NASA has changed where and how its landers meet Orion. The two planned 2027 tests cover different capabilities. Route diagrams and an evidence worksheet help readers identify which development, delivery or financing question a new announcement actually advances.
NASA redraws Artemis rendezvous routes: what the 2027 tests mean for industry
The essentials in 30 seconds
- Starship would dock with Orion in Earth orbit before travelling to the Moon.
- Blue Moon would defer propellant transfer for its initial configuration and use three transfer stages.
- The 2027 tests take place in Earth orbit: crew enter Blue Moon, but not Starship.
- 2028 is a target; readiness-based assignment of a lunar-landing mission remains ahead.
- Supplier exposure depends on work before and after rendezvous. Completion, joint testing and cash receipts have separate clocks.
01NASA changes where the Moon-bound vehicles meet
On October 23, 2026, NASA published revised operating concepts for the SpaceX and Blue Origin lunar landers, alongside the tests planned for Artemis III in 2027. Instead of having both landers meet Orion at the same location, the concepts change the meeting place and sequence to suit each system. The important comparison extends beyond lander performance to the relationships between crew, propellant and launches. [1][2]
The lunar landing in 2028 remains a target, preceded by Earth-orbit tests planned for 2027. NASA says readiness will determine which company conducts a landing. It describes the contract realignments as changes made earlier this year; October 23 is therefore not the date on which those contracts were modified. The published concepts, earlier contractual changes and future tests each have their own clock. [1][2]
The economic implications extend beyond orders for a single spacecraft. Changing whose work must finish before the next step can begin may alter equipment reservations, specialist assignments, software verification and component delivery. A redesign can ease one difficult operation, but that benefit reaches the wider programme only if the replacement sequence can actually be completed.
A more useful comparison than choosing a corporate winner separates preparation before the vehicles meet from the work performed after they connect. The route diagrams and test matrix let readers place subsequent announcements against a specific operation. The information a successful test provides will differ depending on whether the reader follows vehicle development, component supply or the financing of space businesses. Read about demand and customer conditions for commercial stations (free in full) to distinguish the technical and demand questions in NASA’s commercial relationships.
02Starship would join the crew vehicle before leaving Earth orbit
NASA’s Starship concept collects propellant in Earth orbit and connects the lander with Orion before the combined vehicles travel toward the Moon. The lander provides the acceleration for that journey, with modifications planned to allow Orion to be carried in this configuration. The point at which the combined vehicles must work together differs from an approach in which the crew meets the lander near the Moon. [1]
At the point the crew leaves Earth orbit, having two spacecraft in the same orbit is insufficient. Controlling their orientation and motion while connected, exchanging information and assigning command for the next operation become a combined task. Completion of a docking mechanism alone cannot establish how the entire connected vehicle will behave.
Completing more preparation near Earth could, in principle, put additional information in the hands of those deciding when to send the crew onward. That is a potential advantage suggested by the sequence, rather than evidence that the change has already reduced delays or cost. The available flexibility depends on how readiness is established and how long that prepared state can be maintained.
For a supplier, the relevant question is whether its deliverable is needed before this meeting or during the subsequent joint operation. In the first case, a delayed inspection or modification can reach the crew-side schedule. In the second, conditions for use in the connected spacecraft matter alongside completion on the ground. In either case, shipping a component from the factory on time may not settle the assessment.
03Blue Moon would defer propellant transfer and assemble transfer stages
Blue Origin’s accelerated approach defers orbital propellant transfer for its initial crewed landing configuration and uses three transfer stages. The lander and stages would be assembled in Earth orbit before travelling toward lunar orbit, with the crew-side meeting with Orion taking place near the Moon. The same category, “lunar lander”, therefore covers different vehicles and sequences along the way. [1]
Removing transfer of propellant between vehicles from the initial configuration can postpone development challenges specific to that operation. But a sequence in which spent stages separate brings other work: launches, connections and checks on the condition of each stage. Omitting a transfer operation does not remove preparation and operational work on a one-for-one basis.
The distinction can also change the object of investment. Facilities for testing propellant transfer may require different specialists, components and experience from facilities for manufacturing and checking several transfer stages. Money can remain directed toward the same landing objective while the mix of work being ordered changes. The published concepts reveal different dependencies, rather than incremental sales for named suppliers.
The two concepts also use different lunar orbits. Scientific priorities for where to explore and operational conditions for delivering people and vehicles ask different questions. The existing comparison of lunar science helps readers examine the former. A scientifically attractive destination, however, does not automatically become accessible under an initial operating plan. Compare four lunar science destinations (free in full)
SpaceX / Starship
- STEP 1Earth orbit: tankers → depot → propellant to lander
- STEP 2Earth orbit: dock with Orion
- STEP 3Starship accelerates the combined stack toward the Moon
- STEP 4Low lunar orbit: two crew descend in lander, then return to Orion
Blue Origin / Blue Moon
- STEP 1Earth orbit: connect three transfer stages and lander
- STEP 2Travel to Moon: separate depleted stages
- STEP 3Elliptical polar lunar orbit: dock with Orion
- STEP 4Two crew descend to surface, then return to Orion
04The routes commit work in different sequences
The diagrams should not be read merely as two continuous journeys to the surface. Each contains interfaces where one task must finish before another can begin. In the Starship concept, Earth-orbit preparation and the combination with Orion form a major interface. In Blue Moon’s, assembling the transfer stages and delivering the lander to lunar orbit precede the meeting with the crew.
The strength with which a delay propagates depends on schedule flexibility. If other preparation can proceed in parallel, a late task may leave the final date unchanged. At an interface requiring both partners to be available together, however, a small delay can require rescheduling. Counting arrows is less informative than asking where flexibility exists along them.
Flexibility is more than vacant calendar days. Maintaining the vehicle’s condition, staffing the ground teams and coordinating with other launches must all be possible. An apparently open interval may shrink if inspections must be repeated. NASA’s concepts do not determine the size of each reserve, so the diagrams show sequence; line lengths do not represent days or probabilities.
This also helps assess the claim of acceleration. Shortening every operation slightly differs from changing the interface that determines overall completion. Readers can ask which interface the redesign eases and where it introduces a new check. Returning to the same route diagram makes it easier to distinguish an announcement that changes the programme assessment from progress confined to one task.
- Earlier in 2026
NASA describes contract realignments as earlier this year; this announcement does not establish individual amendment dates. - October 23, 2026
Revised operating concepts and the 2027 tests published. - 2027 · planned
Artemis III: Orion docks with both providers’ test articles in Earth orbit. - 2028 · target
Crewed lunar landing, requiring prior uncrewed demonstration and NASA certification.
05The two 2027 docking tests do not examine identical capabilities
The proposed Artemis III tests have a clear asymmetry. NASA says the crew will enter Blue Moon’s test article and perform evaluations related to habitation. Crew will not enter Starship during its docking test. Both activities can be described as docking, but the work they directly examine differs. [2]
The launches also follow a sequence. Blue Moon’s test article would launch first; Orion would follow within days after confirmation that it is healthy and ready for joint operations. The Blue Moon vehicle can remain in orbit for up to 30 days, and crew would spend about two days evaluating its cabin environment, controls and life support. Starship’s test article would launch later for a docking test lasting up to two hours. NASA links that later launch to Starship’s shorter orbital lifetime. The overall mission is planned to last 14 days. These are planned activities, not completed results.[2]
A test without crew entry has value of its own. Ground testing has limits in establishing how connected spacecraft handle control, communications and software interactions. A narrower demonstration may concentrate on interfaces needed for later operations. The relevant comparison is not which company has more test items, but which part of the next decision the evidence can inform.
If a future headline says both companies passed their tests, readers should not assume two identical results. The worksheet separates docking, crew entry, travel toward the Moon and surface operations into different rows. Filling only the rows actually completed recognises progress while keeping untested work visible.
| Activity | Blue Moon test article | Starship test article |
|---|---|---|
| Docking with Orion | Planned | Planned |
| Crew entry | Planned: cabin, controls and life support | Not part of this test |
| Docked-system operation | Joint operation evaluated | Control, communications, software and docking dynamics evaluated |
| Departure for Moon / surface landing | Outside this Earth-orbit test | Outside this Earth-orbit test |
| Planned duration and activity | Cabin evaluation: about two days. Test article can remain in orbit for up to 30 days | Docking test: up to two hours, without crew entry |
06Between an Earth-orbit demonstration and a Moon-bound decision
Testing near Earth allows joint operating experience to be gathered earlier. Whether commands work between real vehicles and whether coordination across organisations is timely can be difficult to establish from separate spacecraft tests. NASA positions the 2027 plan as risk reduction before a lunar landing. [2]
The location of a test also affects the reach of its evidence. Docking in Earth orbit cannot establish every operation near the Moon or departure from the surface. Where temperature, operating duration or vehicle combinations fall outside the test conditions, corresponding demonstrations or reviews may still be required.
Readers should avoid treating caution as a reason to regard every test as meaningless. A real demonstration can reduce uncertainty about the interface it examines. Between gaining useful evidence for the next step and guaranteeing the entire mission lies a substantial range of progress. A company’s technical announcement can be assessed by locating its contribution within that range.
The years 2027 and 2028 alone say little about the work between them. Analysing results, incorporating design changes, manufacturing later vehicles and preparing joint operations can overlap. Rather than fitting every task mechanically into a single year, update the route map with specific subsequent disclosures. That provides more information than following the target year alone.
07SG Group’s view: changing the rendezvous reorganizes the end of development
To examine the industrial consequences, SG Group divides the work into three groups: what must be ready before the vehicles meet, what can be verified only after they connect, and what becomes usable after joint operations. Completing a spacecraft does not finish the work of operating it with another company’s vehicle. The revised routes offer a concrete way to locate that remaining work.
In the Starship–Orion proposal, joint operations in Earth orbit are closely tied to the subsequent journey to the Moon. For Blue Moon, the relevant relationship is between assembling and transporting the stages and later receiving Orion’s crew. Compressing both into a single percentage for lander development would obscure which work can advance and which work must wait.
This classification matters because even an unchanged total development budget can affect different companies and spending periods. A supplier of hardware used before docking faces a different exposure to joint-test changes from a communications or operations contractor whose work follows docking. Without payment terms, we cannot establish whose cash receipts would rise first. We can, however, identify the questions to ask.
The evidence that would change this assessment is also specific. Demonstrated procedures that let separate vehicles integrate and absorb schedule changes quickly would weaken the case that rendezvous is a major constraint. Repeated cases in which completed vehicles cannot proceed to joint operations would strengthen the case for placing more weight on integration staff and costs. Observable results make this more useful than a general impression that the program is difficult.
08Two providers do not create two wholly independent routes
Developing two landers preserves alternatives for reaching the same goal. Both proposals nevertheless share Orion and SLS. NASA’s account assumes that either lander operates with this crew-transport system.[1] Two lander suppliers therefore do not establish an independent alternative for every part of a mission.
If the common elements advance on schedule, NASA has room to compare the landers’ readiness. An alternative may be valuable when a problem affects only one provider. A change to shared interfaces or crew transportation could instead affect both routes. Counting companies does not measure this distinction.
Keeping both options also requires the customer to understand both configurations. Where test procedures, operational training and change management differ, it must maintain the ability to follow those differences. This does not establish that the burden exceeds the value of choice. The useful comparison is between the cost of maintaining alternatives and the cost of committing too early to one route.
The interoperability of optical terminals in space communications likewise depends on more than the number of manufacturers. Lunar landing adds a sequence involving people and propellant. Existing interoperability analysis can help frame the question; the diagram here separates shared crew transport from the two lander branches so readers can identify exactly what is common.
Shared crew-transport elements
Starship
Join Orion in Earth orbit
→ combined stack to Moon
Blue Moon
Transfer stages to lunar orbit
→ join Orion near Moon
09Where a test-date change moves engineers’ work
A postponed launch does not necessarily remove only the work scheduled for that day. A joint docking test must bring together the vehicle team and the teams sending commands and receiving data. If a vehicle’s completion date changes, the burden depends partly on whether specialists can move to other assignments and later recreate the required configuration.
Consider a connector that has passed inspection but needs another software check after the other vehicle changes. The hardware may require no rebuilding, yet verification staff and facilities still need to be booked. This is an illustrative example of linked work involving the landers and Orion, not a report of a delay that has occurred at NASA.
Early joint testing can also prevent later rework. Discovering an incompatibility while designs can still be changed may protect subsequent activities more effectively than finding it after each vehicle is finished. Evaluating an Earth-orbit test solely as an addition to workload would miss this benefit.
Employment and regional-industry effects require the same care. A statement that the program is accelerating does not establish that every supplier will hire more people. Manufacturing, integration testing and operational support require different skills. In some cases, the scarce resource may be existing specialists’ coordination time rather than additional headcount. Company disclosures are needed to assess the actual effect.
10Spending and cash receipts need not follow the same clock
A company preparing components or test facilities for the revised plan may spend before delivering its final work. NASA’s announcement does not, however, establish a particular payment date or a company’s cash shortage. First identify the additional work, then check the contractual conditions for invoicing and receiving payment.
Starting test preparation, delivering equipment and completing a joint test are separate events. Cash flows differ according to whether payment depends on delivery or acceptance of test results. An announcement of an additional development milestone does not supply the amount of money attached to it.
Connecting the plan to company accounts requires separating revenue, profit and operating cash flow. More research or verification spending now, followed by later invoicing, could change interim funding needs without changing the revenue outlook. Customer advances could produce a different relationship. Keeping both possibilities open avoids treating every development project as a financing problem.
As a target landing year approaches, the timing of available staff and funding may matter more than the headline order value. Enthusiasm for space policy can raise expectations without accelerating contractual receipts. Basic analysis of company finances can connect the announcement to cash flows; it cannot automatically produce a decision to buy or sell a particular stock. Review the differences between revenue, profit and operating cash flow (free in full)
- STEP 1Joint-operation prerequisite changes
- STEP 2Recheck software, staff and facilities
- STEP 3Additional spending or protection of later work
- STEP 4Invoicing and receipts depend on contract terms
11Delivery delays do not reach every supplier in the same way
The differences between the proposals also matter for supply-chain analysis. Starship’s orbital propellant aggregation and Blue Moon’s transfer-stage configuration require different equipment sequences and combinations to be checked. Even companies supplying similar space components may face different consequences depending on the activities they serve.
An equipment item’s absence from a public mission diagram does not establish that its supplier has no involvement. A general concept of operations is neither a supplier register nor a breakdown of backlog. An order announcement should be matched to the named program, deliverable, acceptance conditions and subsequent work. A product serving several customers also cannot be assessed solely through one program change.
Paying extra to accelerate supply has greater value when that equipment is holding up the next activity. If other necessary preparations still have to finish, delivering it earlier may leave the final date unchanged. Conversely, a small, hard-to-replace interface component could force several teams to reschedule joint work. The most expensive component is not always the one with the largest schedule effect.
Transport delays, inventories and tied-up cash are connected in ordinary supply chains too. The task here goes further than restating that relationship: locate the rendezvous at which your company’s work joins the lander and crew-transport sequence. Placing a delivery plan before or after that point makes the next counterparty and date to check more specific. Trace the relationship between supply delays, inventory and cash (free in full)
12A readiness-based choice is different from a confirmed mission award
NASA says it will select lunar-landing assignments according to lander readiness. Both companies remain involved, while neither is assigned a particular crewed lunar-landing mission.[1] The announcement therefore does not identify a company that has already won the first landing.
This arrangement lets the customer use information obtained later. Choosing a route after development and tests may reduce the burden of fixing the choice early. For suppliers, continued development participation and responsibility for the first landing are distinct. It becomes more important to identify precisely which contractual stage or business expectation a disclosure describes.
Waiting is not always beneficial. If the common crew-transport system must support several configurations for longer, training and program-management work must also be maintained. There is a reasonable counterargument that an earlier choice would let downstream work settle sooner. The value of readiness-based selection depends on both the information gained and the burden of preserving the choice.
For investors, the starting point is to separate continued participation, development milestones, mission assignment and work recognized as revenue. Identifying which stage a disclosure establishes is more useful for assessing later updates than inventing success probabilities to calculate future sales. The announced concepts provide no figures that determine a particular company’s margin or share-price direction.
13Weigh simplification against the work created by redesign
The strongest counterargument is that deferring a difficult capability, or selecting a route suited to a vehicle, can make an initial objective more achievable. A program need not deliver every future capability on its first mission. Separating stages of development may allow experience to accumulate instead of stopping the whole effort until one advanced function is ready.
This argument is stronger than simply counting activities. Difficult tasks are not necessarily interchangeable, and knowledge acquired under one configuration may remain useful in another. Substantial reuse of existing vehicles or operational experience could reduce the burden of establishing a new route. An explanation of where that experience carries over would help substantiate the proposed acceleration.
Redesign can also require some completed verification to be repeated. A change that makes sense for one spacecraft may alter the other vehicle, ground procedures or crew training. Describing a concept as simpler should therefore be accompanied by a comparison of the problem it eases and the joint work it creates.
Execution provides a stronger test than the plan’s terminology. Evidence that modified vehicles connect and perform the intended procedures would support the view that additional integration work is manageable. Repeated redesign of counterpart systems that prevents subsequent work from starting would weaken it. Applying the same question to both routes helps limit assumptions based on company names.
14The first economic effects run through specialized industries
The most direct route into the world economy runs through specialized launch, spacecraft, test-facility, communications and operational-support work. Changing the vehicle combination can change the orders required to prepare and verify it. Before the long-term question of a successful lunar landing comes the current decision about which capabilities to develop and which activities to commission first.
Nationality alone is a poor guide to the distribution of these effects. A supplier serving several space programs may have limited exposure to one change. A company concentrating staff and facilities on a particular interface or mission may be much more affected by a shift in orders or tests. Identifying each company’s dependent activities provides a firmer basis than large regional spending totals.
Market interpretations can become unstable if a target landing date, a technical demonstration and a contract assignment are treated as the same development. Technical progress informs future opportunities, but who receives the revenue and when depends on further conditions. Attributing a share-price move solely to this concept would also require examining earnings announcements and other market influences.
The announcement provides little basis for linking the change directly to general inflation, aggregate employment or exchange rates. Its significance first passes through specialized development, deliveries and public procurement, and then through actual revenue and spending. Future lunar activity may create markets, but these two route diagrams cannot calculate their size or household benefits.
15Read the next developments through three possible situations
In the first situation, the planned Earth-orbit tests take place and verify the intended interfaces. Readers can then update the corresponding rows of the evidence table. More demonstrated joint procedures would provide knowledge for later preparations. The rows completed would differ by test, however: update their contents instead of giving both companies an identical approval mark.
In the second, a vehicle advances while the preparations for joint work remain incomplete. The meaning depends on whether the outstanding interface concerns the other vehicle, ground equipment or operating procedures. Rather than merging vehicle-development problems and waiting for integration into one delay, identify whose next task must satisfy the remaining condition.
In the third, the plan itself is reorganized again. A change may use accumulated knowledge to improve feasibility, or move an unresolved challenge elsewhere. The useful evidence explains which activities the revised sequence removes or adds and how the next step can be checked. The number of changes alone is not a count of successes or failures.
These are branches for interpreting updates, not forecasts with assigned probabilities. NASA’s plans, company development reports and actual flight results answer different questions in each situation. Recognize the value of a reported achievement while retaining the next task it does not establish. This avoids judging every advance solely by whether the 2028 target changes.
| Next observation | First update | Further evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Planned test executed | Interfaces and functions actually tested | Applicability to subsequent configuration |
| Completed vehicle waits for joint work | Outstanding counterpart, facility or procedure | Whether rescheduling can be absorbed |
| Configuration redesigned again | Work removed and work added | Execution with revised hardware and procedures |
16Place your own documents in the rendezvous worksheet
The task can begin with the primary sources linked at the end of this article. Choose one claim to examine: for example, whether completion of a docking test establishes that crew can enter that vehicle. Record the evidence against the activity it directly addresses—docking, crew entry, departure for the Moon or surface operations.
Keep the announcing organization, publication date, execution date, vehicle and scope of the result. If the document describes a future plan, leave execution and results blank. Note any difference between the test vehicle and the intended crewed lunar-landing configuration. This is a worksheet for manually comparing public documents, not a function that certifies vehicle safety or contractual eligibility.
Readers examining company disclosures can also locate the company’s work on the route diagram. For a completed delivery, establish what was delivered and to whom. For a joint test, establish which function was operated with which counterpart. Identical company or product names can belong in different rows when the documents concern different activities. Do not extract the word completed without its object.
Adding evidence to one row does not automatically complete another. That is the point of this worksheet. Restricting each claim to the reach of its evidence makes the next unanswered question clearer. Leave gaps where public information is insufficient; do not fill unknowns with invented numbers to create an overall score. The comparison is manual, using the original documents and the article’s figures.
| Worksheet row | Record | Leave open |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Announcer, publication date and execution date | Results and execution dates for future plans |
| Object | Vehicle, configuration, counterpart and conditions | Configurations absent from the test |
| Scope | Docking / entry / Moon-bound travel / surface work | Automatic approval of other rows |
| Business connection | Deliverable, recipient and contractual acceptance | Undisclosed amounts and payment dates |
| Condition for reassessment | Source passage and next evidence needed | Unsupported overall scores or success probabilities |
17Dated records of execution will change the assessment
Future review should establish the configuration in which each lander and Orion proceeds to joint testing. An explanation of a design change and operation of hardware incorporating it provide different evidence. When results appear, identify the interface, test conditions and remaining work, then return them to the appropriate location on the route diagram.
Contract updates become easier to compare when they identify the amendment date, affected work and additions or replacements. NASA’s October 23 account combines contract changes made earlier in the year with the current concepts; it does not establish that each amendment was concluded on the publication date.[1] Any amount disclosed later should be compared only after checking the period and work covered.
Assessing cost or schedule improvement requires a consistent scope for the old and new configurations. A reduction in vehicle propellant requirements would not establish a matching percentage reduction in total costs including integration and ground equipment. An earlier date also has different implications depending on the schedule margin consumed and verification still outstanding. Specifying what improved is more reproducible than inventing one large improvement rate.
Checkpoints beyond the target year also help during quiet periods. An absence of announcements establishes neither smooth progress nor a problem. Keep track of the last stated configuration and whether subsequent execution has been documented. Add future review or contract-publication dates when they are actually announced; the present plan does not justify inventing deadlines.
18Read the two lunar routes as connected work and evidence
The announcement provides two concrete sequences showing where the crew and lander meet and what must be ready beforehand. Treating Starship and Blue Moon only as vehicles pursuing the same landing goal would obscure the difference between joint work completed near Earth and preparations sent ahead to the Moon. Separate routes make it possible to trace where a new achievement matters.
The object of a test matters more than its label. Evaluation involving crew entry and docking without entry can both build useful experience, while completing different work. Preserving that distinction lets readers recognize incremental progress without extending one success to the entire mission.
The industrial consequences first reach the companies and specialists who create, verify and maintain those interfaces. Revenue and employment effects must be assessed through the affected work, responsible parties and payment terms. A headline about competition between two companies does not reveal the distribution of costs and benefits.
Assess the path to 2028 by how far the proposed sequence is supported by execution records, alongside the target date itself. The diagrams and worksheet provide a place to return to. With each new announcement, readers can identify completed work, activities now able to proceed and conditions that remain open.
Questions readers may ask
Will Artemis III land on the Moon in 2027?
NASA’s current plan is for joint operations with both companies’ test articles in Earth orbit. It tests some functions needed for a lunar landing, but docking and crew-entry evaluations near Earth cannot be treated as a completed surface landing. Checking the document date alongside the mission name helps avoid confusion with previous assignments.[2]
Has NASA already selected the company for the first landing?
NASA says readiness will determine the assignment. Participation in development and assignment to a specific landing mission are different. When reading a company’s order announcement, identify whether it concerns development work, participation in a test or responsibility for a lunar landing.[1]
Does deferring propellant transfer necessarily reduce Blue Moon’s work?
Deferring transfer postpones challenges specific to that operation, but manufacturing, connecting and operating the transfer stages still requires work. Which configuration takes less total money or time depends on the scope compared and actual execution. Removing one difficult capability does not establish a reduction rate for the entire program.
Is Starship’s test useful if the crew does not enter it?
The test can examine motion, communications and software interaction between docked spacecraft. Its results should not be extended to habitation or work inside the cabin. Usefulness depends on how far the test verifies an interface needed for the next decision, rather than whether it proves the entire landing mission at once.
Can two providers always absorb a delay?
Both routes share crew transportation, and switching to another lander also requires preparation. An alternative may help when a problem affects only one provider, while a change to a common system may reach both. Examine shared vehicles, interfaces and operational preparations alongside the number of companies.
Does a larger order mean higher profit?
Materials, staff, inspections, equipment and payment conditions stand between orders and profit. More work responding to schedule changes need not produce the same proportional increase in profit. First use company disclosures to identify its activity and the timing of revenue, costs and cash receipts.
Does the worksheet require uploading confidential information?
No. The table lets you match public announcements or documents you can access using your own notes. Record the organization, date, object and whether the document describes a plan or execution; then select the activity its evidence addresses. There is no data transmission, storage service or automatic readiness score.
Can the diagrams calculate the probability of a 2028 landing?
No. The diagrams show the published sequence and interfaces, without probabilities of success or assumptions about independence. Neither arrow counts nor lengths can supply those probabilities. Use them to identify which condition a future test or announcement examines and how that evidence would change the overall assessment.
Sources and references
- NASA, Partners Accelerate Lander Development for 2028 Moon Missions — NASA, 2026-10-23.
- NASA’s Artemis III Mission to Test Future Moon Lander Operations — NASA, 2026-10-23.
- NASA Shares Artemis Acceleration Plans for Moon Missions — NASA, 2026-10-23.
Diagrams are SG Group’s organization of NASA’s published concepts, not finalized vehicle drawings or observed operational results. They do not supply comparable costs, durations or success probabilities.