’s return trajectory, the vehicle will begin a vertical descent over Starbase before a final landing burn to slow it down for the launch pad’s arms to catch it in midair.

In addition to Monterrey, the proposed flight path dodges overflights of major US cities like San Diego, Phoenix, and El Paso, Texas.

Let’s back up

Setting up for this reentry trajectory requires SpaceX to launch Starship into an orbit with exactly the right inclination, or angle to the equator. There are safety constraints for SpaceX and the FAA to consider here, too.

All of the Starship test flights to date have launched toward the east, threading between South Florida and Cuba, south of the Bahamas, and north of Puerto Rico before heading over the North Atlantic Ocean. For Starship to target just the right orbit to set up for reentry, the rocket must fly in a slightly different direction over the Gulf.

Another map released by the FAA shows two possible paths Starship could take. One of the options goes to the southeast between Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula and the western tip of Cuba, then directly over Jamaica as the rocket accelerated into orbit over the Caribbean Sea. The other would see Starship departing South Texas on a northeasterly path and crossing over North Florida before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.

While both trajectories fly over land, they avoid the largest cities situated near the flight path. For example, the southerly route misses Cancun, Mexico, and the northerly path flies between Jacksonville and Orlando, Florida. “Orbital launches would primarily be to low inclinations with flight trajectories north or south of Cuba that minimize land overflight,” the FAA wrote in its draft environmental assessment.

The FAA analyzed two launch trajectory options for future orbital Starship test flights. Credit: Federal Aviation Administration

The proposed launch and reentry trajectories would result in temporary airspace closures, the FAA said. This could force delays or rerouting of anywhere from seven to 400 commercial flights for each launch, according to the FAA’s assessment.

Launch airspace closures are already the norm for Starship test flights. The FAA concluded that the reentry path over Mexico would require the closure of a swath of airspace covering more than 4,200 miles. This would affect up to 200 more commercial airplane flights during each Starship mission. Eventually, the FAA aims to shrink the airspace closures as SpaceX demonstrates improved reliability with Starship test flights.

Eventually, SpaceX will move some flights of Starship to Florida’s Space Coast, where rockets can safely launch in many directions over the Atlantic. By then, SpaceX aims to be launching Starships at a regular cadence—first, multiple flights per month, then per week, and then per day.

This will enable all of the things SpaceX wants to do with Starship. Chief among these goals is to fly Starships to Mars. Before then, SpaceX must master orbital refueling. NASA also has a contract with SpaceX to build Starships to land astronauts on the Moon’s south pole.

But all of that assumes SpaceX can routinely launch and recover Starships. That’s what engineers hope to soon prove they can do.

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Starship will soon fly over towns and cities, but will dodge the biggest ones Read More »