Artemis 2: what’s next for NASA’s moon rocket after historic rollout to the pad | Find a Way

Artemis 2: what's next for NASA's moon rocket after historic rollout to the pad

A successful tanking test will be 'the driver to launch.'
By  on 
NASA's crawler-transporter carries the Space Launch System, Artemis II's mega moon rocket, and the mobile launcher to a Kennedy Space Center launchpad in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on Jan. 17, 2026. Credit: NASA / Sam Lott
Matthews Martins

Perhaps facing reality head on is the most honest way to try to escape it.

141 Comments

Stay informed!

  1. How about transporting the rocket in an horizontal position , then stand the thing up , after it gets to launch pad ? ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looking forward to this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Praying for the rocket to not have an accident. Boeing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah right, bet those graphic designers have been busy with the green screen and blue grid screens and their CGI.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This should have a lot more coverage than what it is currently getting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This needs A LOT more media coverage!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The next step is to start producing Ultramarines

    ReplyDelete
  8. finally, walmart on the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I didn't see any test launches with humans. Did I miss that? I'd hate to fly that after such a long time since the last shuttle mission. It's been mostly Space-X since, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure this is the first manned launch

      Delete
    2. For the US, it’s only been space x with successful manned spacecraft missions. Boeing went up with people but wasn’t trusted to bring them back, so space x did.

      Delete
  10. Someone on the spaceship should livestream the trip with a camera given to them by hand so that we know they actually went.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meanwhile the government is cutting funding to NASA that allows them to operate satelites that give vital data on assessing climate change and allowing for accurate global warming modelling. It's pointless going to the moon while also making it harder to sustain life here

    ReplyDelete
  12. The titanium on the moon could be used to build space stations and vehicles for exploring the solar system. The low gravity would help make tasks easier. Environmental impact is not an issue when harvesting resources from other planets, moons, asteroids, etc., in the solar system. Except for safety issues for those doing the work, this would help keep expenses down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ice on the moon is a helluva lot more valuable.

      Delete
  13. Wait. What are we gonna do once we get up there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Short term or long term? Short term is just gonna be going around the moon iirc, much like the early Apollo missions. Later missions’ll actually touch down and hopefully start setting up a base for a permanent presence up there

      Delete
    2. Fly around the Moon and come back. It's a test flight for the Moon landing

      Delete
  14. It's sad how I have barely heard about this because of all the BS going on

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why are we dumping money into this when we have much better options with SpaceX and Blue Origin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't go to the moon

      Delete
    2. But then a national endeavour we ought to be taking pride in will be twice as likely to have a billionaire asshole's face plastered over it.

      Delete
    3. That’s true, but it seems like a waste. Why not use these fund to make some cool satellites or something?

      Delete
    4. How many times has starship failed now? It's nice to have a private option, sure. But the billions that have been dumped in the SLS over the years is just too much to abandon the program now. They atleast gotta try it out once.

      Delete
    5. I say cut your loses, this thing has been a money pit since its inception. Using old technology.

      Delete
    6. Sometimes old is reliable, we'll see how it goes.

      Delete
  16. They are not going to actually land on the moon though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apollo 1-10 didn’t land on the moon either, but the early launches still were invaluable for getting experience on how to get to the moon

      Delete
    2. We should already be at the point where we are landing on the moon. We have already done it and already have a ton of data from previous missions.

      Delete
    3. No we haven't tested Orion yet

      Delete
    4. Sure, we should have done it 30 years ago.

      Delete
    5. I think you missed my whole point. That since we have already landed on the moon, we should have been doing it, again again instead of just trying to get back there.

      Delete
    6. Not real experience with this platform, and nor do the astronauts have real experience going that far out on a mission anything like this. There’s still stuff to learn and relearn, though that we have data from previous expeditions does help plenty I’m sure

      Delete
    7. Yeah sure with the platform but we have missed he boat for 30 years. Had we invested the money, like we should have, we should have been on the moon many times and a platform change should only be a blip in the road, not an excuse to continue to Not be on the moon. We have the math and computing power to know how the platform should respond in space.

      Delete
    8. Still need to test

      Delete
    9. Should and will are different things. Components break when put in full use with everything else also in use, crew responds differently, all sorts of different tweaks that need to be made. Look at the US Gerald R Ford, it’s basically a modernized Nimitz class carrier, with half its new stuff tested on the last Nimitz, the George HW Bush, and even with so much testing and theoretical design that pointed to a very capable warship, it fried half the electronics on the ship when it fired its electronic aircraft catapults the first time on the ship. It’s in much better shape now and its sister ships are coming along much more smoothly than she did, but the very fact that her development was such hell shows why we shouldn’t go straight to the moon with so little real, practical prep work.

      Delete
    10. That comes next year iirc.

      Delete
  17. We should be going to the moon to bring back Helium 3. Not fucking around taking victory lap photoshoots. The energy we could generate would power the USA for hundreds of years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the entire point of the Artemis program, sustained lunar development. We are not mining He3 immediately but setting up a presence on the moon and learning how to live there.

      Delete
    2. Here's the thing, they're not there specifically to harvest H3. They're there to set up a base. Which would logically be a requirement of harvesting H3, but I've looked a bit and seen no material suggesting that H3 harvesting is even intended as part of the missions. The only incidental element besides basic research that has been stated repeatedly is that the base work is supposed to prepare us to set up a base on mars.

      Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen anything official to substantiate your point.

      Delete
    3. There probably isn't anything planned for that yet. It would be way to expensive right now, especially with little demand as nuclear fusion is not a thing for energy yet. We need to figure out ISRU before we start mining the moon. Once we can start making fuel on the moon, everything gets a lot cheaper and that is something we are very much working on.

      Delete
  18. What do you mean "back" to the moon? LOL!
    (This is a joke, please don't kill me)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean to tell me you believe there is a moon?

      Delete
    2. Moon Over My Hammy...very real.

      Delete
  19. Well it's about time we go back

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say that now, young earthling. What if things discovered there were ment to be forgot? Muh-haha! Muhhahahahhhhhaaaaaaaa!

      Delete
    2. There wasn’t really much of a point until now. But with Mars and space mining on the horizon, it’s about time.

      Delete
    3. I just want Twitch streams from the Moon

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. My take, A way to get faster to moon would be to work with EU, Japan, Quad etc. These countries have signed the US-led Artemis Accords. Notable exclusions are Russia, China

      Founding Members (October 2020)

      -Australia
      -Canada
      -Italy
      -Japan
      -Luxembourg
      -United Arab Emirates (UAE)
      -United Kingdom (UK)
      -United States (US)

      Key Later Signatories

      -India: (2023)
      -Republic of Korea: (South Korea)
      -Brazil
      -France
      -Saudi Arabia
      -Spain
      -Germany
      -Mexico

      Delete
    2. Europe still heavily relies on the US for stuff like launch services, military satellites, and human spaceflight. They can't block components for our rockets without jeopardizing their own space program.

      Delete
    3. That funny you are talking like everyone is reasonable.

      Delete
  21. WHEN THE FUCK WAS SHE LAUNCH READY?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's much faster flying than driving

      Delete
    2. The earliest launch window for Artemis II opens on February 5–11, 2026 with the mission planned to launch no earlier than February 6, 2026.

      Delete
    3. She’s supposed to be launched within the next few weeks to months my Man,

      She’s going on a trip.

      Delete
    4. In our newest favorite rocket ship?

      Delete
  22. The big rocket Artemis hope she makes it off well I have no interest in space none whatsoever. Hope it works out for everyone. Americans to get back on the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wait…..aren’t they supposed to paint it first?

    ReplyDelete
  24. That giant crawler is the coolest thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. My son works there on the SLS team. Very proud and wishing the program success. I was able to tour the area a few years ago when NASA put on an open house for family members of employees. The size and scope of the place is amazing. I left very impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here we go 🚀🧑🏻‍🚀🧑🏻‍🚀🧑🏻‍🚀🧑🏻‍🚀🧑🏻‍🚀

    ReplyDelete
  27. So what's the mission purpose for Artemis II? I saw that its mission is to fly around the moon and back, but for what purpose? Are they gathering lunar data, looking for an ideal spot to build a base, whats the goal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a test flight of SLS and Orion with crew.

      Delete
    2. Verifying the onboard systems of the Orion. Things like control and life support. Kinda important for following missions.

      Delete
  28. I just want to know how many mpg on that mobile launch pad 🤣

    ReplyDelete
  29. I’m old fashioned Brit 🇬🇧 and am super stoked by this 👍🏽.

    I dipped in and out of the NASA stream yesterday. Yes it’s expensive, late and other things, but using four old Space Shuttle engines and two monster boosters rock my boat.

    I wish them the very best of luck and hope they get off on time and have a successful mission 🫶🏽.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A different kind of sexy than the Saturn V and I like it!

    ReplyDelete
  31. This really should be bigger news, plastered on TV globally.

    We are sending human beings the furthest weve ever been since the Moon Landing itself.

    Unbelievable

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dumb question: This mission will just circle the moon and bring them back right? Do we even need people for that nowadays? Or could it be dummies instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a test flight to get people back on the moon, they need the people on thus one too.

      Delete
    2. I get that, but in this day and age, having people in it "for the test" feels like an avoidable risk.

      Delete
    3. There haven’t been any human flights outside the Earth’s Van Allen belts that protect us from solar radiation since Apollo 17. Proving those dudes don’t get fried to a crisp is a pretty big deal.

      Delete
    4. There has already been a test of the rocket and spacecraft without crew. This is the test with crew. It is needed to test the life support systems, manual piloting capabilities, all the training and mission control operations with crew, etc.

      Delete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Watch out for those O rings!

    ReplyDelete
  35. What’s the best way to follow launch announcements at NASA and SpaceX to know when to watch the livestreams?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nextspaceflight is usually a good app for launch notifications.

      Delete
  36. Imagine driving down the road and you meet this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd be in for a long wait for it to clear.

      Delete
  37. Who writes those fairy tales for toddlers??? Nobody is going nowhere...except in fake videos and images.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you like to prove how those images and videos are fake and that nobody is going anywhere?

      Delete
    2. Check yourself into your nearest mental health facility. People like you should not be roaming the streets unsupervised.

      Delete
    3. See a psychiatrist

      Delete
  38. they are leaving without us

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hopefully everything goes well, fingers crossed

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Drive Safely"

    You'd better when you're carrying a moon rocket with a launch pad on wheels

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m guessing that road gets treated like a drag strip when there isn’t a rocket on it.

      Delete
  41. Yes,excited. But SLS is still made mostly by BOEING, and BOEING made STARLINER and we all saw how badly that went. Why not use ULA CEO Tory Bruno as test pilot since he talks up a big game

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why do you talk like THIS

      Delete
    2. NOT op, but it REMINDS me of SOMEONE who POSTS A LOT online.

      THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER!!!!

      Delete
  42. Sweet! Love the Artemis program. We're going to build a moon base!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Fingers crossed they hit one of those launch windows successfully.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isnt your average every day stupid.

      This is…ADVANCED stupid 😳

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. "objects exist that can travel the length of the solar system in seconds."

      What exactly are you referencing here?

      Delete
    5. Something with warp drive apparently because not even light goes that fast

      Delete
    6. What the actual fuck does any of this mean?

      Delete
    7. Took me five reads but I'm pretty sure this guy is saying that interstellar objects (maybe like Oumuamua since that one gets a lot of clicks) that can travel across the solar system in seconds (No idea where this part came from) are alien spacecraft or some type of technology that the US government has, either as confiscated UFOs or prototypes. He also states that because of this Artemis II will be faked for some reason, instead of just used to placate the masses to hide the existence of far superior technology like most of these nuts claim. It's confusing because he makes several, seemingly incompatible statements on top of them already being wild conspiracies.

      Delete
    8. Our solar system is about 9 billion km wide or 500 light minutes. So even if we had some kind of craft that could travel at the speed of light, it would still take over 8 hours and 20 minutes.

      Delete
    9. Completely delusional

      Delete
    10. Well this one was quite fun to read.

      Delete
    11. I don't know man, your comment is pretty funny to me.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    13. So when it does launch, where do you plan on moving your goalposts? Let me guess AI? CGI? Holograms?

      Delete
    14. Probably thinks it's gonna slam into the firmament

      Delete
    15. American education system at work right here

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    17. Not getting fixed anytime soon either. People feel informed watching conspiracy theorists spouting shit on YouTube. Internet's a double edged sword.

      Delete
    18. I'm starting to think that lacking information was better than the current situation of endless false information

      Delete
    19. I'd completely agree if it didn't make us more dependent on our corporate overlords.

      Delete
    20. I'd argue it makes us even more dependant because they can effectively brainwash so many of us. We are definitely dumber as a population now than we were before smart phones and social media.

      Delete
    21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    22. You're a prime example

      Delete
  45. So it's gonna sit on the pad for the next 3.5 months?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure it will sit longer than many want, but sooner than many others can.

      Delete
    2. It has multiple launch windows until then, starting February 7.

      Actual launch date depends on several factors - how will the start preparations and tests go, how many problems will come up, will the weather cooperate…?

      Delete
    3. Oh I seeee. I was like damn, they just gonna let it rust between now and then? Shiiiiit

      Delete
    4. You might still be right, given that it took Artemis 1 from the first roll-out on August 17, 2022 until eventual launch on November 16…

      You’d think / hope that some improvements were made and lessons learned since then, though. We will see!

      Delete
    5. Fingers crossed!

      Delete
    6. They will attempt to launch during multiple opportunity windows between February and April.

      Delete
    7. What are the launches for?

      Delete
    8. Preparing for Artemis III

      Delete
    9. Naive questjon but besides the weather, what other factors can lead to the launch attempt being delayed to a later launch window?

      Delete
    10. I am impressed that they are going to send their rocket in view of their current political situation and I would like to congratulate NASA. The only plausible thing that could delay the launch would be if their verbose baboon of a president opened his mouth.

      Delete
    11. In short, a lot. . .

      If any number of systems isn’t reading within allowable ranges they will delay or scrub. One example of a troublesome system is the liquid hydrogen seals. . . They are a consistent failure source because in order to save $$$ liquid hydrogen is a fuel source, problem is hydrogen is the smallest element with the most common molecule (H2) coming in at just 2 atoms of 1 proton and electron each. . . Now remember that there is really no such thing as “solid” meaning there are gaps in even a a solid materials structure; this usually isn’t a big deal but when you are trying to contain the smallest element and keep it away from ignitions sources. . . Traditional methods start to look more like a screen door then a seal

      Delete
    12. Issues with ground support equipment were and probably will continue to be a major problem with SLS and shuttle derived hardware. The Artemis 1 launch required the deployment of the red team to fix issues on the pad while partially loaded several times prior to launch.

      They could also have range violations (where boats and planes are down range of the launch), recovery range issues (abort recovery teams may have their own problems to sort) vehicle configuration issues (the vehicle can trigger its own aborts if it senses something is up), and a few other things.

      There’s a lot of factors that can delay a launch; and they all have different limits between different vehicles. Starship for instance, has a massive amount of upper range wind margins (they can launch in far worse weather) than something like SLS just because it was designed that way.

      Delete
    13. One possibility that’s become more likely is space junk

      Delete

    14. Lots of technical issues can pop up on launch day. If a sensor reads bad or isn't reading correctly, etc etc.

      If a ship enters down range where the rocket will launch.

      The general launch window is also timed to where the moon is

      Delete
    15. You know in movies, when every system and operation gives their "Go" for launch, that's called Launch Status Check. At any point in time, something may not be exactly perfect and can lead to a cancelled launch. Weather/forecasting is one of the first Go/No Gos for launch, I think I read somewhere it's as early as 36 hours out. Ultimately it falls to the Launch Director to send it.

      Delete
    16. At the moment war with Europe probably is one lol

      Delete
Post a Comment
Previous Post Next Post