NASA targets Artemis II crewed moon mission for April 1 launch
56 points
4 hours ago
| 8 comments
| npr.org
| HN
dmix
2 hours ago
[-]
Then we just have to see if SpaceX can pull off orbital refueling at scale.

Starship 3 first launch will be in April as well https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/2026/03/11/spacex-st...

reply
proee
1 hour ago
[-]
Imagine riding in a vehicle that has been tested zero times. I would be terrified. Best of luck to the team.
reply
riffic
47 minutes ago
[-]
Have the vehicles not been tested? It seems a strange premise to make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Flight_Test-1

reply
ta9000
42 minutes ago
[-]
It’s kind of wild that I never heard about this. Space exploration really has dropped off the map news/media wise.
reply
brcmthrowaway
1 hour ago
[-]
Lunar surface?
reply
bhhaskin
1 hour ago
[-]
Fly-by
reply
abeppu
3 hours ago
[-]
April 1 is an in interesting choice for a big event that will be news if it goes well and bigger news if it goes badly
reply
jedberg
3 hours ago
[-]
They don't really have a choice. The launch window is small and they either make it or they don't.
reply
philipwhiuk
2 hours ago
[-]
There is a window on the 2nd. But you don't aim for the second half of the launch period and hope you make it, you aim for the start to allow time to resolve issues without waiting for the next window (which is the end of the month).
reply
echelon
2 hours ago
[-]
What factors are there for the lunar launch window?

It can't be weather, here, right? That's too far ahead.

Is it perigee?

If this window is missed, when is the next one?

reply
jedberg
2 hours ago
[-]
The position of the moon relative to the earth and the sun. The windows are about a month apart.
reply
ohyoutravel
2 hours ago
[-]
Well at least there’s a 50% probability of success
reply
hypeatei
2 hours ago
[-]
"April fools, your space shuttle just disintegrated!"
reply
mikkupikku
3 hours ago
[-]
Can't they just schedule it for March 32nd?
reply
AverageSavage
2 hours ago
[-]
They are snip hunting that day.
reply
la3lma
2 hours ago
[-]
Surely they are joking?
reply
pfdietz
2 hours ago
[-]
The whole program is a joke.
reply
AverageSavage
2 hours ago
[-]
Operation: Sike! is a go! ;)
reply
edgyquant
3 hours ago
[-]
“As early as April 1” is a weird way to describe something that is two months behind schedule
reply
NitpickLawyer
3 hours ago
[-]
That's probably a "layman's terms" translation of a more technical term NET April 1, which would be "Not Earlier Than" and is widely used in the industry.
reply
StableAlkyne
3 hours ago
[-]
Being a few months behind schedule is forgivable for human space flight.

If a SpaceX Falcon blows up on the pad, that's one thing. It's expensive but they accept that risk to move faster. At least they gain knowledge of what failed, to do better next time.

You can't apply that mentality once a human is piloting it however. That's how you get Columbia, Challenger, or Apollo 1.

reply
philipwhiuk
2 hours ago
[-]
> If a SpaceX Falcon blows up on the pad, that's one thing. It's expensive but they accept that risk to move faster. At least they gain knowledge of what failed, to do better next time.

Assuming it's not carrying a SpaceX Crew Dragon with crew onboard ;)

Also, it's a bit of a dated metaphor. Falcon 9 is by most accounts, now the most reliable rocket in history and is pretty design-locked. The modern metaphor is SpaceX Starship :)

reply
bcraven
2 hours ago
[-]
As it's currently March, April seems very close to me. I didn't know there was a moon flight planned so this is a great headline to me.
reply
bombcar
2 hours ago
[-]
I didn't even know we were within years of putting people around the moon, so I was surprised!
reply
throwawaymobule
1 hour ago
[-]
Scott Manley does a roundup video every two or so weeks called 'deep space updates' that I suggest watching.

The start is all rocket launches, which gives a good idea of how much is happening.

reply
dylan604
2 hours ago
[-]
Seeing how the last test at the beginning of Feb found hydrogen leaks, it does sound very early to me
reply
tekla
2 hours ago
[-]
Why? They fixed it.
reply
dylan604
1 hour ago
[-]
In a month is why. It seems if it was fixed that fast it was easy to find. If it was so easy to find, why was it not found. These are the types of questions that seem to make NASA push things further than just a month. So again, it seems fast to me
reply
tekla
1 hour ago
[-]
It feels fast to you because you don't know what happened, and you are asking questions that have been answered by NASA already in public.

It was easy to find because they knew what valve was leaking.

It was not found beforehand because they don't have the ability to do the tanking test without rolling it to the launch pad and its very hard to know how a system responds to liquid hydrogen.

reply
Insanity
3 hours ago
[-]
Messaging is everything!
reply
u1hcw9nx
3 hours ago
[-]
Six day launch window April 1-6.
reply