NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[DanClemmensen]

I have zero insight into what is possible for a new administration so I don't know if or how my own fantasy could be implemented. It's a fast variation on reform then abandon.
  Cancel SLS and Orion and related EGS immediately (fig leaf: offer to transfer all assets to private industry for one dollar).
  Solicit bids for a system to deliver four crew from Earth  to HLS in NRHO and then return them to Earth after the landing, fixed price, delivery by end of 2027

Clearly(?!) a consortium could buy SLS/Orion and bid on the delivery contract. Clearly, SpaceX could also bid.

[VSECOTSPE]

I’m going with a Redirect to Mars but not because of a major event…I believe a redirect will be driven by Musk and his influence with Trump II…It will be a payback to Musk for his support, financial and otherwise, during this election.

I think that scenario depends on the degree of Musk’s direct involvement. 

If Musk himself or a commission he heads up is picking and choosing what NASA (and military space) programs are terminated, plussed up, or changed, that represents all sorts of conflicts of interest that competing contractors and government watchdogs could challenge in court, probably pretty easily. Even more so if Musk is not only making budget and programmatic decisions, but directly steering contracts and money to SX.  Could take years to work through the courts, of which Trump II only has four.

If Musk is materially walled off from those civil and military space decisions, then any challenges are ones of appearance, not substance, and easier to push aside.  The best way to implement a reform or redirect scenario is to use non-conflicted civil servants at NASA and give them political cover from the White House to keep appropriators off their backs.  But the civil servants who have proven experience starting these kinds of new programs — Alan Lindenmoyer, Kathy Leuders, and Phil McAlister — have all left or been sidelined.  And given that the Trump I White House folded in the face of Shelby’s opposition to an SLS alternative, it’s not a given that Trump II can overcome parochial opposition from the appropriators.

Musk will try cash in his ~$120 million investment in the Trump II campaign in some way.  But his spending on that has little to do with the conflicts of interest, appropriators, industry competitors, White House chaos, and other obstacles that will stand in his way when it comes to civil and military space programs.  He may tilt at the windmill, but I’m skeptical of a reform or redirect scenario for Artemis succeeding just because of Musk.  Musk doesn’t change what kept prior administrations from reforming or redirecting US civil human space exploration.

It’s also possible that all Musk wants for SX for his investment in Trump II is faster FAA launch clearance reviews.  That’s what Musk has actually complained about with respect to SX, not anything at NASA or DOD space.  So we may be projecting our hopes onto Musk and postulating about something that’s not going to happen, and Musk will instead mostly seek changes that benefit Tesla, X (formerly Twitter), etc.  Hard to say for sure.

FWIW...

Edit/Add:  I should also note that if the Democrats retake the House, appropriators there will oppose programmatic changes that are driven by or appear to favor Musk’s interests now that he has so closely aligned himself with Trump II.  That intense campaign involvement is a double-edged sword that could come back to bite Musk.

[DanClemmensen]

I think that scenario depends on the degree of Musk’s direct involvement. 

I do not see any way that Musk can take a role in government without triggering conflicts of interest. I have assumed that he will stay completely out of government. Anything else will add years to his Mars schedule. Of course he has done other self-destructive things in the last two years, so my assumption may be wrong.

[Eric Hedman]

I personally don't think Musk's support of Trump had much to do with NASA.  I don't think he's looking for a quid pro quo.  When Musk spoke about the election, his issues were mostly outside of space.  I take him at his word.

What I would like to see is NASA immediately put out solicitations to industry for returning to the Moon that has a path forward to Mars.   There should be few restrictions, if any on what they propose.  The bidders could come back with options in architecture, time line and funding (Cost plus, fixed price, etc.)  Leave open if a company wants to bid on one part or all.  Just set a deadline for proposals and see what kind of creative solutions could be offered.  When the proposals come in, make a decision whether or not to cancel SLS/Orion, choose one or more ides to go forward.  Make resolving this the top mission of the next administrator.  I think Trump wants to be bold across the board.  This would be bold.

[sstli2]

I personally don't think Musk's support of Trump had much to do with NASA.  I don't think he's looking for a quid pro quo.  When Musk spoke about the election, his issues were mostly outside of space.  I take him at his word.

I think you're generally right, but I also think (1) he'll be consulted and (2) he won't hold back in his suggestions. So whether there was a quid pro quo or not, won't really matter.

There are a couple open questions here:

1) Do we even know whether Musk would push for Mars over the moon? While Mars is his ultimate goal, I'm not sure he's so against the moon being a more practical, shorter-term destination.
2) Let's say Musk pushes for Mars. I think many other Trump administration advisors realize the impracticality of Mars being a destination in the next 4 years, versus what would be a political triumph in returning to the moon. I highly doubt any of his other advisors would be on board. So will Trump listen to Musk, likely in conflict with the advice he gets from his other advisors?

[yg1968]

I personally don't think Musk's support of Trump had much to do with NASA.  I don't think he's looking for a quid pro quo.  When Musk spoke about the election, his issues were mostly outside of space.  I take him at his word.

What I would like to see is NASA immediately put out solicitations to industry for returning to the Moon that has a path forward to Mars.   There should be few restrictions, if any on what they propose.  The bidders could come back with options in architecture, time line and funding (Cost plus, fixed price, etc.)  Leave open if a company wants to bid on one part or all.  Just set a deadline for proposals and see what kind of creative solutions could be offered.  When the proposals come in, make a decision whether or not to cancel SLS/Orion, choose one or more ides to go forward.  Make resolving this the top mission of the next administrator.  I think Trump wants to be bold across the board.  This would be bold.

Musk specifially said that he did not ask anything from Trump for his endorsement and support and I believe Musk when he says that.

[yg1968]

I personally don't think Musk's support of Trump had much to do with NASA.  I don't think he's looking for a quid pro quo.  When Musk spoke about the election, his issues were mostly outside of space.  I take him at his word.

I think you're generally right, but I also think (1) he'll be consulted and (2) he won't hold back in his suggestions. So whether there was a quid pro quo or not, won't really matter.

There are a couple open questions here:

1) Do we even know whether Musk would push for Mars over the moon? While Mars is his ultimate goal, I'm not sure he's so against the moon being a more practical, shorter-term destination.
2) Let's say Musk pushes for Mars. I think many other Trump administration advisors realize the impracticality of Mars being a destination in the next 4 years, versus what would be a political triumph in returning to the moon. I highly doubt any of his other advisors would be on board. So will Trump listen to Musk, likely in conflict with the advice he gets from his other advisors?

Musk has made a lot of speeches lately and he consistently talks about both the Moon and Mars. So I don't expect HLS-Starship to be cancelled but I am hoping that a commercial Mars transportation program will be created. I am even hoping that it gets combined with the HLS-Services procurement phase. I have created a thread for ideas on such a Mars public-priavte partnership in the space policy section.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.0

[Coastal Ron]

Musk has made a lot of speeches lately and he consistently talks about both the Moon and Mars. So I don't expect HLS-Starship to be cancelled but I am hoping that a commercial Mars transportation program will be created.

SpaceX has been developing Starship to be a commercial transportation system, so there is nothing the U.S. Government has to do, other than be a customer. No government involvement needed.

[JayWee]

It’s also possible that all Musk wants for SX for his investment in Trump II is faster FAA launch clearance reviews.  That’s what Musk has actually complained about with respect to SX, not anything at NASA or DOD space.  So we may be projecting our hopes onto Musk and postulating about something that’s not going to happen, and Musk will instead mostly seek changes that benefit Tesla, X (formerly Twitter), etc.  Hard to say for sure.

Maybe we should have a separate thread for general space-related issues, as it goes beyond just Artemis. Although it'd have to prolly be something with heavy moderation.

I do feel that Musk involvement in the federal government will be high-level stuff (his Department Of Goverment Efficiency)  - licensing, contracting, etc. Not micromanagement of NASA. Two relevant tweets. First FAA-related, just like you said:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1854213634307600762

and general govt (Palmer Luckey is one of the founders of Anduril, autonomous weaponry)
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1854031862483538230

[yg1968]

Musk has made a lot of speeches lately and he consistently talks about both the Moon and Mars. So I don't expect HLS-Starship to be cancelled but I am hoping that a commercial Mars transportation program will be created.

SpaceX has been developing Starship to be a commercial transportation system, so there is nothing the U.S. Government has to do, other than be a customer. No government involvement needed.

Perhaps but I would expect NASA to buy an entire Mars surface mission (not just seats on the mission). NASA could set certain requirements for that mission if they wanted to. But I agree with you that the less requirements, the better. Perhaps that NASA could just pay for the outcome as Musk is suggesting in the post above.

[Coastal Ron]

Musk has made a lot of speeches lately and he consistently talks about both the Moon and Mars. So I don't expect HLS-Starship to be cancelled but I am hoping that a commercial Mars transportation program will be created.

SpaceX has been developing Starship to be a commercial transportation system, so there is nothing the U.S. Government has to do, other than be a customer. No government involvement needed.

Perhaps but I would expect NASA to buy an entire Mars surface mission (not just seats on the mission). NASA could set certain requirements for that mission if they wanted to.

No different to how NASA buys launch services today, so nothing the U.S. Government, or the Artemis program, needs to get involved in until they need the service.

But I agree with you that the less requirements, the better.

That was NOT my point.

Perhaps that NASA could just pay for the outcome as Musk is suggesting in the post above.

The U.S. Government already has that option - it's called Firm Fixed Price contracts. No payment is made until the goods or services are provided.

Look, the issues with the U.S. Government (including NASA) are usually at the top, not the bottom of the U.S. Government. There is no mystery as to how government goods and services are acquired and paid for, so whatever Musk is talking about is just unsubstantiated ranks for entertainment purposes...

[yg1968]

The U.S. Government already has that option - it's called Firm Fixed Price contracts. No payment is made until the goods or services are provided.

Look, the issues with the U.S. Government (including NASA) are usually at the top, not the bottom of the U.S. Government. There is no mystery as to how government goods and services are acquired and paid for, so whatever Musk is talking about is just unsubstantiated ranks for entertainment purposes...

Firm-fixed price contracts doesn't mean that there is no requirement. There is requirements, there is just less of them. For example, HLS has a lot of requirements and so does commercial crew.

In terms of paying for the paperwork, that is essentially how it works. However, Jim Free has made the point that there is actually a service that relates to the paperwork which is a fair point.

I don't think that Musk's point about outcomes was about NASA, I think that it was a broader point related to government contracts.

[TheRadicalModerate]

What Musk needs most from Artemis is cadence.  Cislunar cadence is what allows SpaceX to develop, refine, and cost-reduce all the refueling tech that's needed to enable any BEO market.  At least for the time being, Artemis is the only program that's generating any BEO demand, so he at least needs to speed it up, and likely expand it.

We all know how that can be done:  a commercial cislunar crew services program, which can offload some--or all--of the
SLS/Orion missions to a D2/LSS combo.  So the one thing that Trump can provide for Musk is the directive and legislation needed to get a BAA issued for that capability.  It's a fairly small thing in the trumpian universe of favors, and the fact that it's good policy makes it even easier to grant.

It does require some help from Congress, but I suspect it'll be awhile before Congress is pushing back on Trump.

I suspect that Boeing, LockMart, NorGrumm, and AJR-L3H have done their best to curry favor with Trump.  But I doubt they've curried $120M of favor.  They're all weak right now, and Elon is strong.

[Eric Hedman]

I personally don't think Musk's support of Trump had much to do with NASA.  I don't think he's looking for a quid pro quo.  When Musk spoke about the election, his issues were mostly outside of space.  I take him at his word.

I think you're generally right, but I also think (1) he'll be consulted and (2) he won't hold back in his suggestions. So whether there was a quid pro quo or not, won't really matter.

There are a couple open questions here:

1) Do we even know whether Musk would push for Mars over the moon? While Mars is his ultimate goal, I'm not sure he's so against the moon being a more practical, shorter-term destination.
2) Let's say Musk pushes for Mars. I think many other Trump administration advisors realize the impracticality of Mars being a destination in the next 4 years, versus what would be a political triumph in returning to the moon. I highly doubt any of his other advisors would be on board. So will Trump listen to Musk, likely in conflict with the advice he gets from his other advisors?

Last night I had a chance to talk with Sen. Ron Johnson.  We talked about the huge list of things the Republicans want to tackle and how they intend to go about them.  He said, they already have put together priority lists on things to tackle and it is massive.  He said they will be tackling them in order as fast as is practical.  While we didn't talk about NASA or anything space related, he said this is being done for all parts of the federal government.  Unlike 2016 when Trump trusted the GOP for recommendations on appointments, his transition team has been working on finding people for appointments for over a year now so they can hit the ground running with his agenda.  I think there is a good chance that they already know who they want to appoint to run NASA.

Senator Johnson said that they know that their list of things they want to accomplish is long and cannot be finished in one presidential term.  That is why they are refining priority lists.  I think a comment RFK jr. said two days ago may be telling on how agencies are going to be run and the type of people that are going to be put in charge of them.  He was asked when he first talked with Trump about coming into his administration to reform areas of common interest.  He said it was back in 2016.  He said Trump promised him carte blanche in what he could go after to reform.  If Trump picks a NASA administrator with  the same instructions, it could get very interesting very quickly.  Only time will tell how this plays out.

[deltaV]

my own fantasy

Here are the key bits of my Artemis fantasy:

I think the best approach is probably to keep Artemis 3-5 using SLS/Orion/HLS, terminate SLS and Orion after Artemis 5, don't extend HLS beyond the current plan of Artemis 5, and start a new procurement for Artemis 6 and beyond without SLS/Orion baggage.
...
My favorite option for Artemis 6 and beyond would be for NASA to ... run a Mars procurement first and only go to the Moon if there's money left over. When going to Mars NASA should actually run two parallel fixed-price procurements, one to visit a Martian moon and the other to visit Mars's surface.
...
If there's money left over after the Mars procurement or people don't want to prioritize Mars then NASA should do a post-Artemis-6 procurement for transport of crew from Earth's surface to the lunar surface and back to Earth.

Now the justification:

Five reasons to make cancellation of SLS and Orion effective only after Artemis V:
-Ensure we land on moon again even if Artemis III fails.
-Avoid the cutting corners on safety that's likely if Artemis III is our only shot at the moon for a while.
-Canceling earlier likely wouldn't save much money since much of the costs have already been paid
-Don't piss off Blue Origin and SpaceX by canceling their Artemis IV and V contracts. ...
-Keep competition between Blue Origin and SpaceX fair by letting both retain their HLS contracts.

The moons of Mars aren't an ideal destination but the alternatives seem worse. The problem is ... NASA lacks the budget to have two competing Mars surface contractors. ... Visiting Mars's moons seems better than the alternative of just orbiting Mars and hoping that the astronauts don't die of boredom or claustrophobia living in a spaceship non-stop for several years.

[thespacecow]

My guess of what happens next:

1. For the Moon, it'll be the Eric Berger plan, i.e. kill Gateway and EUS, but keep SLS core stage and Orion. The part about new upper stage for SLS is optional, maybe phasing out it all together after 3 flights.

2. The money saved is used to fund a commercial crew to the Moon, either separate from HLS or integrated with HLS.

3. Also change the Artemis lunar goal to a permanently manned surface base, i.e. Elon's "Moon Base Alpha". International contribution will be redirected here, and this also gives a reason for commercial crew to the Moon program.

4. For Mars, it'll be a SpaceX mission, with government partnership in the forms of regulatory relief and tech support. Government funding is welcome, but not strictly necessary.

[Coastal Ron]

The U.S. Government already has that option - it's called Firm Fixed Price contracts. No payment is made until the goods or services are provided.

Look, the issues with the U.S. Government (including NASA) are usually at the top, not the bottom of the U.S. Government. There is no mystery as to how government goods and services are acquired and paid for, so whatever Musk is talking about is just unsubstantiated ranks for entertainment purposes...

Firm-fixed price contracts doesn't mean that there is no requirement. There is requirements, there is just less of them. For example, HLS has a lot of requirements and so does commercial crew.

You are changing the topic. You cut out that I was responding to your statement about "Perhaps that NASA could just pay for the outcome as Musk is suggesting in the post above."

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts take care of paying for an outcome, regardless if it is goods or services. The proverbial wheel doesn't need to be reinvented, i.e. a new contracting method doesn't have to be created to "pay for outcomes".

I don't think that Musk's point about outcomes was about NASA, I think that it was a broader point related to government contracts.

Only Elon Musk knows what Elon Musk means, which is very much the same for politicians. Meaning that it doesn't matter what people say, it only matters what people do.

So we'll have to see what Elon Musk does in order to understand what Elon Musk means... 

[VSECOTSPE]

I do not see any way that Musk can take a role in government without triggering conflicts of interest. I have assumed that he will stay completely out of government. Anything else will add years to his Mars schedule. Of course he has done other self-destructive things in the last two years, so my assumption may be wrong.

I do feel that Musk involvement in the federal government will be high-level stuff (his Department Of Goverment Efficiency)  - licensing, contracting, etc. Not micromanagement of NASA.

Who knows where this will end up some months hence, but for now, the reporting is that Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” will be a blue-ribbon advisory body.  Think Augustine Commission but across the entire federal budget/bureaucracy/program set.  Limiting “DOGE” to advisory body recommendations would largely keep Musk out of trouble with conflicts of interest:

Musk, whose pro-Trump super PAC spent more than $118 million in the 2024 campaign, has pitched himself to lead a broad effort to slash spending inside the federal government.

A source familiar with the conversations around Musk said it seemed unlikely that he would even want a full-time government position, given what that would mean for his role in the various companies he helms.

Instead, it seemed more plausible that Musk would be appointed to a blue-ribbon committee where he would still have enormous access, but he would not be subject to government ethics rules, which would require him to divest or put assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest between his private business interests and government role.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/transition-donald-trump-jockeying/index.html

But there are also landfills full of federal blue-ribbon advisory body reports that went nowhere — see all the failed commissions recommending Moon/Mars programs for NASA human space flight between Apollo and the VSE.  Political appointees in the White House, appropriators on the Hill, and civil servants in the implementing agencies have their own ideas and priorities.  So the more that “DOGE”/Musk are arms-length, hands-off, and conflict-free, the less likely their recommendations/preferences will see funding or implementation.

Of course, a blue-ribbon, advisory commission doesn’t mean that Musk can’t/won’t separately seek quid pro quos for his ~$120M investment in Trump II behind the scenes.  Campaign contributions buy access and influence (just ask Boeing, LockMart, NG, etc.), and Musk has now bought access and influence with Trump II on a grand scale.  But unless someone records or reports on those conversations (or is stupid enough to admit to the quid pro quos), we’ll never really know what Musk’s outsized contributions bought.

1) Do we even know whether Musk would push for Mars over the moon? While Mars is his ultimate goal, I'm not sure he's so against the moon being a more practical, shorter-term destination.

It’s not Musk alone.  It’s the combination of Trump and Musk that opens up the possibility of a major redirection of Artemis away from the Moon and towards Mars.  During Trump I, Trump publicly preferred  leapfrogging to Mars over a return to the Moon (even though his administration’s goals were Moon-centric).  That, in combination with Musk’s long-held Mars ambitions, is what makes a redirect towards Mars a distinct possibility now when it was not before.  Trebly so if NASA/Artemis hands Trump II a real headache in the form of massive overruns/delays (like from Orion’s heatshield woes) or a major accident (like on Artemis II).

To be clear, I’m not saying a redirect to Mars is a likely scenario.  Just that it’s now a distinct, possible scenario, whereas before, it really was not.

2) Let's say Musk pushes for Mars. I think many other Trump administration advisors realize the impracticality of Mars being a destination in the next 4 years, versus what would be a political triumph in returning to the moon. I highly doubt any of his other advisors would be on board. So will Trump listen to Musk, likely in conflict with the advice he gets from his other advisors?

Hard to say.  It’s impossible to predict at this point what impact Musk might have in an official capacity (see blue-ribbon commission discussion directly above) or behind-the-scenes, which may never see the light of day, anyway.  There’s a lot of moving parts to getting anything done in the US federal government.

For example, another way a Trump/Musk human Mars program might manifest is through the Mars Sample Return mission on the science side of the NASA house.  That program is in technical turmoil, and Trump/Musk could try to redirect it towards technical solutions that also support a human Mars landing.  An MSR redirect is less likely than Artemis getting redirected to Mars, but it’s also now a distinct possibility when it wasn’t before.

I personally don't think Musk's support of Trump had much to do with NASA.  I don't think he's looking for a quid pro quo.  When Musk spoke about the election, his issues were mostly outside of space.  I take him at his word.

Musk specifially said that he did not ask anything from Trump for his endorsement and support and I believe Musk when he says that.

Trump/Musk may not know what the quid pro quo(s) will be yet.  And those quid pro quos may end up having nothing to do with NASA or the space sector.  But we should not be that naive about multi-hundred million dollar campaign donations between transactional billionaires:

https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/donald-trump-elon-musk-tesla-endorsement/

https://thehill.com/homenews/4946030-bill-oreilly-elon-musk-donald-trump-relationship-business-deal/

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/how-elon-musk-could-benefit-from-trump-second-term/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/elon-musk-maga

https://www.rawstory.com/news/trump-elon-musk-2668896785/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/10/28/fiona-hill-explains-trump-musk-putin-00185820

What Musk needs most from Artemis is cadence.  Cislunar cadence is what allows SpaceX to develop, refine, and cost-reduce all the refueling tech that's needed to enable any BEO market.  At least for the time being, Artemis is the only program that's generating any BEO demand, so he at least needs to speed it up, and likely expand it.

Yes and no.  It’s a good point that Artemis is the only customer for Starship tankers.  StarLink doesn’t need that capability.  But StarLink is throwing off so much cash that StarLink will be able to self-fund Starship Mars variant development as a non-profit offshoot of the core business.  In terms of overall funding or demand, Artemis is really riding StarLink’s coattails rather than driving Starship development.

What SpaceX’s Mars plans really need from NASA more than anything else in the years ahead is expertise.  There are pieces of NASA that are the only organizations anywhere in the world that have decades of experience with deep space communications, navigation, and operation or that have spent decades thinking through what it really takes to keep homo sapiens alive, healthy, and productive in the very hostile environments of deep space and Mars.  These are not trivial challenges and unless SX has had huge efforts behind-the-scenes on both, they’re going to need NASA’s help.  It’s no longer the NASA funding that’s paramount to SX’s Mars plans but the access to the technical experts that accompany the funding.

I suspect that Boeing, LockMart, NorGrumm, and AJR-L3H have done their best to curry favor with Trump.  But I doubt they've curried $120M of favor.  They're all weak right now, and Elon is strong.

This point is also well-taken.  But I’d also point out that Musk donated ~$120M to the Trump II campaign, not to congressional appropriators campaigns.  Boeing, LockMart, NG, and AJR donated to congressional appropriators.  And have large workforces/numbers of voters in the districts/states of those appropriators.  Musk has bought a lot of access and influence with the Trump II White House.  Whether that translates to much access and influence on the Hill remains to be seen.  There will probably be a honeymoon period between Trump II and Congress, especially if the Republicans remain in control in the House.  But parochial interests will eventually rear their heads and assert themselves.

FWIW...

[VSECOTSPE]

Thoughts from a long-time observer of federal space programs:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/what-will-a-second-trump-term-mean-for-space-policy/

[yg1968]

This point is also well-taken.  But I’d also point out that Musk donated ~$120M to the Trump II campaign, not to congressional appropriators campaigns.  Boeing, LockMart, NG, and AJR donated to congressional appropriators.  And have large workforces/numbers of voters in the districts/states of those appropriators.  Musk has bought a lot of access and influence with the Trump II White House.  Whether that translates to much access and influence on the Hill remains to be seen.  There will probably be a honeymoon period between Trump II and Congress, especially if the Republicans remain in control in the House.  But parochial interests will eventually rear their heads and assert themselves.

FWIW...

Musk didn't donate $120M to the Trump Campaign, he created a Super PAC (the America PAC) that defends political ideas that Musk likes. That Super PAC endorsed Trump for this election but it only does so to the extent that the ideas that Musk likes are defended by the President.

Trump/Musk may not know what the quid pro quo(s) will be yet.  And those quid pro quos may end up having nothing to do with NASA or the space sector.  But we should not be that naive about multi-hundred million dollar campaign donations between transactional billionaires

A lot of these articles are made up non-sense. I am surprised that you believe any of this stuff. In any event, this is off-topic of Artemis or the Moon to Mars program.