Long-term, they're going to have to move away from the obsessive use of clean-rooms for every single component of a spacecraft, especially if or when any sort of orbital manufacturing is starting up. Sensitive instrumentation like the Webb telescope is one thing, but something that amounts to a portacabin in space shouldn't take so long to build.
Yeah no, that's really not an option. The problem pertaining with space exploration, and really anything in space is that because of the extreme environments things like mold and bacteria absolutely love it. This is why Astronauts/Cosmonauts spend a shit ton of time on the ISS just cleaning. If you want to look at a mucky, mold ridden space. I dread to see how India's Space Station will end up (just looking at the rough design ideas of the station, it seems as if it will be even riskier as the modules will be more cramped, with them being 10-15 tons max).
NASA says they have figured out the problem with Artemis II's hydrogen fueling system.
https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/02/13/following-confidence-test-nasa-continues-artemis-ii-data-review/
Its the exact same problem as Artemis I. So they are well equipped to fix it. No explanation for why it wasnt fixed prior to rollout to the launch pad, but fear not. They are applying the same fixes to Artemis II that they applied to Artemis I, but on the launch pad this time. No roll back needed because the design flaw of Artemis I that was fixed after a rollback has given them useful insight. Because this same design flaw has been replicated a second time with Artemis II. But this time they will fix it without a roll back. Because they can use what they learned from fixing Artemis I because the the flaw with Artemis II is the exact same problem
Dont ask why Artemis II has the exact same problem as Artemis I. Thats racist.
It's not actually racist (shocking I know, it's actually a really old issue), it's basically a result of how small Hydrogen molecules are, and them leaking out of the adapter from the launch tower and core stage. It's a decades old issue that goes all the way back to the Space Shuttle program. - Remember, a lot of the equipment being used is the same as it was then.
Now, you may still wonder "why do we use Hydrogen then if it escapes so easily?". Hydrogen is just a really efficient fuel. This really is one of the main reasons why NASA has been using it for so long.
It's similar to how all sorts of fuels have problems when it comes to spaceflight. Cryogens? Well, they'll boil off in space. Meaning if you want to use a fully fuelled engine, you've got to ignite it straight away. It's one the reasons why if the Shuttle was to have launched with a Centaur upper stage, they'd need a veteran crew who proved they didn't get space sickness. Because space sickness, means that they would not have been able to use the stage to its fullest.
Oh, and the reason why a Hydrogen leak is so dangerous?
But at least it's not a really toxic fuel and all you get as a biproduct from it is water vapour, so there's that.
This is actually true, Russia is in a pretty decent position for future space efforts - but that's only because of how delayed a lot of the stuff Russia has been working on is. To begin this story, let us go back to the 80s with Mir 2. Now, Mir-2 was going to be the successor to the Mir station. A lot of the Mir hardware is derived from either the Almaz Space Station program, or the Salyut Space Station program (derived from Almaz) and these formed the basis of Soviet Station modules since the early 70s. Which, the core of Mir-2 (DOS-
is now called Zvezda and other Mir-2 hardware was brought up to the ISS.
Now, Russia's next station is actually quite interesting because it follows in the same tradition of Zvezda. That is, it was designed to originally be launched to the ISS but due to delays in the construction of those modules, and the Nauka module (which has launched and is docked to the ISS, but was over a decade behind schedule. if you think NASA is bad, then yikes. Nauka was delayed about 14 years). This meant that without Nauka, Roscosmos couldn't launch the NEM modules, which would dock to Prichal which itself is docked to Nauka. Consequently, NEM-1 (there were to be two NEM modules) is being turned into the core of Russia's next station. Which, Russia has been working on for a while now to replace the capability that they are going to lose with the loss of the Russian Orbital Segment when the ISS is deorbited. Which, if Russia manages to complete the modules means that they'll likely be able to sustain the station as it is a very similar commitment to what they have with the ISS today.
For stuff related to the moon? Well, they're planning to strap together a ton of Soyuz-5 rockets, which is going to replace the Soyuz rocket. Which in itself, is a task that has been ongoing since the end of the Soviet Union. Now, Russia's ambitions for space exploration use a super heavy rocket which is essentially multiple Soyuz-5 first stages strapped together to form the Yensei rocket. Which can launch around 73 tons to orbit. Which can be thought up of a super Angara-5 rocket. Which, Angara is designed around having multiple stages strapped together. And Angara has been proven successful.
So, if Russia was to go for a simple Lunar approach (like China) then they'd have a good chance to get their quickly. Presuming they don't try to go overboard with their Lunar ambitions like has been seen with NASA with the choice of Starship HLS as a lander (granted, there were no good bids with HLS for a quick boots on the ground mission).
