Talk:Artemis program/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Orion" testing?

The section claimed "five tests of the Orion spacecraft." The references did not support this claim. The first three tests used "boilerplate" Orion CMs to test non-Orion hardware that never became part of Artemis. The next test was a true orbital test of the CM, not the spacecraft as we have used the term (CM+ESM) in this article forever. The last test was a boilerplate Orion used to test the launch abort system, not to test Orion. I removed the table and the first three tests, and rewrote the other two. Please check my work. -Arch dude (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

On further thought, I'm not sure the "Orion testing" section should be in the "Artemis flights" section at all. We do not have sections for test flights of other Artemis components (or their predecessors) such as the ICPS. -Arch dude (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2021 (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:

• Starship HLS Moon landing.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

First sentence of overview

The Artemis program is organized around major numbered missions into space of increasing complexity scheduled more than a year apart. Something about the "numbered" rubs me the wrong way. I understand the idea because I'm familiar with artemis: there are many missions into space, but the important ones are Artemis 1 2 3 4 etc. I just don't think the word "numbered" would get that across to someone reading the page for the first time. Maybe I can propose another phrasing that you'd like? @Arch dude: How about something like is organized around a mainline of major space missions of increasing complexity or The Artemis program is centered around a series of increasingly complex major missions into space, with the goal of landing humans on the Moon or The Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon, as part of an increasingly complex series of major missions into space? I just don't think we need to immediately connect it to the numbering, or the schedule, or vaguely gesturing to the fact that there are far more missions than just the main numbered ones. :) Leijurv (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: I see your objection and I will not revert any further edit you make in this regard. I am not very good at making up distinguishing names, and I was attempting to distinguish the major (i.e., SLS) missions from the "support" missions. Maybe just "major" and "support". I do think we need something, because all of the Artemis program references seem to revolve around the "Artemis" missions. -Arch dude (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: I changed it to "SLS missions" for now. -Arch dude (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That seems all right to me. Makes sense to differentiate the SLS+Orion missions from the rest (well, at least, for as long as the artemis program has the major missions as being the SLS+Orion ones :) haha) Leijurv (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A change along those lines seems reasonable. But I think "is organized around a line of major space missions of increasing complexity..." would be more readable. I'm not sure what you intended to convey by using "mainline" rather than "line". Fcrary (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I looked up "mainline" and it's not a word. I suppose I was thinking of Main line (railway). I just meant to convey the same concept as in a railway that this is the central focus, and all the other missions are to support the main Artemis missions. Leijurv (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "mainline" is a real word, even if you had trouble finding it in a dictionary. But with text saying "organized around" major missions, I think it's clear that there are other, less major missions. So I think just saying that Artemis is "organized around a line of major space missions" is the clearest way to describe it. Fcrary (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I am new to the Artemis talk page and to Wiki editing, but I'd like to see if anyone objected to making a couple of changes to the initial paragraph. The first sentence states "The Artemis program is a United States-led international human spaceflight program." Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the Artemis is a NASA led program? To me it's good to give credit where it's due, and it's generally known that NASA is the U.S. space program. It really is NASA, not the US government that is leading the program. I also cleaned up a couple of sentences in the "Overview" paragraph. It's a great article just hoping to make it a little better. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Capstone Update

Successful launch of Capstone this morning from New Zealand has occurred Eth132489 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism Section Concerns WP:WEIGHT

Hi folks, I am concerned that the "Criticism" section violates WP:WEIGHT by devoting excessive attention to the opinion of Robert Zubrin. Do people have thoughts on whether this section could be trimmed? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the concern. The section has three paragraphs, each describing the criticisms from a different person. Zubrin is one of them, as are Mark Whittington and Buzz Aldrin. The paragraph on Zubrin's criticism may be a sentence or two longer, but I don't really see that as undue weight. Fcrary (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Clean up the article

Could somebody here help clean up the with me in 2 days? We couldn't let this article be this bad once the Artemis 1 mission launches. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost... we literally just missed the death trap. Welp... time for me to step up for the job. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition of the Gateway

Should we add a section below the "Supporting programs" sections about the Gateway. It does provide support for the Artemis program, and is largely related to the program in many ways, therefore I find it fitting if we add the Gateway program. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Artemis 4 goal ambiguity

Currently the Goal entry for Artemis 4 in the mission table, "4-person lunar orbit, lunar landing," is a bit confusing. The linked source does not explicitly say that four people are orbiting or landing. If the use of option B necessarily implies 4 going down to land, then "4-person lunar landing," should be used; if no one knows for certain, then just say "lunar landing" like all the subsequent entries do. 74.215.117.113 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Artemis 6

Adding as a placeholder - an article needs to be created once enough information is available to do so for Artemis 6 73.210.30.217 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Artemis 6 Information Added

Artemis 6 information has been added. There is no further information from NASA regarding anything beyond Artemis 6, as the future of Artemis after 2031 is likely too far away for them to consider at this point. TheJay123 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Crew and Science Airlock Module Article

Should have its own article the same as the other modules of the gateway do Thistheyear2023 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Artemis 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

National Commission for Space Activities

Hi, I don't know much English, but Argentina is affiliated with the Artemis program, and it appears in the article in Spanish. And the one that represents it is CONAE, I edited the page but I don't do it very well. Ivanmarr (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanmarr: Please provide a reliable source to support your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

https://ar.usembassy.gov/es/argentina-firma-los-acuerdos-artemis/

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/argentina-es-el-28-%c2%ba-signatario-de-los-acuerdos-de-artemis/

https://tn.com.ar/tecno/novedades/2023/07/27/argentina-ingreso-al-acuerdo-artemis-y-sera-socia-de-la-nasa-en-proyectos-espaciales/ 168.197.200.185 (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Lo dice la nasa misma. Y hasta la ia, y aparece en el articulo en español de artemis 168.197.200.185 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This article's mobile view for images is glitched. Any idea how to fix it?

This article's mobile view is glitched. In the Artemis II subsection, the images appear fine on pc, but when looked at through a phone, Koch and Hansen shift places which messes up the caption (the caption says Koch is the center image, but on a phone, her image is on the right and Hansen shows in the center). Does anyone know how to fix this? — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Existential threat due to reusable launch vehicles?

"The program faced its greatest existential threat as the economics of launch costs began to change drastically due to reusable launch vehicles in the early 2020s."

Is this clear, and if not can it be clarified? I don't know anything about Artemis and that's why I was reading the article, but I would think that reusable launch vehicles would lower the costs and thus not threaten the program. Sorry if there's something obvious that I don't see but should. Bret Sterling (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe the point of that sentence is that as commercial launch providers have begun offering much cheaper access to orbit, it has created political and economic pressure on the Artemis program, which at this time is, by law, reliant on the far more expensive, expendable Space Launch System. The “existential threat” is the persistent questions about whether Artemis is sustainable in an era of drastically lower commercial launch costs. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

What I think is that they will probably execute at least four missions with SLS until a commercial vehicle can be procured and executed with it test flights are completed. Eth132489 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Artemis program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Deborah.artemis (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Review

Unfortunately, I am going to quick fail this nomination. The article has lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the nominator has not significantly contributed to the article. Once everything in the article is properly cited, this can be renominated. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Not particularly informative in closing. Maybe you can provide examples. Deborah.artemis (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The main problem is the last source is a tweet! Ha. Too funny. Deborah.artemis (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updated budget

The sidebar says that Artemis has cost $93 billion as of 2025, but the only cited source is a report from 2021. The 2021-2025 figures are based on what the report estimated would be spent in the next four years. Can we find an updated source that tells us what was actually spent? Real expenditures might have diverged from the prediction. Sonicsuns (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Change in mission structure

Artemis IV will now be the first lunar landing in 2028, with Artemis III being used to test LEO capabilities. Oakchris1955 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

As I noted on Talk:Artemis III, I'd suggest renaming the Artemis III mission to to Artemis IV ... and so on ... and creating a new Artemis III article. It's not so much that Artemis III has been changed, but a new mission has been inserted between the flights. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Very confusing article indeed

This is from a reader - not an editor. This article appears to be being updated in a very inefficient way. In the opening paragraph we are told that the "Lunar Gateway" has been cancelled (with no references to the cancellation) and by the second paragraph the Lunar Gateway is back as a core component of the whole programme. Throughout the various other articles about the Artemis programme - including further missions this oscillates between happening and not happening. It seems as though someone adds the "cancellation" of lunar gateway and then doesn't bother to remove references to it further down the page. I realise that I'm probably not observing all the Wikipedian stuff here... but hey, I'm the target audience. And this is confusing. Thankyou ~2025-43733-41 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

"Time until complete" on the "Missions" table

I added the "Time until complete" to the "Missions" table. The problem is that it seems to be breaking the table and semi-merging the row with the "Status" section. Can someone please fix it? Thank you! Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 05:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Artemis VI onward

Does anyone mind if I shuffle these to the list and point people there? Trying to reduce page size. Deborah.artemis (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

as a list of artemis missions, i think this page is more relaiable, but i also propose merging the two and just having the list be a section of this page ~2026-20428-94 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

These have now disappeared from the page? I can't quite tell what edit they were removed from, but Artemis VI-XII are missing. ~2026-21642-59 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)