Artemis III aims for 'late 2027' for Earth orbit demonstration

Amid the sensational NASA budget cut proposals taking place in the US at the moment, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has refined the Artemis III launch date to "late 2027." Isaacman was speaking during the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing earlier this week, and …

[Gene Cash]

No Starship flights

I'm kind of puzzled at the lack of another "break things and move fast" flight.

Maybe SpaceX has run into a truly thorny issue with Starship?

[Steve Foster]

Re: No Starship flights

Haven't they run out of units for RUD testing for the time being? ISTR they'd stopping building them while preparing for the next iteration of the design?

[NetMage]

Re: No Starship flights

They’ve switch to building Raptor V3s and they’ve built a lot of them. They are planning the next test flight about May 12 for the Starship V3 with Raptor V3.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: No Starship flights

Unless there is any serious issues then V3 is the production version with testing focusing on reuse rather than 'will it get to orbit and return'.

Last static fire ended early after an issue with deluge system, not booster. Ship completed full static fire test. Planning another static fire this week with a potential launch date the follow week.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: No Starship flights

A big delay came from the new launch platform required for V3 Starships. Work on that was hampered by V2 launches which ended last October. Back then tower 2 was expected to be ready in the first quarter of this year. A bunch of Henny Pennys said the sky was falling when boost 18 blew up near the end of November. That required significant reconstruction at the Masseys test site, work to ensure booster 19 would not follow the same path as 18 and then construction of booster 19. It is not clear whether the new booster or launch facility was the long pole. Either could have been slowed to match the progress of the other.

Zack Golden from Starbase CSI has done two out of a three part youtube series on the ground support equipment (1 2). If you are not sufficiently space focused to spend 3+ hours on that here is the short version. Boca Chica tower 1 required substantial repairs after each Starship launch - just like pad 39B after SLS launches. Tower 2 is far more robust and is intended to survive back to back launches without delays.

There is a high chance of a scrub on the 12th because this is a new rocket on new launch infrastructure. There is a significant chance of a RUD because version 3 Starship is very different from version 2. The bar for success is much higher than before: stage 0 must survive with no more than trivial damage. Stage 1 must land. Stage 2 must get to its planned just short of orbit, relight its engines for the same duration as would be required to circularise the orbit in LEO then re-enter and "land" over the sea in the right place. Without all of those SpaceX's timeline is as over optimistic as Blue Origin's.

[MachDiamond]

Re: No Starship flights

"Maybe SpaceX has run into a truly thorny issue with Starship?"

They've got a brand new version they are going to try out.

Maybe Elon is starting to notice the sniping about stuff blowing up. Already 11 test flights in of mostly empty test shells, they should have long since been orbiting the moon, at least. SpaceX will need to get cracking to have a dockable HLS mock up that can hit orbit and maneuver. Blue Origin is due to land a test article cargo lander on the moon in late 2026, if they can find the way.

[EricM]

Re: No Starship flights

Maybe with the recently added ongoing financing needs of X and xAI to the tone of multiple billions per quarter, SpaceX needs to scale down their actual space operations to avoid going bankrupt before the IPO?

[You aint sin me, roit]

Re: No Starship flights

You have to wonder if SpaceX has become too preoccupied with absorbing X and xAI, along with concentrating on Starlink to bring in the cash, plus Elon's "million space data centres" and "new science" silicon fabs, all while pushing around fictitious sums of money to increase the valuation of SpaceX before IPO.

Not surprising that you don't hear "Mars" from Elon any more...

[MachDiamond]

Re: No Starship flights

Not surprising that you don't hear "Mars" from Elon any more..."

There's never been an argument with regards to any ROI on a mission to Mars. A public company has a much more rigorous duty to shareholders about fiscal management and making money, not just spending it.

[John Robson]

Re: No Starship flights

Scheduled to be a 7 month gap between flights. That's still fast in the aerospace industry.

They've got three ships in various stages of close to completion (39 is being configured for flight, 40 is being fitted out, and 41 is significantly constructed.

They've also got B19 being configured and B20 construction well under way.

The other developments at the Texas facilities have been very substantial - not all progress is measured in flights.

[MachDiamond]

Re: No Starship flights

"not all progress is measured in flights."

True.

It's measured in "successful" flights.

[John Robson]

Re: No Starship flights

Flat no.

And I'm not even limiting it to "definition of success"... IFT1 made substantial progress, and I don't think many people would describe it as a successful flight.

More importantly I don't see people decrying WDRs and static fires as "not making progress". And I don't think anyone would suggest that no progress was made on SLS between 2011 and 2022. I mean we might suggest that the progress was slower than we'd have liked, and certainly more expensive, but there was certainly progress.

[Excused Boots]

I would say that this is obviously down to both Space-X and Blue Origin not being ready before then - and that’s possibly an optimistic estimate. It seems likely that the SLS launcher itself could be ready in a matter of months, the Orion spacecraft, not so much.

"It has yet to demonstrate it can get a Starship into orbit, let alone show off the Starship-to-Starship fuel transfer required for a lunar mission.”, yes true, sort of, but the extra delta-v needed to put it in a stable (but low) orbit is tiny, and could easily be done. The problem is the de-orbit, I believe the dry-mass is around 100 metric tonnes and it’s made of stainless steel, a lot of which will survive re-entry. You really, really don’t want to deal with the possible consequences of an uncontrolled re-entry. I suspect Space-X are concerned about the reliability of re-lighting a Raptor engine in space to control the de-orbit burn.

But absolutely the technology for in-orbit refuelling has yet to be demonstrated, it should work but...and remember it doesn’t have to work once, but multiple times - just one fails and damages or blocks the transfer, that’s it the entire mission is scrubbed. It’s an ‘ambitious’ project, to say the least!

I fully expect that the next humans to walk on the moon will be Chinese - and that’s fine, it will basically be a repeat of Apollo, which I have no doubt the US will state - ‘yes well done guys, you have managed to repeat what we did sixty years ago’; to which the obvious retort is, 'yes but we have done it now and you can’t’ do it now!”

Now as a Brit, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the problem is a lack of a long-term strategy - say two decades long which will span multiple Administrations and Congresses, the Administration which initiates the program will be long gone by the time it comes to fruition. No, apparent win for them - but a long/medium term win for the US. What is more importent?

[Vulch]

If it wasn't for the minor detail of the atmosphere, the last couple (at least) of Starship flights would have been orbital as calculated by Jonathan McDowell although the perigee would have been between 3 and 5km. Relighting a raptor in space has been done, although so far to give the ship a bit of extra boost rather than bringing it down. According to His Muskiness, they want to do two repeats of that flight profile (previous relights were Raptor 2, next several flights are Raptor 3) before going for a proper orbit and a ship catch back in Texas.

[Oneman2Many]

They have applied to FAA to do a catch attempt on IFT-13. I guess part of the acceleration for Artemis III and their confidence in V3.

[Flocke Kroes]

The other possibility is to work through all the issues required to get a license in good time. If IFT 13 is good enough for a catch then all well and good. If not, getting the license to catch will not delay IFT 14.

[Gary Stewart]

The FAA has approved a significant increase in SpaceX Starship launches, authorizing up to 25 annual launches from Texas and 44 annual launches from Florida. The Texas authorization covers both orbital launches and "return to launch site" mission profiles. These decisions, announced in early 2026, include strict mitigation measures for environmental and noise impact.

After years of whining about the restrictions on the number of launches they will be lucky to manage 4 launches this year at the current pace. I hope they do better but so far this is not very encouraging.

[Flocke Kroes]

The site license is a separate issue. Each launch/landing also requires its own license (or possibly paying a trivial fine).

[Gary Stewart]

"The FAA has approved a significant increase in SpaceX Starship launches"

This was made possible by greatly easing the requirements for launch licenses. I believe they were overly protective before, although a good case can be made for not by much given the environmentally sensitive nature of the area they are launched from, the inadequacy of the original launch platform which caused more concern than was warranted as it was heavily damaged and replaced with a massively improved platform, and the occasional bits falling from the sky in close proximity to Caribbean islands. Most of those concerns have been dealt with to some degree although I would not rule out the possibility of more "Starship rain" for the near future.

[MachDiamond]

"The FAA has approved a significant increase in SpaceX Starship launches, authorizing up to 25 annual launches from Texas and 44 annual launches from Florida."

The space wing at Cape Canaveral will also have to sign off on Starship operations. An accident could impact a tremendous amount of others at the Cape. I've worked with them before and they are focused on safety to a fault. They also have their own way of doing things that don't always mesh with how companies have developed their workflows. It's a military base with the Kennedy Space Center being civilian, sorta kinda.

[John Robson]

The current pace being "build the launch infrastructure to not need refurbishment" - that's not something they'll need to do again, so they could potentially ramp up the rate of launches quite quickly if their calculations around the flame diverter are shown to be good.

[MachDiamond]

"The current pace being "build the launch infrastructure to not need refurbishment""

Why build one when you can have two at twice the price. Isn't the plan to have 4 launch pads for Starship in Florida?

To support the mission plan, SpaceX will need to launch very quickly as propellants in the orbiting depot will be boiling off continuously. Out of a couple dozen launches in rapid succession, 4 launch pads may be insufficient. If the pads aren't far enough apart, repairing one may be impossible while another one is prepping for launch.

[John Robson]

Well they're currently building pad 1 back up as a v3 capable pad in Texas, and building at least one (I've not really kept up with the progress) in Florida.

I would suggest the separation to allow workers on one pad whilst an adjacent one is launching would need to be at least 5 miles... and that seems pretty sparse, even for the cape (39a/b/40/41 are the big sites and they're "only" 2-3km apart, the smaller facilities are about 1km apart)

The rate of boil off in the depot is yet to be determined - though since they are looking at lunar (and martian) transfers I expect they have some confidence that the rate will be low enough, probably with the help of in space chilling, that the depot really won't be a significant problem staying fuelled for weeks at a time.

[MachDiamond]

"Well they're currently building pad 1 back up as a v3 capable pad in Texas, and building at least one (I've not really kept up with the progress) in Florida."

The flight path out of Texas is severely constrained so it's not a viable backup for flights out of Florida unless those FL flights are going in the same direction which doesn't make a lot of sense for a lunar mission.

The separation is needed for all hazardous ops, not just launches. That means suspending work at the adjacent pads for loading propellants, static fires, etc. Launches are possible at all hours, but the base has rather limited working hours during the day for certain things in the normal course of business. Somebody that ran a bank has set up the open hours.

[MachDiamond]

"before going for a proper orbit and a ship catch back in Texas."

Given the populated land that the rocket would have to traverse, that's going to be a paperwork nightmare. Mexico may not allow it or could require untenable amounts of insurance.

[Spherical Cow]

That is significantly mitigated by Starship's ability to change direction and glide back the other way while descending through the atmosphere: it can re-enter where any debris would fall into the Gulf, then turn around and glide to the tower for a catch.

[John Robson]

Don't think it has that much cross range capability.

It's never "gliding", those aren't wings, they're air brakes. It falls belly first until the flip at very low level.

[MachDiamond]

"It's never "gliding", those aren't wings, they're air brakes. It falls belly first until the flip at very low level."

It does have some cross range capability, but that's figured into the decent to bleed off speed, not make big adjustments to a flight path.

[DS999]

Yes continuity between administrations is one problem

The other is that congress has too much horse trading and pork barreling so everything gets split up among many states / congressional districts. That may be good for winning votes but it is terrible for an efficient program.

The only reason we are even trying to go to the moon again is because Trump decided in his first term he wanted to for his own ego. Republicans have been trying to axe NASA for ages, they only approved the budget for this because Trump wanted it. If it doesn't happen before the end of his term (which seems almost a certainty now) they better be really close to going. If it gets delayed far enough it can't beat China I think republicans would be happy to slash the Artemis budget and say "private companies like SpaceX should fund this, not the taxpayers".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yes continuity between administrations is one problem

> private companies like SpaceX should fund this, not the taxpayers

SpaceX should fund it with all the taxpayer money it receives?

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Yes continuity between administrations is one problem

Posts like this make the Musk fanboys class all the many genuine complaints about his antics as disinformation from haters.

You may find this hard to believe but SpaceX uses tax payer's money to put US government payloads into orbit - for less money than it would costs from the other provider. SpaceX launches are cheap. SpaceX broke ULA's monopoly forcing them to cut their prices too. The combination has saved US tax payers $40B since 2022 on DoD launches alone. The tax payers' money SpaceX receives is not nearly enough to develop Starship. The bulk of the money now comes from Starlink.

If you want a valid complaint start looking at the damage Musk has done to US tax payers by supporting Trump and running DOGE. That $40B saving has mostly been spent on Operation Epstein Fury alone.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Yes continuity between administrations is one problem

"I think republicans would be happy to slash the Artemis budget and say "private companies like SpaceX should fund this, not the taxpayers"."

It's not a partisan issue. It a matter of how many votes it might bring some politicians.

The US government doing pure research and providing grants for interesting projects has paid off. China is far more proactive when it comes to public/private ventures in their own way. Too much Thorium to deal with from Rare Earth mining, fine, the government will accept the Thorium so it's not dumped all over and stockpile it for later. Later is starting now as they have gone hot with a MSR fueled with Thorium (U233 really, bred from Thorium). The US has just made it horribly dangerous from a business standpoint for companies to start and operate mines. The game ceded to China. There's still time to learn unless the political reactor is breeding more stupid than it uses.

[Lusty]

Re: Yes continuity between administrations is one problem

Continuity between administrations?! Let us know when the US is able to manage continuity from Thursday to Friday again.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Yes continuity between administrations is one problem

"Continuity between administrations?!"

Oh, that's just silly talk! Are you on dope?

The sniping across the aisle is just getting worse. Both sides bash each other for the same things they were each doing a year or two ago. They vote against each other "just because" not for any rational reason.

[Gary Stewart]

The de-orbit problem is by far my greatest concern. Where the control fins meet the main body is clearly the greatest obstacle at this point. They still have quite a serious engineering problem to solve to get them down safely, passengers included, and in reasonably recyclable shape. I believe they probably can do it (hope springs eternal), when is the relevant question now and I just don't see that happening in the next couple of years without a significant increase in the number of launches. They have the FAA's approval for 25 launches from Texas and 44 from Florida per year so that is entirely in SpaceX's hands. I watch every launch (love all the camera coverage ON the vehicles even during reentry) and I would really like to see some significant progress soon.

[MachDiamond]

"They still have quite a serious engineering problem to solve to get them down safely, passengers included, and in reasonably recyclable shape."

There's no current plans to bring people down to Earth's surface in Starship. Elon and Gwynne have hyped point to point rocket travel, but the numbers/logistics on that have never worked out over the last century or so. The inevitable delays that occur with rockets means that taking a airplane will be faster, more comfortable (in any class) and far less expensive. Even if for some strange reason you needed to get someplace in a very short amount of time, chances are better that you'll get there in an airplane in a set amount of time. I expect that buying a seat in a fast private jet will also be less expensive which means going from the nearest A to the nearest B more quickly and also bypassing all of the strip searches that would still be required (maybe more so) with going on a rocket. A "Maximum Absorbency Garment" won't be required either.

[John Robson]

The hinges held up well on OFT11, despite being on a deliberately stressful reentry profile, including a significant bank manoeuvre.

[MachDiamond]

"I fully expect that the next humans to walk on the moon will be Chinese - and that’s fine,"

Jared and the DC wonks are trying to characterize a moon landing as a race, like last time, to create support. NASA has won that race ages ago. The new race is some sort of extended presence on the surface and some missions that build on each other rather than stand-alone surveys. But it's not really a race and the whoop it up narrative is silly. There are still so many hurdles to establishing an outpost on the moon that whoever puts people there first doesn't put them ahead.

For me, a good plan is government setting up a research station that can do science with an aim towards leveraging the lunar environment to create things that aren't possible or safe on Earth. Once something has indications of commercial viability, the government org can start moving into the background with a final goal of renting accommodation in a primarily commercial facility that might be more focused on pure science.

[Excused Boots]

Yes that is sort of what I meant by the next people on the Moon will be Chinese. That race was won 50-odd years ago, there is no need to repeat it.

But a permanent crewed lunar outpost will require long-term funding and support. It absolutely won’t happen over the course of a four or eight year Presidential term(s), it’ll take a lot longer from first planning and approval until hardware is actually in place. The politicians who start it won’t be the ones in office when it is up and running.

I do sometimes wonder that following the famous “we choose to go to the moon.. in this decade” speech, if JFK had not been assassinated and achieved almost martyrdom status, but instead had lost the 1964 election, would Nixon have cancelled the entire Apollo project (or massively scaled it back)! Yes, nice idea, but impractical and we have a war to fight which also needs money - remember the US involvement in Vietnam increased enormously from 1965.

[MachDiamond]

"would Nixon have cancelled the entire Apollo project "

Tricky Dick was a very intelligent person as well as a shrewd political operator. His downfall was getting caught doing the sort of things that have occurred in the past and continue to occur now. Mr Bill was caught a few times and survived. I was lucky enough to be the lighting operator at a few of his post-office speeches. It pays to be one of the only people at the company that doesn't have bad things on their record and can pass a security check.

Nixon cancelled MSR research for not producing bomb material as a byproduct, some say. Apollo was getting less attention from registered voters so that money was reallocated to programs that would buy votes. Hence my comment about him being an operator, not a good human being.

[MachDiamond]

"I believe the dry-mass is around 100 metric tonnes and it’s made of stainless steel, a lot of which will survive re-entry. "

Large portions of Starship have survived, but the goal is not to just survive, but be capable of rapid reuseability. If the metal is all heat stressed and the structure is riddled with holes, that's not going to work and SpaceX's plans to launch dozens of tanker flights is going to mean having dozens plus spares built and ready to go. Given the rapid nature of needing to fill up an orbital depot, I'm not seeing how there will be the time needed to recycle the first craft to use again before the end of the cycle. A good first go would be a tanker Starship that is expendable. No flappy bits, no heat shield and no bit and bobs only required for recovery. That would mean a simpler craft that can deliver even more payload and be faster to build/test. Work could be done in future to get to the goal of reuse, but if that holds up everything else, kiss the moon goodbye. The Chinese will have franchise take-away food courts in their moon base before that's all worked out. Expect much progress in lab-grown meats to supply those shops as livestock on the moon wouldn't be fun to manage.

[John Robson]

"Large portions of Starship have survived"

Entire starships have survived.

It's not what can survive a controlled reentry which was in question, but what survives an uncontrolled reentry.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now as a Brit, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the problem is a lack of a long-term strategy

Not really. The Chinese have plenty of it. :-)

[David Hicklin]

I think they are being way optimistic and an 18 month cadence between launches is not that much quicker than before.

Starship v3 is a new design and new engines, so lots that can go wrong before it gets stable

[MachDiamond]

"Starship v3 is a new design and new engines, so lots that can go wrong before it gets stable"

A bigger V4 has already been put on the charts. That should be a concern that thought is being taken from getting v3 ready for work. Do they already see some shortcomings for v3 being suitable?

[John Robson]

"Do they already see some shortcomings for v3 being suitable?"

They're always looking for more future performance - the difference here is that the roadmap is public, as is the testing.

[Oneman2Many]

The real question is will the suits be ready. Last I heard, they also have compatibility issues with BO lander.

[Flocke Kroes]

I am sure the suits are about as ready for Artemis III as the HLSs. The real surprise has been SLS not being the anchor. A photograph taken by Gru's minions shows Orion's heat shield in good condition after Artemis II. HLS and suit delays may not get so much attention in mainstream news now that SLS and Orion no longer need the cover.

[Richard 12]

It seems the original contract assumed the suit manufacturer would liase with the lander manufacturers to write the specification for suit/craft interactions.

Predictably, that doesn't appear to have happened. Apparently there's still no specification for what needs to be in the donning/doffing chamber - or even how big it needs to be! This makes it somewhat difficult for BO and SpaceX to even begin designing the lander interiors.

Standards matter - it's why Dragon can dock with the ISS.

[Gary Stewart]

"Standards matter - it's why Dragon can dock with the ISS"

And the Boeing Starliner (well maybe), Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus, and JAXA HTV-X. Docking vehicles no longer in service include the Space Shuttle and European Automated Transfer Vehicle. Not included are the Russian Soyuz and Progress because they use their own incompatible docking system on the Russian supplied sections of the ISS.

[MachDiamond]

"Not included are the Russian Soyuz and Progress because they use their own incompatible docking system on the Russian supplied sections of the ISS."

This is why these sorts of things need one agency managing standards. Apollo 13 demonstrated why and it's handy if something like Oxygen fittings all have the same connector (pressures and such being similar) so if there is any need to get creative off-world, things will fit together as there won't be a warehouse full of odd bits and bobs to bodge something together. If NASA is taking the lead, it should be handing out specs to contractors and not allowing them to implement their own whimsy. I can see it being useful to have a large lock as is being proposed, but there would have to be rules if there winds up being two sizes.

[Excused Boots]

As I recall it wasn’t the oxygen fittings which were the issue but the CO2 scrubbers - despite what is often shown on films etc. the issue is never lack of Oxygen but too much Carbon Dioxide.

Actually the air we breathe in is about 21% Oxygen, and what we breathe out is about 15% Oxygen, we don’t use it all in each breath. It’s the gradual build up of Carbon Dioxide which is the killer, about 10% of CO2 will result in almost immediate unconsciousness and death.

So to remove CO2 from the you have cartridges of various chemicals which absorb the gas fitted into devices which suck the air through them and pass the air now depleted of CO2 back out in to the cabin. The problem being that the cartridges designed for the LM were circular whereas the (more plentiful) ones for the CM were square (it may be the other way round, I’m typing this from memory). The fix was to ‘bodge up’ a solution involving plastic bags, hoses, the torn off covers of manuals, and duct tape! I’m not sure what the original justification to have duct tape on board was, but it did save their lives.

[Sam Shore]

"the original justification to have duct tape on board".

WD 40 and Duct Tape solve all problems, and are therefore justified.

Should it move? Yes - > WD 40

Should it move? No -> Duct Tape

I do remember duct tape being handy on the moon too.. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/duct-tape-auto-repair-moon

[MachDiamond]

"WD 40 and Duct Tape solve all problems, and are therefore justified."

I think you can still find those in dual packs. I haven't seen the next useful material included, bailing wire. Having some country background, one learns about all of the uses that can be put towards. It's not useful to try and mend a fence with duct tape.

[MachDiamond]

"As I recall it wasn’t the oxygen fittings which were the issue but the CO2 scrubbers"

I tried to word it to be separate things. I should have used another sentence.

There was a book I read, "The Martian"?, that had some verbiage on common fittings. Perhaps, electrical. While it might not be envisioned that two rovers on the moon/Mars would need to share or transfer energy, having the capability might be super handy. The same outlet/plug would be used to charge the rovers and maybe even supply power to a hab if necessary. Contingency plans are a good thing, but thinking about it from a top level perspective of "we may need to move energy from one thing to another' or air/oxygen from one thing to another that has or uses it can work for things that aren't planned out in advance.

The CO2 scrubber compatibility issue on Apollo 13 highlighted why having two different physical designs that do the same take is a problem. Yes, there were lots of fitment issues to conquer, but if the policy was that CO2 scrubbers used *this spec* physical dimensions, a way to work around fitting them in both places could have been solved. Even if it wasn't as pretty. I often design things around a single voltage level main supply. Depending on current requirements, it might be 12vdc or 24vdc, not both. I can step down voltages for various needs but electrical items such as relays and solenoids can be had in either voltage. Some of that is having fewer inventory items. If every solenoid is 24v, I will almost always have something that can be made to work. At least until the specific one I want comes in.

[David Hicklin]

> but if the policy was that CO2 scrubbers used *this spec* physical dimensions, a way to work around fitting them in both places could have been solved.

For Apollo 13 that would have been easy - Make them rectangular and the CM holds 2 of them whilst the LM has just one slot

[MachDiamond]

"This makes it somewhat difficult for BO and SpaceX to even begin designing the lander interiors."

Taking an Apollo suit as a stand-in, it should be possible to create a mockup of a lander to deliver to NASA to mess about with. The huge advancements in being able to make and iterate full scale models makes it much easier to not have to nail it on the first go. I know of a couple of design firms not too far away that have massive gantry CNC routers for cutting machinable foam. They get used to create forms for composite lay up of aircraft and boat parts. A lander would be no problem and a whole lot of fun.

I've worked in some small teams that could knock out a design in a week or so. Especially in early prototypes, perfection isn't worth considering. You know there will be lots of changes so you just make some best guesses and get on with it. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Each time getting more and more things nailed down, signed off and ready until it's a matter of getting all the bits fit together and dealing with the problems that creates (almost said 'might' create and realized there's no need for that qualifier).

[Anonymous Coward]

Bezos still waiting for NASA to buy a Prime subscription...

.... even if using low-paid, non-union workers to deliver astrounauts od the Moon is looking more complex than he'd htought to be.....

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Bezos still waiting for NASA to buy a Prime subscription...

We tried to deliver your astronauts - but you were out - so we've left them with the neighbouring astronomical body.