Talk:Artemis program/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mars?

I am not aware of any source that confirms "first manned mission to Mars and other solar system bodies" to be included in the Artemis program. It may deliver some insights that will help with other deep space missions, but Artemis is - as the name implies - about landing on the moon, especially about landing the first woman. --PM3 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it was just an example of confusing wording. I believe the original author intended to convey that the SLS has been planned as a component of a future Mars program as well as part of the Artemis program. I have remedied the wording to make the distinction clearer. - Jadebenn (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

EM-1 patch as place holder for mission patch?

I personally think we should use the EM-1 mission patch as a place holder for the actual mission patch since it represents the overall goal a lot better than the explore logo. Once an official patch is released than we can replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I support this idea, and have done something similar with Template:Artemis program currently. - Jadebenn (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and swap out the images. If anyone disagrees with that decision, please let me know here. - Jadebenn (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I'll just leave my reply to the same comment on my talk page here. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I see your point, but I personally feel the "explore" watermark is a bit too "broad," if that makes sense. I feel like the EM-1/Artemis 1 patch is more closely tied to this specific program. - Jadebenn (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well looks like someone else agreed with me and changed it anyways. RundownPear (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn and RundownPear: As a potential compromise, would it be acceptable to simply not use any image whatsoever, instead of a patch that doesn't represent the program? I understand there's a thirst for a placeholder, but perhaps if there's no placeholder that won't be misleading or innacurate in some way, maybe it's best to simply leave it be? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I have another idea for a compromise: what about replacing the image of EM-1 patch with one of NASA's promotional renders? That ought to convey the intent of the program without causing undue confusion. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: It's an unconventional practice, but I'm on board with it. Would moving the Orion/Gateway render into the infobox be good enough for the timebeing? It will ideally be replaced in the article prose with a render of Orion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems fine for the time being. Hopefully we'll get a proper program patch soon. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should keep EM-1 since it accuratley represents the program, is already part of the program, looks really good, and will be replaced by an actual patch within 3 months. As someone who likes browsing wikipedia, the mission patch is much more visually appealing than the gateway with orion. RundownPear (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@RundownPear: It still doesn't represent the program as a whole, unlike the illustration, which depicts the hardware to be used in the program across multiple missions in the program. The Manual of Style encourages lead images that "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page", of which the Artemis 1 patch does not suffice. It will in most instances confuse readers into thinking either a) it is the patch of the Artemis program as a whole or b) they've landed on the page for Artemis 1. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Because a picture of SLS and the moon is misleading because everyone is that clueless but, I will respect your opinion and the opinion of Jadebenn. I will just wait for the mission patch to be released and change it then. The orion render is much better than the ugly explore logo we had before.

@RundownPear: Do note that the SLS is not exclusive to the Artemis program, either. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

{Reply to|PhilipTerryGraham}} Yes of course not thats why it would be a placeholder, but hey you won RundownPear (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's just hope we get a proper patch soon. Hopefully this placeholder won't need to be on the page for too long. - Jadebenn (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect/Non-Factual info in Launch vehicles section

There are multiple assertions in this section that the SLS variants beyond Block I have been cancelled and are not part of this program. While it is undeniably true that the administration's budget request did contain language ending work on the Exploration Upper Stage (at least, prior to it's most recent incarnation), it is not true that development on the future variants has been stopped, nor is it at all clear that the final version of the budget will retain the administration language halting work on the EUS.

The source cited to back up this claim does not support it. Not only was the article in question released before the formal announcement of the Artemis program, but any mentions of further work being halted on future SLS variants are clearly the author's speculation, not a declaration of fact.

Therefore, I believe the language in question should be removed, unless a reliable source can be found stating that work on SLS variants past Block I has been discontinued. - Jadebenn (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the table of planned missions says Artemis 3 and 4 would fly on a SLS Block 1B, so the article also isn't self consistent. I'm ok with saying "It is currently unknown if these variants of SLS will be developed" (removing "ever" from the current text). But I'd replace the rest of the sentence with something like "Several launches previously planned for the SLS Block 1B are now expected to fly on commercial launcher vehicles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that - sounds accurate to me. I just don't think the statement that work has been halted on further variants is correct at this point in time. - Jadebenn (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed the wording of the section and am satisfied with it now. - Jadebenn (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I originally wrote the SLS article and did make some mistakes on my end, I rushed through it and was trying to write Orion, Gateway, and the background section all at once. Thank you for correcting me. I have filled out Artemis 4 - 8 along with a paragraph detailing the new changes to SLS Block 1B such as its priority shifting from Gateway to the surface RundownPear (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC) RundowPear

Technology milestones in Missions table

I do not think we should include technological milestones in the Missions' table, especially those that are not "missions" but tests performed before Artemis program was created. There will be 37 related launches -actual missions to carry hardware FOR Artemis program, and I see no benefit listing developmental hardware tests from before the program was created, otherwise the list will also incorporate the invention of hydrazine? Parachutes? Radio? They will also be used for Artemis. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll make my case for keeping them here. This is a pretty uncommon situation - I can't think of any equipment tests that have occurred under a different program than the equipment ultimately ended up being used for off the top of my head, but with the Apollo article, the flight tests are included as part of the mission lineup, which is what's mainly influencing my opinion towards keeping them on the page.

At the very least, I think that if we're doing a "post-Artemis" cut-off, AA-2 should stay, as the test hasn't occurred yet, so it will have happened under the Artemis program umbrella. - Jadebenn (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Instead of listing Orion development tests, I would place a Hatnote with a link to that article. The exception would be the actual cislunar tests. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I just don't really see the point in doing that? If someone's coming to this page, I feel like listing the development tests is a pertinent bit of information. I wouldn't be against splitting the two into different tables, but I think the development and testing of the Orion spacecraft is quite relevant to the program as a whole. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a little unprecedented. So I'll toss out a strange comparison. Are we listing any Space Shuttle flights in the SLS article? Technically, the RS-25s for the first few flights were previously flown as Shuttle main engines. We don't count that as an SLS engine test. That's probably not the best example, but it's an example of hardware from one project being taken over by another. Fcrary (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. And we do have a separate Orion program category. Alright, I can get on board with Rowan Forest's proposal. It may be pertinent to edit the articles in question to show them as part of the 'Orion program,' like they used to be until a few days ago. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. If you think additional Hatnotes should be shown go ahead. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Why remove just the description of the Orion missions? If you want to massacre the page you might as well remove everything. Now it just looks messy and i don't know why you reverted to the horizontal descriptions. Yes it might fit better but it is inconsistent with the Apollo manifest and constellation manifest and the pre Artemis Exploration manifest. It is also harder to read and just looks bad. RundownPear (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Mmm, I am actually going to change my mind and concur with RundownPear here. I'm going to go ahead and revert the edit for now. It sounded like a good idea, but I'm not really digging it in practice. If you can fix the formatting, I'd be willing to try this again. - Jadebenn (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, new information, specifically the leaked predecisional manifest, suggests that NASA at least considers AA-2 as part of the Artemis program. So even if the others go, that one should probably stay here. - Jadebenn (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Fix the formatting? I did, and you keep on cramming large text in narrow vertical cells. In addition, the development of Orion is dealt with in its own article. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I didn't change the formatting other than temporarily reverting the edit. The revision immediately prior had some serious formatting issues, with empty cells "hanging" off the side of the table. It's possible that wasn't you, but some intermediate edit. - Jadebenn (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Commercial non-lunar landing launches

The Artemis program calls for a series of commercial launches for launhing gateway sections, lunar landing modules and exploration rovers. NASA has given rough dates for when they want them but no launch provider is given but I feel we should look into putting them in the article and possibly in a different section, i.e. 'commercial unmanned launches' or something along those lines. AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I will look into that for you. We could make a rough chart and fill out the names of the providers as we get more information. Maybe we should create a section for the Power and Propulsion Element since it has a somewhat interesting background and is similar to the lander development? RundownPear (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

When the information becomes available, I propose to add a table listing the "supporting missions" by the CLPS program as well as the commercial launches to build the Gateway. That is: those supporting missions/flights that are not specifically named Artemis #. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: It'll be fine to mix them in a single table; since it's a sortable wikitable, one can easily sort the Missions column to see the designated "Artemis" missions separately. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good option. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Missions" section

I've re-tooled the section as a prose-and-list section that better describes the program's missions in prose. This is in response to the heavy disagreement over the format of the wikitable in regards to mission descriptions. In addition, missions past Artemis 3 have been removed from the table and described in prose only. Artemis 4 through 8, along with supporting missions, are not officially announced and documented missions, and they are almost certainly subject to heavy change; the plans for the missions may have already been changed from what was leaked by Ars Technica. Sources for the missions are literally non-existent outside the Ars Technica leak as well, and are best described as "plans" in prose that can better convey what would otherwise be repetitious information for mostly similar mission objectives. Here's a direct quote from Bridenstine himself in a Verge interview published last Friday if you're not convinced; "The direction that we have right now is that the next man and the first woman will be Americans, and that we will land on the south pole of the Moon in 2024. Beyond that we’ve not made any specific decisions..." I've also added an editors note that states "Please do not add proposed missions and/or missions not publicly acknowledged by NASA to this wikitable" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've re added the table. You can't just remove the table without consulting someone else before. We worked through several iterations before we came to this table and that is the table we all have been working on. You can't just come here and remove it as a solution to our problems. As it stands, the table is consistent with he table found on the Orion and SLS page along with sharing the Apollo and Constellation format on their respective pages. I appreciate all that you added and these missions are on Nasa's manifest. I understand your concern of change to the missions table but heres the thing, this wiki isn't permanent. If Nasa changes the missions, we will too. You cannot just remove something like that without consulting the talk page. So here, let's discuss. RundownPear (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@RundownPear: I've split off the table into two in order to keep the planned and proposed missions separate. As I've stated in my original paragraph, it's misleading to present the proposed missions as actual planned missions that are part of the manifest. A timeline graphic for internal use only, leaked to Ars Technica, is hardly a "manifest". The Bridenstine interview with The Verge in which he explicitly states no "specific decisions" have been made past Artemis 3. It is a more reliable source than the Ars Technica leak in terms of an official, concrete timeline. You state "this wiki isn't permanent", yet you seem to want to make missions "official" way too early for any better sources to corroborate them. You also seem mistaken in believing that I have removed the information, when I had simply moved it into prose and more appropriately presented it as a proposed timeline of missions and objectives – this was the whole point of having a prose section to begin with, so nobody has to fight over the "Description" column like we've been doing earlier in the week. So, "remove" is a harsh and plainly incorrect way to describe what I actually did. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@RundownPear: Pease read WP:OWN; You have been opposed to almost everything not written or formatted by you. Now, in spaceflight there is a profound difference between planned and proposed missions, and I agree with Phillip TG to remark that. The large text in the tables serves much better as prose on top instead of crammed into a small vertical cell. Regarding Artemis started in 2011, it fails verification, and biased synthesis won't do. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And no, Artemis program -as it name implies- is a lunar program. It was specified that whatever infrastructure, experience and knowledge is obtained, it will be used for a separate Mars program, that may or may not use the Gateway. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I am really not opposed to everyone else's changes. The table is not the original one I wrote, all of my articles have been reformatted by someone else or even removed. What i have a problem with is inconsistency. The Artemis table on this page was the same as the one on the Orion and SLS page but now it has been changed. So are you going to change it on the other pages now? So don't dare accuse me of not being open to changes, considering PhillpiTerryGraham has literally changed everything i've put on this page which most of the time is perfectly justified. I just would have liked if we would consult the talk page before making his changes like other people do. I am in perfect agreement with the compromise he made, I actually think it's a great idea. This page should be about working together, so changing something without consulting or a reason that everyone might not agree on should be brought up on the talk page like many other issues have. I am sorry i've made this such a problem and if i'm being a problem just say something and I will refrain from editing this page, my apologies.RundownPear (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as possible Mars missions go, I think it would be consistent to exclude them from the Artemis article, except as a mention and a possible link to something else. That's how the Apollo program article handles Skylab and Apollo–Soyuz. They used Saturn V and 1B rockets, and the Apollo Command and Service Modules. But the Apollo program article does not include them in the table of Apollo missions because, well, they weren't.

For pre-program flights and tests, it's not quite as clear. The Project Mercury and Project Gemini articles do list test flights of the specific versions and configurations of the Redstone, Atlas and Titan launch vehicles. But they do not include the pre-project tests and development work on other configurations of those rockets. So where does pre-Artemis tests and development of SLS and Orion go?

I think instead of changing the name of the article to Artemis, we should have split it. We still can. Instead of replacing the Exploration program article, we could turn it into a history of a superseded program. Tests and development work on SLS and Orion, prior to the creation of Artemis would logically go there. The Artemis article could mention inheriting hardware from it, with appropriate links. Fcrary (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I added some sources in my initial write-up of the "Missions" prose which describe Exploration Flight Test-1 as "key component of the space agency's Mars plan" [1], and part of the "#JourneytoMars" [2]. The post-Constellation program has gone through several interim names during the Obama and Trump administrations before arriving at "Artemis". These include the "Journey to Mars" [3], the "Exploration Campaign" [4], and the "Moon to Mars" program [5]. My original write-up of the article came at a time when it was still the Exploration Campaign / Moon to Mars program [6], so any leftover elements in the article discussing Mars missions is completely my fault, if anything. It's clear that the Artemis program is now specifically focused on the primary objective of establishing a lunar outpost, as you said; however it initially began under the Obama administration as an asteroid reconnaissance and Mars program [7]. I hope I was able to clear Artemis' history up! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I saw you changed back the parameters in {{Infobox space program}}. I feel like I made it clear in my summary above that Artemis isn't a new program that "inherited R&D" – its simply a new name for an existing program. Needless to say, citing the landing page of an entire subsite and not quoting anything is very poor sourcing. I assume the 2017 date is meant to refer to the year Space Policy Directive 1 was signed by the President of the United States? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: I see you've made a majority of the columns unsortable, stating that "Duration is only sortable. If this should not be, indicate why." However, this is not an explanation as to why you think these cells shouldn’t be sortable, and I'd like to prod you for some sort of explanation. It would be very convenient for most people to be able to sort missions by their name, launch date, launch site, and launch vehicle. For example, if I wanted to see in convenient blocks which missions launched on an SLS, I can do that by simply sorting the "launch vehicle" table. Similarly, I discussed briefly with Rowan Forest earlier on this talk page when the commercial launches start to appear on the manifest, how one can conveniently sort the mission names column if they wanted to separate the main "Artemis" crewed missions with the uncrewed payload missions supporting them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: A reason I do not recommend the sortable class is because of limited rows and columns, in other words, not enough data that would be needed for a sortable class to help the reader. However, I see this as trivial, so I will revert my edits as you see it useful for a reader. Cheers!Manabimasu (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The program is estimated to require about 37 launches. If we add the supporting commercial and CLPS launches/missions, sorting will be required by design. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Artemis 3 on a SLS Block 1 or 1B?

This article has gone back and forth, and contains contradictory statements, about whether Artemis 3 will fly on a Block 1 or 1B SLS. It also contains the patently false statement, "However, the recent budget increase of 1.6 billion dollars towards SLS, Orion, and crewed landers along with the launch manifest seem to indicate support of the development of Block 1B, debuting one year later than expected during Artemis 4." No reference or citation is provided, and NASA did not get the requested $1.6 billion budget increase (or, at least, the appropriations bill which came out of committee didn't include or even mention it.)

Could we remove this incorrect statement, and shift everything to SLS Block 1B. To the best of my knowledge, 1B what it was the last time NASA said anything about it. Also, the leaked graphic on the "predecisional notional schedule" used their SLS 1B icon for Artemis 3. I'll admit that last point is pretty weak. But if there has been a actual change to a SLS Block 1, we should put the reference in as an inline citation. It the change to SLS Block 1 is simply speculation by an editor, we shouldn't include it at all. If it's speculation by some commentator (e.g. Berger on Ars Technica) then it's worth mentioning as a speculation and with a citation.

I'm saying someone could do this, not that I will, since I really think the pace of edits for this article has gotten out of hand. I don't like getting into edits and reedits on a hourly basis. Fcrary (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I will fix the misinformation, thank you for bringing it up here. RundownPear (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations needed more than content and formatting

Looking over this article, I think people have been rushing to add the latest news. And doing so without putting in many references and citations. Every statement in a Wikipedia article should be from a verifiable, referenced source and (ideally) cited inline. I see a whole lot of text with no inline citations and quite a bit with no references at all.

The Artemis 3 article is even worse. It's only got three references, and the latest is from October, 2018. Back then, it was a very different mission and not even named Artemis. Despite that, it's full of details about the number of crew members, duration, etc. which NASA hasn't ever specified. In fact, Mr. Bridenstine was criticized for requesting an extra $1.6 billion without providing that level of detail. Subcommittee chair Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK) said, “We have a White House directive to land humans on the Moon in five years, but no plan, and no budget details on how to do so... In essence, we’re flying blind.” I really should mention that on the Artemis 3 rather than the Artemis program talk page, but it looks like the same editors follow both.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newspaper. The idea is for the content to be referenced and verifiable, not hot off the press. And definitely not speculation by the editors or some rumor they heard. I'd try to fix some of this, but we're at over a dozen edits per day. That feels like a feeding frenzy to me, and I don't want to get too deep into it. Fcrary (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: If you could be more specific about the problem areas on this particular article, I could take a look at them. - Jadebenn (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid a full list would be obsolete before I could write it or you could read it. But what about the number of astronauts on Artemis 2 and 3? The article has an unequivocal statement that there will be four astronauts. I think that's the capacity of an Orion, although I've seen three to six in some sources. But why do we think NASA will fly at capacity? The first flights of the Shuttle only had two astronauts, and it was a while before they every flew the full seven people possible. Once Commercial Crew gets going, they aren't planning to fly at capacity. For Artemis 3, they may decide leaving astronauts in lunar orbit is a pointless risk. Or that they don't have enough mass to fly a full complement. Or just about anything. The number of astronauts is not a detail we need to include unless we actually know what it is. If NASA has said and I missed it, then the article needs an inline reference. If they haven't said, we shouldn't put a guess in the article. Fcrary (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a specific source but it has been stated in many Nasa conferences Orion will fly with four people. Maximum capacity is 7 but that is for emergencies and 6 will be for mars missions. If someone could find a source that would be great. I will try and source this and source the Artemis 3 mission in my spare time. If anything stands out to you that needs citing just let me know. RundownPear (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Why does Exploration program and Exploration missions redirect here? Is this WP:CONCISE? I recommend the redirects be changed to a proper article and the hatnote that indicated this be deleted. Unless there is a reason, I am unaware of. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Space exploration should be put in Artemis program#See also.Manabimasu (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: The Artemis program was formerly known as the Exploration Campaign in 2017 and 2018, before being briefly designated the “Moon to Mars” program. See my outdented reply to Rowan Forest above my reply to you under the “”Missions” section” heading for sources on those claims. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

R&D from previous programs

The synthesis in this page is too much implying that Artemis is a "continuation" of already cancelled programs. Artemis was just created in 2017 (name revealed recently) from a presidential mandate and has launched NOTHING yet, yet these guys keep entering one successful Artemis lunar mission already accomplished! and that it was created in 2011. The fact is that the Constellation program and Asteroid Redirect Mission are cancelled programs, and NONE of them called for a permanent lunar surface presence. Whatever grassroots technology has been developed (SLS boosters, escape engines, solar electric propulsion, crewed capsule, hydrazine, the wheel, etc.) previous to Artemis, does not push the creation of Artemis program back to that event. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: "...yet these guys keep entering one successful Artemis lunar mission already accomplished! Huh? That's... not what anybody was doing at all. Also, the Asteroid Redirect Mission involved the original objectives for Exploration Mission-2 (now Artemis 2) and the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission, [1][2] which were part of the Journey to Mars / Exploration Campaign / Moon to Mars / Artemis launch manifest, and thus not a separate program as you had implied. This objective was moved from EM-2 to EM-3, before being dropped completely, but Ascent Abort-2 and Exploration Mission-1 (now Artemis 1) have been part of this same manifest since long before Space Policy Directive 1 was signed in 2017 – and they both have not changed their original objectives. [3][4] Exploration Mission-2 / Artemis 2 has also been a four-crew lunar mission much like it currently is, since before the Directive as well. [5] This is very problematic to your assertion that this program was "just created in 2017". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I agree with PTG that Ascent Abort 2 and the earlier Exploration missions, now renamed artemis missions, are part of the program. The program does use lots of components form previous programs so i think it's fair that we include them. I think the one successful mission you referenced was Exploration Flight Test 1 which fell under the Orion program. Now whether that should count is up to debate. Asteroid redirect was where the Gateway concept was first created, and Constellation had a massive influence over Artemis so once again both of these should be mentioned. Yes SLS was not made directly for Artemis, but it is still part of the program. Artemis did not start in 2011 with the cancellation of Constellation and the Obama administration but that is still part of the program's history and should be mentioned.RundownPear (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Again: existing technology has to be used, that does not imply it was developed specifically for Artemis BEFORE Artemis was even created. Fact 2: Artemis was created in 2017 -and named in 2019 (referenced). Fact 3: Ascent Abort was never Exploration Mission 1 or Exploration Mission 2 and was never created as part of Artemis program. To reiterate: Artemis was created, as a new program in 2017, and that is referenced; if you want to enter that it was created in 2011, we have yet to see a reference to that. If you want to enter that Artemis has already launched its first successful lunar mission, we have to see a reference to that. If you want to enter that the program will cost $50 Billion, we have yet to see a reference to that (US Congress is dying to find out too). Any usable R&D produced during the now CANCELLED Constellation and Asteroid Redirect Mission can and will be used, but that does not imply that Artemis is a "continuation" or "revival" of such DEAD programs. For example, the SLS will use the key side boosters developed for the Space Shuttle which was conceived in 1969, yet nobody in Wikipedia is claiming that the SLS program was created in 1969, because it was not, and that is what you are claiming for Artemis with Orion engine tests. Existing technology always has to be used but the Program itself was created in 2017 by Presidential decree (referenced), and it has yet to launch its first mission (Artemis 1). I am not opposed to mentioning relevant past R&D background on the technology to be used, but stating in the Missions table and in the Infobox that Artemis was created in 2011 and that it has already flown one successful lunar mission is absolute BS, and nobody has yet enclosed a single reference to that. Unlike the lunar program from the 60's where there was a sequential flow of Programs (Mercury Program, Gemini Program and Apollo Program) Artemis is not an official continuation of anything. Trump and NASA pulled this in 2017, as referenced, so the burden is on you to show references that Trump created Artemis in 2011 before he was even elected. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the Orion program can now be considered part of the Artemis program. Are there any other uses of Orion planned? — JFG ^talk 18:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Feelings aside, it is hardware inherited for Artemis. That doesn't make Orion the origin of Artemis, which is stated and referenced to be created in 2017. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It makes no logical sense to say EFT-1 was part of Artemis before Artemis actually existed. Nor does it make sense to say that Artemis is just a new name for the older program. The goals, plans and schedule are radically different. You'd have to claim that the "program" under various names, is to do some, unspecified things involving SLS, Orion, Gateway and astronauts. That's not a "program" in the sense most people would understand it when reading the article. Fcrary (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that Artemis was created in 2017 and named in 2019. I'm also asserting that the Orion program was merged into Artemis; wasn't it? In that sense, we could add a list of "predecessor missions" before the actual Artemis-branded missions, and that would include EFT-1. That doesn't change the Artemis birth date. — JFG ^talk 20:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I could live with that. If Orion and SLS are considered projects which Artemis absorbed when it was created, then mentioning their earlier missions might not be unreasonable. But I'm worried that we're trying to describe a clear, logical organizational structure. It isn't clear to me that NASA's human exploration directorate actually has such a thing. Fcrary (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

By your logic, since the Space Shuttle was conceived in 1969, and since the SLS will use its boosters, did the SLS project started in 1969? Of course Artemis will use existing technology but that does not change Artemis program creation date (2017), nor Artemis' first official and referenced mission: Artemis 1). Rowan Forest (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not against a brief background mention of the Orion development (abort engine test or whatever) but NOT in the Artemis Mission's table as if it was an actual first Artemis mission. It was not. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The timeline or link to the Orion development history can me mentioned as a background, but not as a lunar "Mission" in the Artemis table. I would find reasonable a table on the Orion development under a separate section dedicated to Orion development. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Something like this in a separate section:

Previous developmental tests of Orion

Mission	Patch	Launch	Crew	Launch vehicle	Duration
Ares I-X		October 28, 2009 15:30 UTC Kennedy LC-39B	—	Ares I-X	~8 minutes
Pad Abort Test 1		May 6, 2010 White Sands LC-32E	—	Orion Launch Abort System (LAS)	95 seconds
EFT-1		5 December 2014, 12:05 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-37	—	Delta IV Heavy (Delta 369)	4h, 24m
AA-2		2 July 2019 Cape Canaveral	—	Orion Abort Test Booster	~3m

Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Done. - Jadebenn (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. — JFG ^talk 07:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Artemis Timeline?

We keep going back and fourth on when Artemis started. 2019, 2011, 2017? I think we should come to a firm decision on a date and leave it like that rather than going back and fourth. I am in favor of 2017 being the start of the program since it is when Space Policy Directive 1 was signed into action. Any opinions? RundownPear (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@RundownPear: See the talk under the "R&D from previous programs" heading above. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! NASA stated that Artemis was created in 2017 under the Space Policy Directive 1 and named in 2019. That is referenced, so making up synthesis to the contrary is pure disruption. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

2017 is well-documented. — JFG ^talk 20:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Just when the general architecture and initial budget were figured out, the Angry Cheeto decides that Artemis program is a waste of time and money and that he wants Mars instead. I would leave the article as it is for now until an official cancellation is issued, or he is given a toy for distraction. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: The administration is walking back his statements and saying it was just a misunderstanding, so I think we're fine unless he tweets otherwise. - Jadebenn (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should go by official press releases to be accurate, because his Tweets are Bipolar whims in nature. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite the lander sections

Would anyone object if I made some major changes to the lander sections? Currently, for the robotic landers, we have a lengthy description of Draper's Artemis-7, and no mention that there are eight other companies NASA has selected as qualified to bid on contracts. The crew lander section has a long description of the Lockheed Martin concept, one sentence on the Blue Origin lander, a mention of SpaceX and nothing on the other eight companies who got study contracts. I'd like to pull the descriptions of a single company's lander, replace them with a list of all the companies' involved, and put in links to detailed descriptions where the articles exist. As it reads, it's almost as if Draper is the only robotic lander provider and LMA is virtually the only one working on crew landers. Oh, and we need to say something about "Artemis-7", that the name predates the program being named "Artemis" and that the coincidental use of the same name doesn't mean NASA has settled on that particular lander. Fcrary (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Go right ahead! — JFG ^talk 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As time went by, more landers were proposed, so yes, go ahead. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes its about time that we update the lander section.RundownPear (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Power and Propulsion Element section

Perhaps we should add a section with details on the PPE under the gateway section. It is very instrumental to the Artemis program and i feel like a short brief paragraph detailing its interesting purpose and history would be a good contribution. I am checking because i don't want to write the whole thing only to have it removed. Thoughts? RundownPear (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend to first work on and update the "parent" PPE section (Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway#Propulsion) and then add a summary of PPE to the Artemis program#Gateway section. However, we don't have details yet. I don't think they have even reveled specifications such as which ion engine type will be used, dimensions of the module, solar panel type and area, etc. IMO, a brief paragraph here will do. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I will start to work on these changes. I will detail its origins as a concept in ARM and go on to explain why it is somewhat vital to a south pole landing. I will hold off on exact details for a later time. RundownPear (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

We do know a little more about the current PPE from thee press releases. It's a modified SSL 1300 communications satellite bus, although we don't know how modified. The stated 50 kW of power is more than they normally fly on a SLS 1300. And, even though that bus uses electric propulsion, there's no way to tell if it's the same one on PPE, or if PPE will use the new under development at Glenn. The contract is also interesting, since it look like Maxar will build it, be responsible for contracting out the launch, and operate it for a year or so (checkout and getting to lunar orbit, I assume.) Then they turn it over to NASA. That's much more like a commercial satellite contract than most things NASA does. Fcrary (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The development of the proposed engine Advanced Electric Propulsion System (AEPS) seems very advanced, verified and on schedule, but I can't find any reference confirming that it was selected for the PPE module. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a Space News story, https://spacenews.com/price-contract-terms-helped-maxar-secure-gateway-contract/, which gives some details on how the proposals were rated and why Maxar was selected. Quotes like "well-proven, modular, heritage geostationary spacecraft product line" make me think they might be using whatever ion thruster they normally use, rather than AEPS. That's also something they'd want to do to keep costs down. Unfortunately, we don't have anything solid on the details, so that's all speculation. Fcrary (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in the link you show, they remark the superior qualities of Maxar, but it also mentions that NASA did not get enough details on how Maxar will integrate the AEPS engine: "It also cited a concern about a lack of details about how the vehicle's solar electric propulsion system, known as the Advanced Electric Propulsion System [AEPS], will be integrated into the spacecraft, a weakness cited in several other companies' proposals." So this is a confirmation that AEPS was selected for the PPE module and that all studies had to incorporate it. Still nothing on the solar panels. These are the 2 key systems of PPE. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we have Ares 1-X?

I've been thinking about this a while, and I don't really see the relevance of keeping it in this section, other than the fact that it's on the main Orion article. While all the other listed tests have tested the Orion spacecraft, which is relevant to the Artemis program and lunar exploration campaign, I don't think Ares I-X had anything to do with the development of Orion, other than the fact they were (at the time) part of the same program. I don't want to just outright remove it without consensus, though. - Jadebenn (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right. There isn't really any path from Ares I and any hardware Artemis is planning on using. Even the SRBs on SLS aren't really Ares heritage. We've got a link to the Constellation program, and that has a link to Ares I-X. That's good enough for a branch in the development path that ended up going nowhere. Fcrary (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: I went ahead and removed it. To everyone else: if anyone's got an issue with me doing that, please let me know. Otherwise, I think this problem's solved. - Jadebenn (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Artemis program

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Artemis program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "report":

• From Apollo 13: Cortright, Edgar M. (June 15, 1970), Report of the Apollo 13 Review Board (PDF), Washington, D.C.: NASA Text (.TXT) file of report here. Multi-part PDF files of the report are available here Archived June 6, 2013, at the Wayback Machine and here Archived May 18, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
• From Moon: Archinal, Brent A.; A'Hearn, Michael F.; Bowell, Edward G.; Conrad, Albert R.; Consolmagno, Guy J.; et al. (2010). "Report of the IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements: 2009" (PDF). Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. 109 (2): 101–135. Bibcode:2011CeMDA.109..101A. doi:10.1007/s10569-010-9320-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 24 September 2018. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Orion (spacecraft): "Preliminary Report Regarding NASA's Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle" (PDF). NASA. January 2011. Retrieved May 25, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we recall Delta IV Heavy as a commercial launch vehicle?

The title says about it.

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the title doesn't say it all. The Delta IV (all versions) has only launched one commercial payload, and that was on its first launch. ULA pulled it off the commercial market in 2003, and since then all launches have been paid for by the US government. That's covered in the Delta IV article. I don't see why we'd need to mention it in this one. Fcrary (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The rocket is commercially available to any customer that wishes to purchase it, though. It just so happens that only the US government's been interested. To put it another way, is the Iridium satellite constellation not a commercial project even though it only continues to exist thanks to the patronage of the US government? Jadebenn (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I don't see why this would belong in the Artemis program article, but... My understanding (and the Wikipedia article on the Delta IV) is that ULA is no longer marketing the Delta IV. If someone asked, I'm sure they'd be willing to sell one, but that's different from actively going out and trying to find buyers. In contrast, Iridium does have non-government customers and they are marketing their services. The US government might account for the bulk of their profits, but it isn't the sole source. Fcrary (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What about Atlas V? Can I replace the "Delta IV Heavy" with "ULA launch vehicles" in the infobox?

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 12:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. The infobox. Now I understand what the Delta IV Heavy has to do with this article. However, I'm still not sure what to do with it. From the references, we don't know which launch vehicles Artemis might use. A Delta IV Heavy is a possibility and from context "commercial" was used to mean "not SLS", as opposed to "marketed to anyone who wants to launch something." (The later is what I was assuming in my earlier comments.) I'm just not sure what to do with this, since we don't have any good, clear references to the options being considered. Fcrary (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Without touching the semantics of whether it is a "commercial" rocket or not, I think it features too prominently in this article (has its own subsection), considering that currently, there is no formal launch proposal to use it. Yes, the idea was floated in the past, but Congress insisted to use the SLS, so currently, the suggestion of the Delta IV Heavy is a historical footnote. But we could mention that its future use may again be suggested at some point in the future, if we have supporting reference(s) to that effect. I suggest we render its prominence at the same level as New Glen and Falcon Heavy as potential future launchers. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think treating the Delta IV Heavy the same way as Falcon Heavy and New Glenn makes sense. I wouldn't exactly call any of them historical footnotes, but none of them have been selected for anything. We do have references about using a commercial vehicle for things like Gateway and lander elements, and it does not take "original research" to figure out those three are the only possibilities. Fcrary (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

How about "Supporting launchers" (Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn), so we side-step the word 'commercial' and we group together these 3 big boys under the same current status: potential launchers to use. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I like it. It also fits with the section title of supporting programs and launchers. Fcrary (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, calling them "Supporting launchers" best describes the current situation. — JFG ^talk 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

New 2019 logo for Artemis

There is as of this week (20 July 2019) -- the week of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing -- a new logo for the Artemis space program.

Since I am too old (although working with computers since 1969) to properly download this image from NASA into your new formatting system, I trust that somebody else at "Wikipedia" can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bastedo (talk • contribs)

Lead image wordmark

• 
• 

The word "Artemis" is printed three times at the top of the article – as the title of the article, the heading of {{Infobox space program}}, and in bold font in the article's opening sentence. To avoid repetition, I think it'd be ideal to present the emblem of the Artemis program without a wordmark, much like how we presently present the logo on Project Mercury without its wordmark. Not only does it resolve repetition, it also simply looks better in {{Infobox space program}} from a design standpoint. Pinging 5Ept5xW, Jadebenn, mfb, and Soumya-8974 as recent major contributors to the article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 16:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What about Project Gemini and Apollo program? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: That's where the discrepancy with Project Mercury exists I suppose, which is why I mentioned it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It may be redundant, but it seems accepted practice to keep it. The articles for the Gemini, Apollo, and Constellation programs retain the redundant term in the article image. - Jadebenn (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose: You cannot play with NASA! We want to keep the NASA emblems as original as possible. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 08:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Artemis program and Orion program

There's been a argument over the past few months over the status of Exploration Flight Test-1 – whether or not it should be considered part of the same manifest of missions since Space Policy Directive-1 re-scoped the program in 2017. I've recently found sources, prompted by other editors' suggestions of an "Orion program", that not only did an Orion program consisting the EFT-1/AA-2/EM-1/EM-2 ect. manifest that the Artemis program has today indeed exist, the program apparently still exists today, with the manifest still considered part of the program. This essentially means missions such as Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 are missions in both the Artemis and Orion programs, while EFT-1 was only in the Orion program. This is basically our solution to the kerfuffle, but it now poses a really huge problem – how to reword and tweak the Artemis program, Orion (spacecraft), and related articles accordingly with these facts. I've been thinking of creating an Orion program article, though it hinges on my unsourced and educated guess that perhaps Artemis is simply a sub-program of Orion, much like how the Discovery and New Frontiers programs are part of the Planetary Missions program – Artemis is the lunar campaign, and the Orion program will continue to explore Mars and other targets with succeeding sub-programs. If we could find sources to either prove or disprove that this is how the Orion and Artemis programs are structured relative to each other, we'd be able to have a much clearer picture of how we treat these articles going forward. Better sources on the nature of the Orion program, such as its objectives separate from those of the Artemis program, would also be valuable. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Jadebenn as recent major contributor to the article, and Soumya-8974 and Koplins, who both seem to have some sort of knowledge about the current Artemis missions as they existed pre-2017. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging RundownPear who had previously made reference to the Orion program in previous discussions. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

@PhilipTerryGraham: I know I'm a bit late to the party but here is my understanding of the Orion program. The Orion Program started being used during the Constellation Era to describe the development of Orion and the missions it would fly. This was back when the Orion vehicle was supposed to replace the Space Shuttle as a transport to and from the ISS. Missions being flown with an Orion space craft would be designated, for example, Orion 13 instead of Constellation 13 or Artemis 13, look at the Constellation flight manifest to see examples of this. Now, post constellation, the term just describes development of the spacecraft (unofficially). The Orion program is a remnant of Constellation and should not be considered part of Artemis, in my opinion.--RundownPear (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

One program develops the capsule (hardware), the other develops the missions and their objectives. It is clear, self-explanatory, and that is not a "huge problem". You want to create one. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Ironically, your reply isn't "clear [and] self-explanatory". Are you now saying that not only is EFT-1 not part of Artemis, but not part of the Orion program either? What program is it a part of, then? If the Orion program only "develops the capsule (hardware)", then how do you explain the sources provided above? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Try this for comprehension: Several programs and projects work in synergy to implement Artemis, the subject of this article. The Orion program builds the spacecraft, and back in 2014 it was intended for the Asteroid Redirect Mission, and it intended no rendezvous with a lunar space station nor crewed lunar landings. Even if the Asteroid Redirect Mission was implemented, its first flight would have been the mission itself, not the Orion testing. Again: the Orion project or program to make and test the spacecraft hardware is not the same as the actual flight program e.g. Artemis missions. The development of Orion already has a section at Artemis program. I know you, if we leave you unchecked you will move this article to "NASA's science program" as you did to ESA's Cosmic Vision. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: This did not answer either of my questions. I'll ask again with more concise wording. 1) What "flight program" was EFT-1 and the Asteroid Redirect Mission a part of if not Artemis or Orion, and 2) why are the sources I provided, which make clear that the Orion program was more than just a hardware development program, wrong? Please reply without making yet another personal attack; you've done this before. [1][2] – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I already answered. The project to build a spacecraft is not the same as Artemis program. Orion is producing the spacecraft, Artemis will implement a series of mission (some without using Orion). You know it, just thrive in conflict, but please feel free to expand the Orion article and its development. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Would not the Orion program be a subset of Artemis? Why would it be the other way around? Anyway, I think the only flights that are part of the Orion program are the Orion test flights, so that would be PA-1, EFT-1, and AA-2. A case could be made that EFT-1 counts as both part of Artemis and the Orion program, so finding some clarification on that would be good, but I think the other missions are pretty cut and dry. - Jadebenn (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham and Rowan Forest: I agree with y'all. When the Artemis program was announced, I thought that it is a program to send people on the Moon and the Mars. However, I was wrong then and found myself in the following objectives:

• Sending a woman on the Moon.
• Making a Moon base.

I also think that the Artemis program is the second phase of the NASA's now-infamous Journey to Mars program. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 07:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn and Soumya-8974: My line of thinking was that Orion would be used past Artemis actually, Jade, as NASA have had plans to do so. Though as I said, the relationship between the Orion programs and Artemis programs and whether one is actually a subset of the other or completely operationally distinct, is speculative at this point without any sources to go on. On an additional note, Souyma, "Moon to Mars" seems to be the name for what used to be the "Journey to Mars". I haven't found any reference to the former name since 2017, around the same time Space Policy Directive-1 was signed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: It's more of a, "If I had to merge them, that's how I'd do it" sort of thing. I personally believe the two programs should remain seperate, for reasons Fcrary articulated much better than I did. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Journey to Mars exists Well, it redirects to Moon to Mars: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/journeytomars/index.html —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 06:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rowan Forest. Orion and Artemis are separate programs, and EFT-1 was part of Orion, not Artemis. Try this for an analogy: Boeing makes aircraft and United Airlines flies them. The test program to certify a type of aircraft is a Boeing operation. Now replace Boeing with Orion, aircraft with spacecraft and United Airlines with Artemis. Does that make sense?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary and Jadebenn: It makes perfect sense as this is literally what I said in my original paragraph and backed up with sources. Just to clarify, I'm not the one arguing that Orion was just a "project or program to make and test the spacecraft hardware" which somehow doesn't "[develop] the missions and their objectives" such as EFT-1, AA-2, ect. Also fair enough, Jade! I don't see any reason to merge any articles at the moment; I'm in the same boat as you and Fcrary and the two points I mentioned in my original paragraph was the need to update the articles to make this clear and distinct to readers, and to find more sources to either prove or disprove any direct link between the two programs, such as one being a direct subset of the other, or example. I regret that the discussion had been incredibly derailed from these two main points through no fault of my own. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Commercial vehicles for uses other than Artemis flights

Commercial launchers might launch the PPE and other modules, and resupply the Gateway, but those are not Artemis missions, so that information belongs to the Gateway article. If it was to stay, it needs a lot of crafting to clarify they are not Artemis missions/Launchers, just support to the Gateway, like the CLPS flights support Artemis. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Great. Now we get to debate whether Gateway is part of Artemis, as well as Orion and ETF-1. The best solution would be to find an org chart, but I suspect NASA does not have any clear ones, and they almost certainly aren't publicly available. Personally, I'd say CLPS and the crewed lander are part of Artemis, since they don't really have an independent purpose. With the lander, that's especially clear, so Artemis launches need to include those flights, not just the Orion ones. Gateway is a maybe, since it's been planned for other purposes, but the current configuration and plans are pretty much Artemis-only. What about moving Gateway and CLPS into a section on "supporting programs" or something similar? Fcrary (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not my thinking. Artemis crews at the Gateway will be resupplied by commercial launchers. I was about to self-revert and clarify that section when you did it first. Please review it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

With your rewording, I think this looks fine. I just worry we're trying to describe the relation between these programs in a clear, logical way. I'm not sure the relationships are clear and logical. Fcrary (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we can explore your suggestion to write a section on the supporting flight programs. What would it include? CLPS missions, the Gateway, and commercial launches? That new section would also replace the [large] CLPS section in the beginning. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed the CLPS section and moved together supporting programs under "Supporting programs and launchers". My intention is to address the concerns and suggestion byuser:Fcrary (which I share as well) to improve clarity and the relationship/nature of the support. It is meant as a transition edit and am open to feedback and further changes. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Main article for "Missions" section

Pending the recovery of the proper version of the "List of Artemis missions" page, the "Flight"/"Missions" section should ideally be rewritten as a summary, along the summary style guidelines, with a {{Main article}} hatnote link. Perhaps we could shave off tables for non-Artemis and proposed missions and leave Artemis 1, 2, and 3, much in the same way the Apollo program article lists only the flights of the Apollo CSM/LM? I'm sure some of you guys would love to finally jettison the non-Artemis Orion tests from this section! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In List of Apollo missions, the non-Apollo tests (SA-1 to AS-105) are enlisted with the Apollo missions. I prefer to have something like, "From 2010 to 2019, the components of the Orion spacecraft were tested in uncrewed flights. The Artemis 1 will test the capabilities of the Space Launch System..." in the "Tests" section. Then you have a table, which shows the tests:

Mission	Patch	Launch	Crew	Launch vehicle	Outcome	Duration
Pad Abort-1		6 May 2010, 13:03 UTC White Sands LC-32E	—	Orion Launch Abort System	Success	95 seconds
Exploration Flight Test-1		5 December 2014, 12:05 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-37B	—	Delta IV Heavy (Delta 369)	Success	4 hours 24 minutes
Ascent Abort-2		2 July 2019, 11:00 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-46	—	Orion Abort Test Booster	Success	3 minutes 13 seconds
Artemis 1		TBD, 2020-2021 Kennedy LC-39B	—	SLS Block 1 Crew	Planned	~25 days

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 08:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

References

References

Artemis program is a subsidiary of Moon to Mars program

After reading NASA Moon and Mars, I realized that the Artemis program is a subsidiary of Moon to Mars program. Any thoughts? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Program" has a fairly specific meaning within NASA. Technically, there is no "Moon to Mars" program. There are lots of ideas and concepts, but no formal program (line item in the budget, program office or program manager, etc.) Fcrary (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

'Moon to Mars' is not a program but a vision of what NASA wants to do in the long term. That page explains that Artemis program is meant to help us learn what we need for a safe trip to Mars and in-situ resource utilization on Mars. This is the normal step-wise approach to science and technology. Any crewed Mars campaign will have its own program and name. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"Arguments against Artemis" Criticisms Segment?

Maybe we could add a section detailing the backlash and arguments against Artemis as well as some alternative directions people have proposed (2028 timeline, phasing out SLS or the Gateway) We could detail the lack of public support and how it competes with the Mars initiative. Just a thought that might be interesting to add. Yours truly, RundownPear (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That should be "Criticisms", just like the sections in Gateway and SLS. Remember, we aren't arguing against Artemis. Well, not on Wikipedia... But, other than that, it's not a bad idea for a new section. To avoid repetition, I guess we'd want to focus on things like criticism about the Moon versus Mars, the Moon as a path to Mars, and rushing the deadline from 2028 to 2024. Criticisms of SLS as a launch vehicle for Artemis are covered in the SLS article, and criticisms of Gateway as a staging point are covered in the Gateway article. Fcrary (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that section in the Gateway is what i was thinking of. I thought it could include how many people don't agree with the moon to mars approach and the majority are in favor of a mars direct, maybe mention how the presidency is slowly turning it's back on the program (not acknowledging it and constantly questioning it) it set up and how it is not receiving the funding it needs, although most of that is directley targeted towards the SLS. We could also detail the pros and cons of the 2028 approach. Input appreciated RundownPear (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fcrary, and such sections have a tendency to metastasize. If such section is to be created, it would have to be focused on Moon vs Mars without getting into the Gateway conversation. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent idea. RundownPear, be careful about saying things like "the majority" dislike Artemis and prefer Moon direct or Mars direct. If I see statements like that in the actual criticism section they're gonna get slapped with a "citation needed" tag. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is something we need to be very careful to reference properly. Some of us (myself included) do have strong doubts about many aspects of the Artemis program. But we shouldn't be saying things like "the weirdest idea since ketchup flavored ice cream" in a Wikipedia article. That means we have to be careful about self-policing, and make sure all the criticisms we list are properly referenced, and not our own editorials. Fcrary (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes I will be very careful, I already have some articles and interviews in mind RundownPear (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have made a "Criticism" section and the text are abridged from the LOP-G article. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Cargo resupply vehicles

@Soumya-8974: The Gateway will be re-supplied by commercial cargo resupply vehicles (capsules). Whether they select the Dragon Cargo, or whatever robotic resupply vehicles (capsules), the Artemis Program will definitely purchase rocket services to launch them. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a Dragon is unlikely; it isn't really designed for flight beyond low Earth orbit. But NASA did release a draft AO for something to carry supplies to Gateway. I can't find the reference, but if someone else can, we should definitely include it. It was, quite clearly, about an in-space vehicle and not a surface to orbit launch vehicle. Fcrary (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Check this link: [1]; their draft is here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Please look at my edit summary, "Delta IV Heavy is neither a commercial nor a resupply vehicle." United Launch Alliance is not a commercial organization, and never will be! Do you understand? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 03:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A resupply capsule is not a rocket. Do you understand now? Rowan Forest (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

So why the Delta IV Heavy is listed as commercial vehicle? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Delta was never listed as a commercial launcher. I tweaked the text so that now it is clear that Delta Heavy will likely launch modules of the Gateway only. Now, you never acknowledged your syntax error: "Supported by other launch vehicles, potentially launched by..." Launch vehicles are not launched by launch vehicles. Launch vehicles (rockets) will launch commercial resupply vehicles (capsules). Rowan Forest (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that was my fault, I was sick then... —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You are quite correct in that the Delta Heavy should not be mentioned at all, since it has not been formally proposed for this project. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

2024 vs. 2028

It looks like NASA's Artemis 2024 program just died in the U.S. House. "It is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028," Chair Jose Serrano says, noting that would allow for a successful, safe, and cost effective lunar landing program.. We'll need to wait for a better source but this can change a lot. --mfb (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the House did not want to sign a blank check. An open-ended space program of that magnitude is hard to finance, specially under the extant amicable environment in DC. NASA needs international partners. You know, close ones, the kind you will never leave behind. Rowan Forest (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forrest: What are you alluding to with "partners the kind you will never leave behind"?? — JFG ^talk 07:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's not overreact to a tweet. Bridenstine just reaffirmed the 2024 target, and ordered Boeing to build the Artemis 3 core stage. [2][3] — JFG ^talk 07:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, we'll need to wait. Just wanted to bring it to attention that we might get some changes soon. --mfb (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In a few weeks we will know if Congress will finance Artemis in 2020. By Easter Congress will have seen NASA's detailed cost estimates and have shown if it is interested in a 2024 landing. Andrew Swallow (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Google search results all messed up

When you search Artemis or Artemis Program, a wikipedia info box appears but it lists Artemis' first flight in 2024 rather than 2023. How do we fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The first flight is expected 2021. Can you add a screenshot of what Google shows? --mfb (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bing and google still incorrectly say that Marilyn Monroe died on August 5. That should have been fixed by whatever bot or coding they use long ago. So getting this one "fixed" may take more than just leaving the correct information on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First crewed flight is 2023 if I'm correct? But It does appear to be a bot issue so I don't think we can really do anything about it RundownPear (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's the current plan at least. --mfb (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Overhaul of "Crewed Lander Concepts"

I think we have enough information about the crewed landers and suggest we start to create sections for each lander (so far Boeing lander and Blue Origin / Northrop Grumman Lander and Lockheed Lander if they officially submit it's design) We should also maybe rename the section "Human Landing System" since that seems to be NASA's term for the vehicle. --RundownPear (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good update, but we should also mention that others may have proposed. The nature of the proposal process keeps proposals (even their existence) proprietary. We've also got a vague comment by Ms. Shotwell that SpaceX definitely wants to have a part in Artemis. There was a Ars Techinca article on the subject a day or two ago. I'll dig that up when I have a chance. Fcrary (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not much to report. NASA is requesting concepts, and the companies are mostly secretive. I rather wait and report lander contracts when they are issued. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, I simply added public concepts from Boeing and Blue Origin / Lockheed / Northrop / Draper (who if forgot to mention is handling avionics). Bridenstine has even commented on Starship most likely receiving a cargo contract but nothing is official. Glad you guys are happy with the additions. (Edit) I also just read that SpaceX is thinking of using Falcon Heavy, not Starship, to sell their Artemis plan. So who knows what this could include but I assume we will find out soon. RundownPear (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Artemis 2 is definitely a fly-by or is it still up in the air?

Recent NASA promotional material shows and describes Artemis 2 as a orbital crewed mission. I know in the past it's gone from orbital to free return but have they made a final decision yet? It could be a stupid mistake but it is on the NASA Artemis page so it seems like it wouldn't be overlooked.--RundownPear (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't dated, but the ESA web page on Artemis 2 and their service module, https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Artemis_2, is pretty detailed. It definitely says the mission is a flyby with a free return trajectory. (And, for what it's worth, they do use Artemis 2 not Artemis II.) Fcrary (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a flyby. For safety reasons Orion will loiter in low Earth orbit while the crew check-out its systems. This results in a lot of mission and performance tradeoffs that have the net effect of precluding Orion from entering Lunar orbit. - Jadebenn (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Just making sure that its a mistake and not some secret mission change no one but me knew about --RundownPear (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Start adding more hardware sections?

Every day we hear more about the missions and hardware that may be involved. From different types of nuclear power that could be used on the surface to the pressurized rover that was mentioned in depth recently, maybe it's time we create an "additional hardware" section or something. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait until this hardware goes beyond a picture in a powerpoint presentation. People have talked about a whole lot of things, which just turned out to be wishful thinking or trying to get funding for their pet project. Fcrary (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about stuff like the SEV which was developed for constellation and is still in development and referenced often and adding things as they are developed. If you would rather wait until we have more to work with thats understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear (talk • contribs) 14:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that's turned into the Power and Propulsion Element for Gateway, so it's definitely real hardware. The links and description in this and related articles could be clearer about that. But there are also hardware ideas that are much more hypothetical. A nuclear reactor for a base, or technology for in situ resource extraction, for example. Things along those lines are likely, but the current hardware isn't even at the prototype stage yet. I think that's where we should be a little vague. I wouldn't want to point to a technology development project and imply it was what NASA will use in 2028. Fcrary (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just clarifying the SEV is the pressurized rover NASA has been talking about, not the PPE RundownPear (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread "SEV" for "SEP" (Solar Electric Propulsion.) I'm not familiar with the rover, other than the fact that there have been pictures of them in NASA presentations concerning Artemis. They've also discussed having an unpressurized rover for Artemis III. Do we have any solid details on either rover? Fcrary (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No details on unpressurized rover yet. SEV (Space Exploration Vehicle) is a pressurized rover designed by NASA initially for Constellation but was put to the side, much like the xEMU and Earth Departure Stage. It has been tested with mockup lunar bases and astronauts in full suits and was referenced as lately as a week ago. It is pretty much fully developed minus vacuum testing and will most likely be used during Artemis (Jeff Bezos showed a picture of it using Blue Moon to land during his presentation). I'm not saying we need to right these sections today but it's something we should talk about whether we would include that here or just let it be it's own article. RundownPear (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Mission numerals

@JustinTime55: @Mattise135: @Fcrary: @Hektor: Hello. There have been changes in Wikipedia on the numbering format switching from Arabic to Roman numerals. Lets discuss the issue and reach a consensus before it devolves and page moves are done unilaterally.

The homepage of the Artemis program does not use Roman numerals [4], and their page was updated on Aug. 8, 2019. Where is this new push changing the numerals is coming from? If some NASA publications use both Arabic and Roman numerals interchangeably, what will Wikipedia use and why? Thanks, -- Rowan Forest (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't intend to do page moves unilaterally; that's why I said "Once we establish consensus, all Artemis articles should be updated, and probably moved." (Talk:Artemis 1#"Artemis I" vs "Artemis 1"). Hopefully all involved will be aware of this central location. This morning, I could swear I read a Wikipedia talk page on which someone (@Hektor:)?) wrote that NASA admin. Bridenstine recently announced the missions with the Roman numerals, but now my memory is failing me. NASA webmasters are probably in the same state of incomplete conversion between the two formats as we are.

I agree. The old usage was Arabic numbers, but there may have been an recent use or two of Roman by someone within NASA. Once they make up their minds, I could see making changes. But for now, I think we should stick to the old (and formally consistently used) Arabic numerals. Fcrary (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the pages don't need to be moved right away. We need to wait for consensus and official announcement. All Artemis articles should be updated and probably moved. Redirect pages could be used (Artemis I to Artemis 1). Someone edited Artemis 2 adding the text "(officially Artemis II...)."Mattise135 (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree too, the pages don't need to be moved right away, and I wasn't proposing that. They may, in fact, not need to be moved at all, which is consistent with the state of our Project Gemini mission pages. We can justify that under WP:COMMONNAME. The problem with Artemis is that the missions have yet to fly, so it would take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to tell what the common name will be.

@Hektor: is the one who changed Artemis 1 and also originally Artemis 2. Hektor, can you please weigh in with where you got "official" Roman numerals? Can you help shed light on my bad memory of where I read yesterday that Jim Bridenstine recently announced the Roman numerals? I thought it was a Wikipedia talk page, but I may be mistaken. If we're going to call it "official", we should have a source to back it up, otherwise it becomes a WP:WEASEL word.

Also, notice that the mission diagram on Artemis 2 very clearly says "Artemis II"; was that recently changed, or was it always like that? If NASA has really chosen to use Romans, then the article text should reflect that, regardless of how the pages are named. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In this NASA page [5] (used by Mattise135 to support his changes [6]) they use Roman numerals, but if you follow the links they are Arabic. It is evident this is not "official" but an independent and inconsistent choice by the various NASA editors. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not inconsistent if you look at the chronology. Any NASA published piece about Artemis put on line after Sept 5 2019 uses Roman numerals. The ones created before don't. Look for instance at the testimony in Congress yesterday here. Hektor (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Redirects are cheap. I propose that, for the time being, we just create the requisite page redirects, and wait for the dust to settle. Arabic numerals are more clear and easy to read than their Roman equivalents, but they both mean the same thing. - Jadebenn (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I second.Mattise135 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to indicate in the articles that although NASA documents use Romans, wikipedia for simplicity uses Arabic. Hektor (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that NASA is consistently and officially using Roman numerals. You wrote, above, that they had been doing so since Sept 5 2019. That's all of two weeks. How many press releases and other statements does that involve? Three or four? I think we should wait before making any assumptions or statements about consistent NASA usage or "NASA documents". Fcrary (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It is concluded then that this is not an official announcement or change, but an interpretation. No re-naming or moves are justified at this time. Having said that, I bet that eventually, NASA will switch it to Roman numerals in a truly consistent way, as was done for Project Gemini and Apollo. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but NASA management never used Roman numerals to officially number the Apollo program (they only appeared on some of the mission patches), so NASA has no consistent track record for a preference. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Since now you admit the inconsistency, why should we switch to Roman this early in the program? Rowan Forest (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you confusing me with Hektor? I never advocated moving pages right away, and never took a position on when to switch to Roman; I said "if NASA has really chosen to use Romans, then the article text should reflect that". Please don't add needless controversy to this. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have created the requisite redirects for each Roman numeral version of Artemis 1-8. - Jadebenn (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not only is NASA using Roman numerals but its main contractor Lockheed. I keep thinking they should be mentioned as the official name in the article. Hektor (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone within NASA is on the same page about this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the public information offices at Headquarters and a center didn't coordinate on the details. In the spirit of being an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, I don't think Wikipedia needs to be 100% up to date on something like this. I'd rather leave it until NASA's provided a clear track record of using one or the other form. Fcrary (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am supporting to use Arabic numerals in the formal contexts. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not "official" since there has been no official statement about it, and probably never will. The Gemini and Apollo missions also used inconsistent numerals originally, and it looks classy in a mission patch, yet the related Wikipedia articles use Arabic numerals. I found no discussion about it in those pages or at the WP Spaceflight Project archives. I assume it is because for the general public, Arabic numerals are obvious and unambiguous for this encyclopedia. To be clear, I am not against it, but if it is going to be switched, there has to be a reason stronger than someone's perception (including mine). Rowan Forest (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like NASA is now consistently using Roman numerals in official sources. I'd prefer to stick with Arabic numerals on the wiki pages for reasons of readability and familiarity, but there's now a genuine argument in support of changing them. Thoughts? - Jadebenn (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I repeat my proposal. Do like Gemini. Do not change the names of the articles. And start these articles by :
Artemis 3 (officially Artemis III, known as Exploration Mission-3 or EM-3 before the introduction of the Artemis program) is a planned...

I think it is factual and reflects current reality. Hektor (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The latest trend by NASA does seem to be consistently switching to Roman numerals. When there is WP consensus in this, the word "officially" will be unnecessary though. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought changing to roman numerals was premature after a couple press releases and about two weeks. Now it's been about two months, and I've seen the roman numerals in about a dozen press releases and presentations. So I'll withdraw my objection. Fcrary (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections at using the Roman numerals as a synonym, but certain users have to stop inserting that the Roman numerals are the "official" name. There has been no such official statement to that effect. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Artemis 7 and Artemis 8 problem

So, which is crewed and which is uncrewed. Everything I've seen is that Artemis 7 would be an uncrewed 1b flight with the lunar outpost and 8 would be the corresponding crew, but apparently that isn't right. Anyone know for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@RundownPear: I think this is not correct. The 2 inline citations you quote say nothing about a mission called "Artemis Support Mission" and a Google search comes up empty. They all are numbered Artemis 1-8 and they all support each other. Being still a lose concept from A4-A8, it is unclear if the last 2 will be crewed, but definitely have not undergone such name change. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: They are all concepts but the website I cited is the most updated manifest I could find. It divides the missions into phases and details Artemis 1-7 and shows the lunar surface asset launching under another mission known as Artemis Support Mission (Page 17 of the PDF). https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/america_to_the_moon_2024_09-16-2019.pdf Let me know what you make of this but it does seem the uncrewed mission would be before the last crewed mission. RundownPear (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the PDF. Indeed, there are changes in that recent graphic in page 17, but I interpret this as: Artemis mission concepts are now reduced to 7, with the delivery of the Surface Asset now being a "support mission". Because of the terminology at use, I believe this implies the Surface Asset is now suggested to be delivered by the CLPS program by a commercial launcher (At $2 billion per SLS launch, they may be trying to save money to obtain Congress approval.) I think your changes were appropriate, just need to quote that PDF in the right places. I will self-revery and will read the PDF for any additional info on this. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I just wrote basically what you just said but your update conflicted so here I am. But yes I came to the same conclusion and this would line up with NASA's concern of not only cost but also slow SLS production. It also lines up with NASA recognizing Starship more but of course this is all speculation you could just as easily use a blue moon to land it. RundownPear (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

So the document shows the concept is now reduced to 7 Artemis missions. This only suggests the Surface Asset will be delivered by a commercial launcher, but we cannot say so yet, so I wrote "undetermined launcher". I will read the PDF for additional info or context. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

In this other page ([7]) on a very similar graph by the middle, NASA also uses the term "Artemis Support Mission" to describe the deployment of three other items to the Gateway, which will be done by commercial flights contracted by CLPS; this reinforces the notion that the Surface Asset will also be launched by CLPS on something else than the SLS, making it a supporting CLPS mission rather than an Artemis mission. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

My speculation is that the Lunar Surface Asset will be launched by either SpaceX or Blue Origin on their respective lunar systems so I feel like it will be quite some time until we find out which one will win out, until than I will keep an eye out on the Artemis manifests as I expect we will see a new one early next year RundownPear (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, anybody would expect a surface habitat for extended stays to have a volume as large as possible, which would need a heavy lifter. The whole Artemis program is in flux, so many more changes to the concepts will be happening — if funded. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless you're NASA in the 70s who almost made a base out of a landed Apollo CM, but yes this will be something that we will have to wait for details. RundownPear (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

the Artemis Logo used in the Wikipedia Page

The Artemis logo recreation used for the image for this Wikipedia page has a noticeable error in it. The Recreation Used: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Artemis_program_%28contrast_wordmark%29.svg/1024px-Artemis_program_%28contrast_wordmark%29.svg.png Offical Logo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Artemis_identity_moon_mars.jpg Despite the Colours being flattened in the recreation, The one difference i'd like to point out is the lack of the gap between the upper part of the red streak on the left side and the A, the other gap on the logo is present on the recreation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woog24 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References to the DST?

I had added some references to the DST in the SLS and proposed missions sections. So far it is unclear whether the DST would be part of Artemis or not but it definitely relies on infrastructure set up by the program such as the Gateway, Orion, SLS, and Ion drives being developed for lunar operation. I think its appropriate to keep the reference in the proposed section since it would line up with the amount of SLS rockets NASA is going order but I suppose ti should be kept out of the main article, any input? --RundownPear (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the Lunar Gateway is multi-use infrastructure that will serve at least two separate programs: Artemis and the Mars mission. Artemis is limited to lunar exploration and it does not manage the trip to Mars (DST). Artemis and Mars are different programs that share resources (the Gateway and Orion). Rowan Forest (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think keeping it in proposed doesn't hurt because I never mention or state it is part of Artemis, just make a reference to it RundownPear (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is presented in the context of the development and fabrication of the SLS, so its OK with me. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who pulled that, and honestly, it was almost an afterthought. My real complaint was the idea that a Block 1B SLS can send astronauts to Mars or (worse) do so in a single launch. There have been some very exaggerated claims about what SLS can do, and that's one of them. The Block 1B can't even get two astronauts to the Moon in one launch (the Artemis plans call for multiple supporting launches), so a single 1B launch to get astronauts to Mars is hard to believe. Also, NASA has described Deep Space Transport as having a mass of 100 tonnes. A Block 1B gets 105 tonnes to a (very) low Earth orbit, and no farther. But I didn't really object to saying SLS can support Mars missions. It's just that, when I was taking out the single-launch business, I realized this article might not be the best place to talk about other things SLS could do. I'm not adamant about that. Fcrary (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree I'm just quoting NASA's DST infrastructure study. One of the requirements was that the spacecraft wast it had to be launched on SLS block 1B. Maybe the solar electric propulsion is way better than i thought or it's just wishful thinking, I was just quoting NASA. RundownPear (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the idea was in orbit refueling, or flying surface element on a separate flight, or something else. That means the crew-carrying element, structurally, would be launched in one piece on an SLS. But the value of that has been questioned by a number of people. Docking elements isn't all that hard (and is inherent to the Artemis lunar plans) and in space refueling, etc. open the door for Mars architectures which don't require SLS. I'd rather not add a lengthy discussion of that in Artemis article. If we want that discussion, I think it would be better to be vague here and put that in the SLS article. Fcrary (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The DST presentation (I've read the whole thing it's not terribly long and a good read) has it being launched as a single element with orbital refueling after a 1 year crewed test in lunar orbit. Currently the DST is under development as part of NextSTEP which has been getting a lot of attention lately so maybe we will hear something soon.RundownPear (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The DST is not part of Artemis and its focus is not the Moon but Mars. However, it is meant -by design- to use the Lunar Gateway. One thing that is not clear to me is if the PPE will be used for the DST or if a similar unit will be constructed for it. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Is HERACLES relevant to this article?

I always thought it was weird that HERACLES is mentioned in the article. I understand that the mission would utilize the Gateway and Orion but is it still happening? I can't find anything about it still being a sample return. I've seen articles about it being repurposed as a cargo lander for a pressurized moon rover. Perhaps it's time we did a little HERACLES overhaul?--RundownPear (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

HERACLES was just approved by ESA. They would fly a few landers and one of them would perform the sample return. Strictly it is not within Artemis program, but it uses the Gateway to return the samples, so allegedly, it supports or informs the location for the proposed Artemis crewed lunar base. Maybe in the future when there are more flights and landers, we could classify them in a different way. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Using this logic, would it be appropriate to mention the JAXA manned lander concept that would be active in the 2030s? It also utilizes the Gateway, Orion, and Artemis surface assets. It isn't mentioned often so I think we could mention it here. Check it out -> https://japan-forward.com/60-years-after-apollo-jaxa-plans-japans-first-manned-lunar-landing--RundownPear (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I didn't know it was approved with the last batch of funding.--RundownPear (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we even mention "Moon Mission 2024 Manifest"

The article now has a whole new section on the "Moon Mission 2024 Manifest". It isn't referenced, and the only things we really know is that Eric Berger at Ars Technica reported it, basically as an unsourced rumor, and that at least three NASA officials (NASA's press secretary, Administrator and Associate Administrator for Human Exploration) have all said that this manifest is not correct and does not represent the agency's plans for Artemis. Isn't putting this in the Wikipedia article a little premature? Or, at least, putting it in without lots and lots of text warning readers that it probably isn't reliable information? Fcrary (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fcrary: The information is relevant, but it's definitely running afoul of WP:UNDUE. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of flagging up the most egregious items. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It's relevant if it's true. But from the Ars Technica report, if could just be some idea someone came up with and circulated internally at Marshall. We just don't know at this point. NASA should be announcing selections to build the Artemis lander in the next couple of weeks. I've never been a great fan of putting the latest news reports on Wikipedia. I'd rather have articles be few weeks behind and correct. In this case, we're looking at a big rewrite (if the story is true and official announced in March) or a deletion (if it isn't.) Fcrary (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It was publicly acknowledged by NASA's press secretary and would line up with the new house bill. The section also says that it is not NASA's official plan but a proposed one, theres a reason I added it as a new section rather than doing a rewrite of the mission outline. It was said that this is a manifest for one of the lander options, which could only be the Boeing HLS as this manifest matches its flight plan. It is under the proposed section for a reason, it is in its nature unofficial. I believe it is relevant enough and gives an idea of where the program is heading. RundownPear (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It was publicly denied by NASA's press secretary. He said, "The proposed timeline in this article has many inaccuracies," said Matthew Rydin, press secretary for NASA. "We are currently in a blackout period because multiple companies have proposed human lunar lander solutions. These selections will be made in the coming weeks. However, the plan represented in this article is not the NASA plan." The NASA Administrator directly stated, "This is not the plan." That sounds like an incorrect list, or something someone at a NASA center just made up and circulated without authorization. We shouldn't imply that it has any credibility. Fcrary (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The section doesn't call it NASA's plan and says that it isn't supported by the agency. Remove it if you would like, this is the Artemis wiki and that is definitely Artemis related. RundownPear (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

How should we handle the Gateway change

Doug Loverro, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, has stated that they are phasing the Gateway out of the initial 2024 mission. This obviously changes a lot. The new plan is to start assembling it in 2026 to allocate more money towards the HLS. Should we wait for the official plan coming in the "near future", or should we start to change the article now. --RundownPear (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If we make major changes now, we'll probably have to reverse them when we find out what the plan really is. I wouldn't recommend that. But it would make sense to add a sentence or two on Mr. Loverro's statement. He did say Gateway was no longer on the critical path, and reporting that statement is reporting a fact that will not change. Fcrary (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We might know more March 24 The Gateway is still part of the program, just not for 2024, so most things might stay the same. --mfb (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It would just be dates and rewording. I agree we should at least mention it somewhere. RundownPear (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

$50 billion estimate, add?

The White House mandated a return to the lunar surface by 2024, but the rocket and spacecraft NASA plans to use to get astronauts to the moon has been plagued by oversight and performance issues; the Mission could cost $50 billion.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/10/nasa-boeing-trump-moon-cost

X1\ (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an official cost estimate of $35 billion already listed. If there is an official statement saying its going to cost $50 billion than it will be changed but if its an estimation that isn't good enough. RundownPear (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The $35 billion is an estimation, too, if the 50 billion estimate is credible enough we should add it. --mfb (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Where did the $50 billion dollar estimate come from. Also some major changes have taken place mainly that the gateway is being phased out so that is a whole new thing we need to discuss.--RundownPear (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WaPo writes where the estimate comes from (but then claims I would have an adblocker which I do not, and I don't want to spend time on finding a solution for that). The new change is likely to make both estimates outdated. --mfb (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Since that estimate, NASA has said their own price tag. Which one is more realistic is up in the air as these things are but the page should include the official one not the speculative one.RundownPear (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Dynetics Human Landing System.png (discussion)
• Starship Human Landing System.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National Human Landing System.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the (European) "Moon Cruiser" spacecraft funded

The article states that there were some plans, as of mid-2019, for the Moon Cruiser to be built by European nation states by c. 2025. No secondary sources since show this is active and funded, although it exists on the contractors primary source webpage? Have we got anything that shows this is more than talk-talk, like so many spaceflight-related conceptual designs. They loom large in their proposers (aspirational) plans; but often fail in finding full funding to get built and tested. What is the current status of the funding and plans for Moon Cruiser, from the ESA's point of view? Any current sources that show that? N2e (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It is currently being studied by ESA with funding going to Airbus. All articles are in French right now but I could translate that much. --RundownPear (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Launch vehicles

So to discuss what someone brought up on the page I think the number of EUS stages is somewhat relevant since the mission profile drastically changes if the Orion is on a CPS or EUS. Also should we add commercial vehicles launching payloads like Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, New Glenn, etc...? --RundownPear (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@RundownPear: The number of EUS on order should be 8 as per the contract negotiations with Boeing, but what missions will make use of them is in flux. As for launch vehicles, whatever the decision, I think we should be mindful of minimizing clutter. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 17:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ken Bowersox presentation to the National Academy of Science 8-11 June 2020

Ken Bowersox (acting human spaceflight head at NASA) made a presentation to the National Academy of Science/Engineering's "Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Joint Spring Meeting 2020" on 8-11 June 2020. Some of the Artemis material was new, hadn't seen before. Includes a two-slide graphic of the overall Artemis roadmap as it exists in mid-2020, and several slides summarizing the current Artemis HLS design project team's designs. As its from NASA, that stuff is usually public domain so can be used to improve the article. Here's the link to the NAS web page with Ken Bowersox pdf of presentation slides. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

HLS table should be changed

The current table displays any HLS related contract with either accepted or rejected. A lot of the info were simply studies that were funded yet not continued. The only really rejected concepts were for the full HLS systems including Boeing and some Italian company I don't remember. I will try and play around with it a bit and divide it into a study table and actual HLS table. Any input? RundownPear (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Artemis program brochure

A potential source : Artemis Plan - NASA's Lunar Exploration Program Overview. Hektor (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Partners section?

I was thinking a partners section with a chart showing the nations participating and what they are contributing. I think that could be good rather than going through the whole article and piecing it together. --RundownPear (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

VIDEO : Artemis project explained by NASA

Artemis - How We Are Going to the Moon - 4K

The video is created by NASA and is from their YouTube channel. The video is really helpful if anybody wants a quick summary of the project. I don't know if adding this video will clutter the page, if you are one of the author of the article please watch the video and add it if you think it will be a valuable addition. Thanks -- Eatcha 11:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed date back to 2017 for reference to history

I changed the initial launch date of the Artemis program from 2021 to 2017 due to error in the title section. In the history section it explained that it started in 2017 with the signing of Space Policy Directive 1 signed by President Trump. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eth132489 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support missions need update

There won't be separate ascent/descent/transfer elements, Starship is a single entity. There will be refueling flights for Starship in Earth orbit, however. --mfb (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Odd table color

I fixed the information in the HLS table for the "National Team" and "Dynetics" to accurately reflect the selection of those two consortia for nearly $1 billion of NASA funding, even though they were not selected in the downselect announced in April 2021. The info is good.

The color is odd. I just left the color the same as it was previously, when the incorrect information "Not selected" was input into the table.

If anyone knows how to fix wiki table colors, have at it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Article needs an overview section

The current state of the article reflects the state of the Artemis program as seen from the outside: a loose and incoherent collection of legacy projects with only a vague overall plan. The reader cannot tell how an astronaut will get from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon and back, which is more or less the first stated goal of the project. I'm an outsider, so I'm not sure exactly how it's supposed to work, which means I probably cannot write a coherent overview section. What needs to happen, in what order, to "land a crew on the on the moon and safely return them, before 2025?" What other elements of Artemis are underway but that do not (much) contribute to this goal?) What is a good set of references for this? -Arch dude (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The video posted above -- File:Artemis - How We Are Going to the Moon - 4K.webm -- provides a part of the overview, but says basically nothing about how Gateway will be launched or about whet needs to be on the lunar surface before before the crew arrives, or how that prepositioned stuff is supposed to get there and on what schedule. -Arch dude (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the 5 contracts on 3 December 2020 CLPS?

I removed the 3 December 2020 line from the CLPS table. It was unreferenced and also not mentioned in the text. I found a ref for the contracts,[8] but it does not mention CLPS. If we do need to put it back in, we need all 5 contracts, not just one. -Arch dude (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Space suits section needs mid 2021 update for GAO concerns

Space suits section needs update for mid 2021 GAO concerns about schedule, cost, and how NASA is managing the work. - Rod57 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: [9] Leijurv (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

split out the HLS section?

The HLS section is big and is getting messy, and it will be getting bigger. It needs to be reorganized in any event, but I would prefer to split it out and then reorganize it. Like most of this article and most of the space articles about current programs, it is currently bogged down in contract details and history instead of providing the user with a crisp description of the technology and the mission. -Arch dude (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I split it out. -Arch dude (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)