NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[VSECOTSPE]

On your first point, Trump isn't shy to threaten to do certain things, if he doesn't get what he wants. Trump is a negotiator

I’m less sanguine regarding Trump’s involvement now that he’s told us that he’s not very interested in Mars.  (See my last post upthread.)

Even if Mars or something else at NASA was a priority for Trump, Trump I wilted under pressure when Bridenstine pushed an SLS alternative for Artemis I.  Shelby was the one who threatened.  Trump (and Pence and the rest) did not.  I’d question negotiating strategies (for lack of a better term) under Trump II to date in other areas as well.

We’ll see what’s in the President’s budget rollout.  But even if there’s some sensible reform or goals regarding Artemis or NASA human space flight in the budget, I would not bet real money on them being seen theough.  That’s been the history with every administration all the way back to Bush II.

FWIW…

[robertross]

Just to throw my 2 cents in here, I believe they will do what they can to launch Artemis II as quickly as possible, to satisfy those involved that they got this done, and then change course and cancel all future development by (rightly saying) it has fallen off the rails and cannot be afforded.

Let's be honest: the mobile launcher really has no future, mainly due to the weight limits on the crawlerway. And that changes a whole host of ideas and plans, meaning it will either have to be limited to what hey have now, or abandoned in place (because they won't want to waste money on deconstruction anytime soon).

Whether the Gateway will be cancelled will be up to those involved and whether they want to stay the course with Artemis & Orion (as is), likely with assistance from SpaceX and others, while pushing to Mars.

And for those noting SpaceX doesn't get a dime for their failures, that is the 'current' state of affairs.
I can see (crystal ball) that SpaceX will get contracts to develop a Mars vehicle, with the rest getting contracts for structures, science, and so on.

As noted up-thread, America IS broke (but so are almost all countries, just living off the proverbial credit card). If the goal is exploration, there needs to be an affordable program that is not just boots on the ground, and that can return more than science as well. To me, that return is good paying jobs, advancements in technology, and all the spin-off jobs that go with it.

Artemis was portrayed as a cost-effective program that would reuse & build-on the shuttle hardware & heritage, but has had a host of problems, including thumbs on scales (which was silly), political interference (expected), and scandalously: under-funded along the way, and has now morphed into a cost-constrained platform that will (has) dragged NASA down the rabbit hole (again, in a similar way as Constellation).

They never learn.

[yg1968]

I’m less sanguine regarding Trump’s involvement now that he’s told us that he’s not very interested in Mars.  (See my last post upthread.)

Trump said that it's not a top priority compared to other (non-space) issues but that it was still of interest. I think that is fair because most people believe that space shouldn't be a top issue compared to other issues (such as trade, taxes, foreign policy, etc.). Furthermore, that may also mean that he will let Isaacman run the show which is probably good news.

[yg1968]

Trump: Mars Not a Top Priority, But Would Be Great:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-mars-not-a-top-priority-but-would-be-great/

“There’s a lot of interest in going to Mars. Is it number one on my hit list? No, it’s not really, but it is something that would be — it would be a great achievement. It would be a great thing if we could do it.

“In fact, did you notice the other night at my speech [to Congress] when I said ‘And we will go to Mars?’ It got one of the biggest applause of the night. I was shocked. I got one of the biggest applause of the night. So there seems to be a lot of interest in it.” — President Trump, March 9, 2025

https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-interview-maria-bartiromo-fox-news-sunday-futures-march-9-2025/

[Proponent]

Artemis was portrayed as a cost-effective program ....

Was it? The law establishing Orion/SLS specifically mentions minimizing contract-termination costs (not long-term costs or non-recurring costs), which I take as a euphemism for keeping as much of the Shuttle workforce and facilities as possible. Fifteen years on, I'd say it's been pretty successful at that, which is what Congress wanted. Congresspeople aren't incompetent, they're just not, or at least, have not been, particularly interested in space itself.

Artemis was bolted onto Orion/SLS. I don't recall anyone claiming it to be particularly cost efficient. It's just the most plausible (rather, least implausible way) of going to the moon if using Orion/SLS is a requirement.

[clongton]

Congresspeople aren't incompetent,

What?

[Coastal Ron]

Just to throw my 2 cents in here...

As noted up-thread, America IS broke (but so are almost all countries, just living off the proverbial credit card).

Running a deficit is NOT the same as "being broke".

If the goal is exploration...

When V.P. Pence announced the new return-to-Moon goal, he stated that this was the goal:

“At the direction of the President of the United States, it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the moon within the next five years,” Pence said. “To be clear: the first woman and the next man on the moon will both be American astronauts, launched by American rockets from American soil.”

So no, exploration was not the primary goal, American boots on the ground was the goal - so-called flags & footprints. Now since that point NASA has added "exploration" goals to take up the rest of the time on the surface, but politics was the goal, not science.

...there needs to be an affordable program...

America can "afford" lots of stuff, even when running a deficit. But the goal for Artemis was never "affordable", at most it was hoped to be "sustainable", whatever that means. Probably politically sustainable...

...that is not just boots on the ground, and that can return more than science as well. To me, that return is good paying jobs, advancements in technology, and all the spin-off jobs that go with it.

Until the Trump II Administration America saw value in investing in science. It has declined over the years, but it remains to be seen what value the Trump II Administration puts in "science", especially as it relates to Artemis program goals.

[VSECOTSPE]

Trump said that it's not a top priority compared to other (non-space) issues but that it was still of interest. I think that is fair because most people believe that space shouldn't be a top issue compared to other issues (such as trade, taxes, foreign policy, etc.).

It (Mars, Artemis deltas, HSF reform, whatever) has to be a high enough priority that the Trump II White House is willing to go to bat with parochial appropriators in Congress.  If higher priority topics/issues keep the Trump II White House from spending political capital with appropriators and/or the Trump II White House is aligned with those parochial interests because of mid-term elections or other politics, then it — whatever it is at NASA — won’t happen.

That’s what happened with Bush II (VSE) and Obama (Constellation termination).  But at least the POTUS in those two administrations didn’t publicly downplay the goal he had previously touted with respect to NASA, as Trump II did yesterday.  Or at least the POTUS in those two administrations didn’t publicly tweet goals (Mars over Moon) that were contrary to what his VPOTUS and administration had actually been working on, as happened with Trump I.  Kennedy didn’t give his Rice speech or rollout Apollo in his State of the Union and then tell Walter Cronkite a couple days later that the Moon wasn’t that important Moon or that LBJ’s committee recommending a human lunar landing got it wrong.  Articulating disinterest or going against his own administration is actually how a President signals to appropriators and Congress that he’s not serious and can be ignored on a given topic/issue.

We’ve been to this show before with this President — an inability to set a goal for NASA HSF and stick to it, nevertheless articulate a political strategy in support of that goal and execute it.  I’d argue we’re also seeing this lack of focus and rapid flip-flopping in other topics that should be higher priority for this Administration (tariffs, Russia/Ukraine, etc.).  I don’t mean to be dramatic, but like Proverbs says, where there is no vision, the people perish.  If Mars actually isn’t an important goal, then what exactly is at NASA?

Everything else is downstream of the POTUS figuring out his answer to that question for himself and sticking to it.  If he can’t, then Artemis is just going to see a repeat of Trump I (and Obama and Bush II).

Furthermore, that may also mean that he will let Isaacman run the show which is probably good news.

Isaacman is a political novice with no significant congressional or Beltway connections.  He won’t be a politically powerful and independent operator like Webb and O’Keefe were.  He will need WH buy-in and sustained support for any significant HSF changes that he wants to pursue.  I don’t see how that’s going to happen when the POTUS went against his own administration on this topic in Trump I and publicly walks back the Mars goal he just articulated to Congress a couple days prior in the opening days of Trump II.  Isaacman’s efforts will be very frustrated by his boss.

[yg1968]

Articulating disinterest or going against his own administration is actually how a President signals to appropriators and Congress that he’s not serious and can be ignored on a given topic/issue.

The full quote is more positive than than that, it says that there is a lot of interest in Mars:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.msg2670981#msg2670981

In any event, I am guessing that the negotiated outcome is that we will still be going to the Moon and Mars which is what I am hoping for. If this results in the cancelation of SLS after Artemis III in favor of a commercial option, this would be a great achievement in and of itself.

[hektor]

I’ve been mulling over an alternate path for NASA’s Artemis program that’s been tossed around in the past: turning Artemis III into an Earth orbit mission with a Starship rendezvous. It’s a departure from the lunar landing we’re all hyped for, but hear me out—this could set up Artemis IV for success, give Starship’s HLS some breathing room, and open the door to rethinking SLS and Orion’s roles long-term. Let’s break it down and see what you all think!

Artemis III: From Lunar Dreams to Earth Orbit Reality

Forget the lunar flyby for a sec—imagine Artemis III as a leaner mission. SLS Block 1 launches Orion into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), but here’s the twist: no Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) or any upper stage. Yep, SLS goes bare-bones, just the core stage and boosters, injecting Orion into an initial elliptical orbit. From there, Orion’s own propulsion system—its service module, courtesy of ESA—kicks in to circularize the orbit. Then, a Starship (maybe an HLS testbed or crew variant) meets it in LEO. The crew docks, transfers to Starship, and spends a few days testing the combo—life support, docking ops, the works—before returning to Orion for reentry.
This setup kills two birds with one stone. It sidesteps Starship HLS’s lunar-readiness crunch (no lunar landing or refueling required yet) and proves the Orion-Starship link-up in a safer sandbox. Sure, Orion’s propellant budget gets a workout, but it’s designed for deep-space maneuvers—circularizing in LEO should be within its wheelhouse. Visually, it’s a win: a stripped-down SLS launch and two futuristic ships docked in orbit. Not a Moon landing, but a momentum-keeper.

Artemis IV: Block 1 Holds the Line

Here’s where it pays off. By offloading some pressure from Artemis III, Artemis IV can stick with SLS Block 1 (using the third Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, ICPS) to launch Orion to lunar orbit. Meanwhile, SpaceX gets extra time to perfect Starship HLS—think uncrewed lunar landings and refueling demos, bolstered by the LEO rendezvous data from Artemis III. When Artemis IV rolls around, Orion meets a battle-tested HLS in lunar orbit, and bam—first boots on the Moon since Apollo.
This approach avoids rushing SLS Block 1B (with its pricier Exploration Upper Stage) into service, keeping costs and timelines in check. It’s a conservative bet that leans on proven hardware while letting Starship mature. If it works, Artemis IV becomes the triumphant lunar return we’ve been waiting for, built on a foundation of incremental wins.

The Fork in the Road: Kill SLS/Orion or Go Commercial?

Now, let’s look ahead. After Artemis IV, the last ICPS is spent, and SLS’s future gets murky. At $4 billion a pop and one launch per year (if we’re lucky), it’s a budget black hole. If Starship HLS proves itself—capable of hauling crew, cargo, and landers in a single reusable stack—why keep SLS limping along? Option one: kill SLS and Orion outright. Let Starship take the reins, maybe paired with a new crew vehicle tailored to its ecosystem. It’s ruthless, but the cost savings could fund lunar habitats or Mars tech.
Option two: save Orion, ditch SLS. Orion’s a solid capsule—deep-space rated, with a heat shield that’s survived test flights. Why not mate it to a commercial launcher like Falcon Heavy or even Starship itself? Picture Orion as a reusable ferry, launching on a cheap ride to LEO, then docking with Starship for lunar or Gateway missions. It’s a hybrid future: Orion’s legacy lives on, but SLS’s bloated era ends. The transition wouldn’t be seamless—Orion’s tied to SLS’s architecture—but with some engineering elbow grease, it could work.

Weighing the Trade-offs

This plan’s got legs, but it’s not perfect. An LEO Artemis III might feel like a letdown after Apollo’s giant leap—less “Moon or bust,” more “let’s crawl before we walk.” And killing SLS means waving goodbye to a jobs program that’s kept Congress happy. On the flip side, it’s pragmatic—delays kill enthusiasm, and this keeps Artemis alive while Starship catches up. Plus, moving Orion to commercial could slash costs and boost launch cadence, making Artemis a leaner, meaner program.
So, what’s your take? Is an Earth orbit Artemis III a clever detour or a cop-out? Should SLS and Orion ride off into the sunset after ICPS runs dry, or is there a case for keeping them around? Could Orion thrive on a commercial rocket, or is it too much of a square peg in a round hole? Let’s debate it—I’m all ears for your thoughts!

[VSECOTSPE]

The full quote is more positive than than that, it says that there is a lot of interest in Mars:

It says Trump was surprised by the reaction Mars got in an address to Congress, which says something about what Trump is paying and not paying attention to — what plays in a speech versus what makes sense as a consistent goal.  I’d argue it doesn’t say much about actual audience interest in Mars — those cheers were from Republicans who were cheering everything in that speech (and Musk).

If Trump wants to get a viable humans to Mars program started, he will need the cooperation of parochial appropriators and Senate Democrats.  Otherwise, it will just be more Orion/SLS from the appropriators and/or an SLI-like rejection in the Senate.  By telling Baritomo that Mars is not a substantive top priority and that his interest is in the sound bites, not the goal or the program, Trump is telegraphing to appropriators and Democrats that he’s not serious and that they can ignore/roll the White House on this.

I think Trump’s remarks to Baritomo also reflect how Mars or NASA will be handled in the Trump II White House.  It’s not a top priority for the POTUS, so they’re not going to put much, if any, political capital or other efforts into NASA.  As long as it costs the WH nothing, Trump II will be supportive.  But when the stuff hits the fan, Trump II will not see their NASA priorities or reforms through.  Again, Isaacman doesn’t have enough political pull on his own and will need that WH support to get any substantive change in direction in NASA HSF.  But if it’s not forthcoming, or the POTUS can’t make up his mind from day to day whether Mars or NASA is a priority, then Isaacman will probably be hung out to dry like Bridenstine was in Trump I.

In any event, I am guessing that the negotiated outcome is that we will still be going to the Moon and Mars which is what I am hoping for. If this results in the cancelation of SLS after Artemis III in favor of a commercial option, this would be a great achievement in and of itself.

It could all change if Trump got his act together on this and other things.  Or maybe Isaacman has secured promises of support from the POTUS for a plan that we are not privy to yet.  But I doubt those possibilities given what we’ve seen, and it’s a confused and self-defeating, instead of consistent and auspicious, start, regardless.

FWIW...

[TheRadicalModerate]

SLS Block 1 launches Orion into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), but here’s the twist: no Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) or any upper stage.

The biggest problem is that you have to attach the spacecraft adapter to the top of the core.  That's an adapter that would have to be designed and built under a special contract.

You might be able to repurpose the Block 1B USA to do this, but I wouldn't count on the core interface and the EUS interfaces being common.  It's something to look into.

It's insanely expensive to launch an Orion to LEO just to do some RPOD and habitation tests with the HLS Starship.  If you're trying to do habitation tests on the Starship, a D2 will cost you $2.4B less.

However, there's another application for this that might--might--be interesting (still a long shot).  I'm assuming that LockMart really wants to keep Orion alive, and there's a non-SLS way of doing that:  launch the Orion to LEO, have it dock with the Cislunar Transport (the basis for the tanker that Blue Origin needs for the Blue Moon HLS program), and have the CT push the Orion to TLI.

There are two things needed for this to become operational:

1) The CT has to be finished and crew-certifiable (not something that needs to happen to use it as a tanker).

2) The Orion needs to be adapted to launch on New Glenn, and be crew-certified.

Of these two main tasks, I suspect the CT is the easier of the two.  If LockMart could have it up and running by, say, early 2029, then they could use the Artemis IV core to get an Orion to LEO, as an extremely expensive stopgap.

Again, you have to deal with the USA to make this work, and Orion would have to be certified for this use.  And all you're really accomplishing is giving NASA (and Congress) the option of funding one more SLS core/SRB set before pulling the plug.  But if that results in two different replacements for SLS/Orion (F9/D2 + Starship HLS and New Glenn/Orion + CT) being available sooner, that's worth... something?  Probably not ~$5B of something, though.

[Hadley Delta]

Is an Earth orbit Artemis III a clever detour or a cop-out?

I like it. It fills the gap of an Apollo 9/10 analog that has concerned me for some time.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I think Trump’s remarks to Bartiromo also reflect how Mars or NASA will be handled in the Trump II White House.  It’s not a top priority for the POTUS, so they’re not going to put much, if any, political capital or other efforts into NASA.

This would be a perfectly good argument in a normal White House, but even Trump knows that he owes Musk a couple of hefty favors, and they were likely pre-negotiated ahead of the campaign cash infusion.  If getting most of what Elon wants out of human spaceflight isn't the biggie, I'll be very surprised.

[yg1968]

See below:

Commerce Committee Leaders Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Reinforce U.S. Space Leadership:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/3/commerce-committee-leaders-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-reinforce-u-s-space-leadership

Link to the to the Senate 2025 NASA Authorization bill:
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/0B3F390C-72B0-4C41-B1BE-F5C8A886992C

https://twitter.com/SenateCommerce/status/1899585102914765306

[VSECOTSPE]

This would be a perfectly good argument in a normal White House, but even Trump knows that he owes Musk a couple of hefty favors,

If one of those favors is some Mars-or-bust pivot, then telling a friendly major news outlet that Mars is not actually a top priority and just a nice-to-have is a strange way to go about fulfilling that favor.

Apollo could have a been favor that JFK owed some gazillionaire from that era, but JFK and his administration would still have needed a plan to get Apollo enacted and consistency in advancing that plan.

I don’t see much of a plan or consistency from Trump II so far.  At best, the remarks to Bartiromo were an unforced error.  But if we take Trump at his words, they’re an honest admission that Mars is not much of a priority, regardless of any favor owed Musk.

Separate from Trump’s remarks, Musk’s antics and DOGE actions have burned a forest of political capital in a very short time and generated a ton of political ill will that will weigh against a Mars pivot if/when the time comes.  Musk obviously thinks he has bigger fish to fry, but from a narrower Mars-or-bust perspective, his political entrepreneurialism has been shooting that goal and future government SpaceX business in the foot.  May not matter in the long run given StarLink revenues.  But if the point is to get NASA and its sponsors to pivot from Moon/Orion/SLS to Mars/Starship, Musk has handed a mountain of arguments and excuses to the opponents of such a pivot.

FWIW...

[dglow]

@VSECOTSPE, we have an Executive attempting to re-establish its ability to impound funds allocated by Congress. Barring a firm decision by SCOTUS (and even then...) what binds Trump to following Congress' will regarding NASA?

If Republicans end up concerned about voter discontent in next year's midterms, one suspects won't be due to a revamp of NASA HSF policy or some Boeing jobs lost.

[zubenelgenubi]

Gee-whiz!  I log in today and find this thread locked.  🔒 🙃 <sarcasm>I wonder why?</sarcasm>