NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[VSECOTSPE]

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.

Technically true, but in terms of the access and influence that Musk bought, the distinction means little.  For better or worse, Trump and Musk are joined at the hip politically now.  Musk campaigned heavily in Pennsylvania and elsewhere on behalf of Trump II, not on behalf of abstract political principles that were never on the ballot.  Musk risked court indictments over his lottery scheme to drum up voter participation for Trump II, not on behalf of abstract political principles that were never on the ballot..  Musk joined Trump on stage for Trump’s victory speech, not to celebrate some abstract political principle.  Musk has been promised _the_ leadership role on a government commission to cut federal spending and reform concrete government programs, not to debate abstract political principles.  Trump has publicly stated that he moderated his views on electric vehicles in order to bring Musk onboard, not because Musk made an abstract political argument that won Trump over.  Trump has for the first time extolled SpaceX’s work — that’s not because of political principles.  And these are just the things we know about. 

To be clear, I’m not taking a position here on whether any of this good or bad or right or wrong.  That’s a political debate that has to take place elsewhere.

What I am saying is that Musk has bought himself a large role in Trump II and that Trump owes Musk a large debt.  The resulting quid pro quos may or may not have any impact on SX or NASA programs in the end.  But we’d be blind not to see the potential for large change in Artemis given Musk’s interests and Trump’s reliance on Musk’s funding and organization in the campaign.

A lot of these articles are made up non-sense. I am surprised that you believe any of this stuff.

These articles are not “made up”.  A couple of the articles reference public comments by Trump that he changed his opinion on electric vehicles to satisfy Musk.  That’s real.  Others point out existing regulatory problems for Musk’s enterprises that a Trump II White House could eliminate through OMB review.  That’s a real possibility — OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ultimately controls what regulations are promulgated or not by an administration through regulatory analysis and review.  Others point out on-the-books court cases brought by the federal government against Musk’s companies that a Trump II White House could stop with the right appointees and calls to the Justice Dept.  Again, that’s a real possibility.  These articles quote right-wing sources like Bill O’Reilly and former Trump I advisors like Fiona Hill.  These are people with real connections, experience, and/or expertise.

Again, to be clear, at a certain level, there’s nothing new here.  Corporate interests and wealthy individuals buy federal access and influence through PACs and campaign contributions all the time. 

But Musk’s investment in Trump II and Trump’s open embrace of Musk takes this kind of relationship to a whole new level.  Again, who knows if this will lead to a scenario that changes Artemis.  But we’d be blind not to see the potential.

[yg1968]

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.

Technically true, but in terms of the access and influence that Musk bought, the distinction means little.  For better or worse, Trump and Musk are joined at the hip politically now.  Musk campaigned heavily in Pennsylvania and elsewhere on behalf of Trump II, not on behalf of abstract political principles that were never on the ballot.  Musk risked court indictments over his lottery scheme to drum up voter participation for Trump II, not on behalf of abstract political principles that were never on the ballot..  Musk joined Trump on stage for Trump’s victory speech, not to celebrate some abstract political principle.  Musk has been promised _the_ leadership role on a government commission to cut federal spending and reform concrete government programs, not to debate abstract political principles.  Trump has publicly stated that he moderated his views on electric vehicles in order to bring Musk onboard, not because Musk made an abstract political argument that won Trump over.  Trump has for the first time extolled SpaceX’s work — that’s not because of political principles.  And these are just the things we know about. 

To be clear, I’m not taking a position here on whether any of this good or bad or right or wrong.  That’s a political debate that has to take place elsewhere.

What I am saying is that Musk has bought himself a large role in Trump II and that Trump owes Musk a large debt.  The resulting quid pro quos may or may not have any impact on SX or NASA programs in the end.  But we’d be blind not to see the potential for large change in Artemis given Musk’s interests and Trump’s reliance on Musk’s funding and organization in the campaign.

A lot of these articles are made up non-sense. I am surprised that you believe any of this stuff.

These articles are not “made up”.  A couple of the articles reference public comments by Trump that he changed his opinion on electric vehicles to satisfy Musk.  That’s real.  Others point out existing regulatory problems for Musk’s enterprises that a Trump II White House could eliminate through OMB review.  That’s a real possibility — OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ultimately controls what regulations are promulgated or not by an administration through regulatory analysis and review.  Others point out on-the-books court cases brought by the federal government against Musk’s companies that a Trump II White House could stop with the right appointees and calls to the Justice Dept.  Again, that’s a real possibility.  These articles quote right-wing sources like Bill O’Reilly and former Trump I advisors like Fiona Hill.  These are people with real connections, experience, and/or expertise.

Again, to be clear, at a certain level, there’s nothing new here.  Corporate interests and wealthy individuals buy federal access and influence through PACs and campaign contributions all the time. 

But Musk’s investment in Trump II and Trump’s open embrace of Musk takes this kind of relationship to a whole new level.  Again, who knows if this will lead to a scenario that changes Artemis.  But we’d be blind not to see the potential.

OK, thanks for the explanations. When speaking of made-up stuff, I was thinking more of the Putin/Starlink stuff that SpaceX and Musk have debunked. In terms of lawfare against Musk's companies, you would expect less of this under the Trump Administration but I am not sure than I would call this quid pro quo. You shouldn't expect lawfare under any administration.

[yg1968]

These articles are not “made up”.  A couple of the articles reference public comments by Trump that he changed his opinion on electric vehicles to satisfy Musk.  That’s real. 

Interestingly, the article that says this also links a clip when Trump said this and if you actually watch the clip linked in the article, you will see that Trump is essentially bashing EVs and their expensive charging stations. Trump is saying I can't trash EVs because of Musk but he then starts to bash EVs. Some quid pro quo...

Most of these articles are pure speculation. The last one by Fiona Hill in Politico is pure speculation. It doesn't matter than it is a person that use to work for Trump, it is still all speculation. This kind of speculation doesn't belong in this thread. I encourage you to listen to Musk directly as opposed to someone that has met Musk and apparently knows how they think because they met them and they know how billionaires think... Don't believe everything that you read...

[JayWee]

Musk will try cash in his ~$120 million investment in the Trump II campaign in some way. 

Fun fact: Since the election TSLA is up 20%. That's +$9B in his net worth
 

[VSECOTSPE]

In terms of lawfare against Musk's companies, you would expect less of this under the Trump Administration but I am not sure than I would call this quid pro quo. You shouldn't expect lawfare under any administration.

Some of the cases involve deaths from Teslas in autonomous driving mode or retaliation against minority workers.  I doubt the families and workers involved would call accountability for deaths or job discrimination ”lawfare”.

Others, like SX’s environmental impact in Texas or Musk’s violations of agreements he made with the FTC, have substance.  There’s no doubt SX has had an environmental impact and that Musk has thumbed his nose at the FTC.  Whether the resulting DOJ suits are frivolous lawfare or actual violations of the law is up to a judge or jury to decide.  We’re not going to figure that out here.

The point is that these suits may go away under Trump II because Trump owes Musk a lot for Musk’s outsized support during Trump’s campaign.  Whether that’s right or wrong, the possibility is real.  The articles referencing these suits, the Trump/Musk relationship, and the resulting possibilities are not “made up”.

Trump is saying I can't trash EVs because of Musk but he then starts to bash EVs. Some quid pro quo...

The point isn’t whether the septuagenarians and octogenarians still running for (and occupying) the Oval Office can complete a cogent thought out loud without contradicting themselves.  (Apologies if I just insulted any septuagenarians or octogenarians reading this.)

The point is that Trump said out loud that he has to take Musk’s business interests into account.  That’s pretty remarkable in modern US politics.  It admits to or indicates a level of direct access and influence at the highest office in the nation that’s never really been seen before (or at least in many decades).

Again, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent is a debate for another forum.  But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that Musk could not have a large influence on Artemis decision making when Trump is saying that he has to take Musk’s interests into account in other areas.

Musk having that kind of influence on Artemis was not a possibility before this election.  It is a possibility after this election.  Things have changed.  We space cadets should take note.

The last one by Fiona Hill in Politico is pure speculation. It doesn't matter than it is a person that use to work for Trump, it is still all speculation.

It matters greatly.  Hill speaks from firsthand experience having watched Trump’s interactions with the leaders of certain nations and the ultra-wealthy.  She knows how those interactions go in ways that you and I do not.  No doubt, she places a negative value on those interactions, something that can be debated elsewhere.  But the observation that Trump is influenced by these kinds of actors is indicative of how Trump and his administration may react to Musk’s interests in SX and Mars, if Musk chooses to use the access and influence he’s bought to push those interests.  Again, we space cadets should take note.

I encourage you to listen to Musk directly as opposed to someone that has met Musk and apparently knows how they think because they met them and they know how billionaires think...

Hill’s observations are mainly about Trump, not Musk.  But I used to meet with Musk at NASA HQ, and her concerns about Musk comport with my own from that time.  But I met with Musk when SX and Tesla were approaching bankruptcy — he wanted a prize competition out of me that Falcon 1 could win and didn’t know about the COTS program we were formulating — so the risks involved in dealing with Musk were small.  Musk has accumulated vastly more wealth and power.  It’s a very different game with him today.

FWIW...

[yg1968]

But I used to meet with Musk at NASA HQ, and her concerns about Musk comport with my own from that time.  But I met with Musk when SX and Tesla were approaching bankruptcy — he wanted a prize competition out of me that Falcon 1 could win and didn’t know about the COTS program we were formulating — so the risks involved in dealing with Musk were small.  Musk has accumulated vastly more wealth and power.  It’s a very different game with him today.

FWIW...

Hmm. Your timeline doesn't actually work. COTS was awarded to SpaceX in 2006 and SpaceX and Tesla were nearing bankruptcy in 2008, not in 2006. In any event, the idea of prizes is a good idea, you should have listened to Musk.

[VSECOTSPE]

Hmm. Your timeline doesn't actually work. COTS was awarded to SpaceX in 2006 and SpaceX and Tesla were nearing bankruptcy in 2008, not in 2006.

Nitpicking.  I wrote “approaching bankruptcy”.  Companies don’t go bankrupt overnight.  Even before the successive Falcon 1 launch failures in 2006-2008, SX was suffering development delays and ground test failures in 2004-2005.  There’s not much public record left from that time, but you can find still find random references like this spectacular Merlin failure that destroyed the test stand in 2005:

https://selenianboondocks.com/2005/09/spacex-merlin-test-failure/

SX wasn’t exactly signing up customers at a fast clip during this period, either, so there was a race between the financing (depending on Musk’s other endeavors) and the spending even before Falcon 1 had its first launch failure in 2006.

My other program at the time, Centennial Challenges, was public starting from the release of the VSE in 2004.  Recognizing his budget crunch, Musk visited NASA HQ (and probably the Pentagon and other spots around town), looking for funding sources.  He met with former astronaut Bill Readdy, who was running the human space flight ops org (ISS and STS) at the time.  Readdy threw Musk my way.  Musk wanted retrospective prize money just for doing Merlin 1.  That wasn’t going to happen.  At that time, there were few real entry points for new companies at NASA outside of the SBIR paper mill, so Musk kept visiting/harassing me.  I could not tell Musk about COTS, but when that started to go public in 2006, Musk’s high-pressure visits came to an end. 

Musk wasn’t the only bazillionaire harassing me back then.  Bigelow wanted NASA to sponsor a prize for the first private human orbit of the Earth (think Glenn and Friendship 7), so he could get transport to his inflatable space station on the cheap.  Never met Bigelow in person, but I visited his local representative/attorney uptown, and Bigelow, the attorney, and I held a few telecons.  But the money for such a prize was never there, especially after Griffin cut programs to fund Ares I/Orion, and NASA’s safety org would never have let us sponsor such a prize without an Administrator intervening in the first place.

In any event, the idea of prizes is a good idea, you should have listened to Musk.

We did sponsor technology inducement prizes.  See the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge run by the X PRIZE Foundation, for example.  NASA Centennial Challenges provided the prize purse, Northrop Grumman paid the X Prize Foundation’s expenses for running the competition and event, and NASA also helped with judges and other support.  But handing out money for just being in the business, like Musk wanted, doesn’t induce technology development, and prizes on the scale that Bigelow wanted were never in the cards.

After Griffin came in, all the outyear funding for Centennial Challenges went to spacesuit development that was woefully managed by former astronaut Carl Walz and a succession of other failed managers.  Prizes were eventually brought back at a low level when the Space Technology Mission Directorate was stood up in the Obama era, but it has never had the resources or leadership necessary to do anything bigger than what we did with the NG Lunar Lander Challenge.  And NASA still doesn’t have new suits 20-odd years later...

[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.

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.

Two things:

1) I'd guess that the investors would be very happy to see some free cash flow.  Some may have a form of the martian monomania, but most of them want SpaceX to be viable and dominant for decades.  That would militate toward having some pay-fors supporting the BEO work.

2) There's nothing better for riding down the cost curve than actual operational campaigns.  Maybe Mars will get front-burnered by Trump II, or maybe Trump II will merely interpret OST Article IX in a way that lets SpaceX send as many Starships to the martian surface as it likes.¹  But even then, what do they practice on when the Mars window is closed?

Yes, they could in theory just launch prop to a depot and let it sit there until it boiled off.  But that's a non-trivial expense, even if it's a bearable one.²  It's much better to use Artemis, at a higher cadence, to cover the costs.  Unlike Mars ops, the the orbital mechanics give you a nice, smooth operational picture.

...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.

Most of the pork is flowing to Republicans.  Republicans are terrified of incurring Trump's annoyance, because they've seen what happens to those who do so.  So if the administration tells them to take one for the team, they will.

Somewhere up-thread, you stated that it would take the White House getting involved to shake the stranglehold SLS and Orion had on their budgets.  We've just come up with a pretty plausible scenario where Elon's quid pro quo is to get the White House involved.

____________
¹It did occur to me that getting the White House to weigh in on relaxation of Cat IV planetary protection is another easy favor to grant.  No doubt the State Department will scream bloody murder, but Trump is unlikely to have a... nuanced... take on the expenditure of space soft power.

²I'll be interested to see how keen Elon is to go balls-to-the-wall on Mars colonization now that he's found himself some new hobbies on Earth.  No doubt he's still interested, but he seems now to want to do some terrestrial social engineering.  That's not particularly cheap.

[Coastal Ron]

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.

...Yes, they could in theory just launch prop to a depot and let it sit there until it boiled off.  But that's a non-trivial expense, even if it's a bearable one.²  It's much better to use Artemis, at a higher cadence, to cover the costs.  Unlike Mars ops, the orbital mechanics give you a nice, smooth operational picture.

Good observation, and I wonder if that was a consideration when they originally bid the HLS program? Maybe not, but it would provide some smoothing of their launch schedule.

...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.

...Somewhere up-thread, you stated that it would take the White House getting involved to shake the stranglehold SLS and Orion had on their budgets.  We've just come up with a pretty plausible scenario where Elon's quid pro quo is to get the White House involved.

They way that I have been characterizing the situation with the SLS and Orion is that some sort of "trigger event" is required to get Congress to make a change to the programs.

We've all seen how many large NASA program, once they have been funded for a while, get a form of political inertia that keeps the funding flowing to them. The SLS and Orion programs seem to benefit from that, since any changes to the funding profile sets off a cascade of other related issues, including potential job losses in many Republican states and Congressional districts.

Elon Musk whispering into Trumps ear could cause such a "trigger event", though Trump has lambasted the Artemis return-to-Moon effort before, and it didn't change anything in Congress.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720

[TheRadicalModerate]

Elon Musk whispering into Trumps ear could cause such a "trigger event", though Trump has lambasted the Artemis return-to-Moon effort before, and it didn't change anything in Congress.

I don't think there's going to be any whispering.  This is a straightforward transaction:  Musk spent a lot of money and materially facilitated Trump's election.  Trump owes him at least a couple of favors.  Given that this is something that Trump doesn't really care about, it's an easy favor to grant.

The open question is what Elon wants to spend his favors on.  He has a very large portfolio, and a very large set of outcomes from leveraging that portfolio in different ways.  I'm on Team Moon, so I'd like him to kill SLS/Orion and remake Artemis as a program that can get 2-3x as much done for half the cost, in half the time.  It remains to be seen how Elon wants to manage a whole lot of new political capital.  No doubt he's having some interesting conversations.

[Eric Hedman]

I still think a big driver on the short term future is the heat shield on Orion and what NASA says needs to be done to fix it.  Add fifty percent to any estimated timeline for any fix.  If it's going to take two or three years to get Orion flying with a crew, it opens up everything for a change of course.  Does anyone have any inkling of when NASA is going to announce what the problem is and the remediation?

[VSECOTSPE]

It's much better to use Artemis, at a higher cadence, to cover the costs. 

True in the abstract.  But with StarLink throwing off billions annually in revenue and on a path towards tens of billions, I doubt that a billion or so from Artemis every or two to inadvertently help prove out Starship variants and BLEO ops rises to the top of Musk’s wish list.

Access to NASA expertise in deep space ops, however...

Most of the pork is flowing to Republicans.  Republicans are terrified of incurring Trump's annoyance, because they've seen what happens to those who do so.  So if the administration tells them to take one for the team, they will.

I don’t think this will necessarily be true after a certain honeymoon period, for a couple reasons. 

One, Shelby pushed back hard when Bridenstine merely explored launch options besides SLS for one lousy Orion test flight, and the Trump I Administration rapidly folded.  Shelby is gone, but it remains to be seen how Trump II would deal with pushback from Orion/SLS appropriators.

Two, the party balance in the House and Senate will be close, so a Trump II threat to pull support from an Republican appropriator (or to “primary” them or whatever) really isn’t credible, especially over as low a priority as civil human space flight.  Logically, Trump II would not give up congressional majorities or shots at majorities for that. 

Somewhere up-thread, you stated that it would take the White House getting involved to shake the stranglehold SLS and Orion had on their budgets.  We've just come up with a pretty plausible scenario where Elon's quid pro quo is to get the White House involved.

Yes, change will start with the White House, not NASA or Congress.  And yes, as Marcia Smith explained on her blog that I linked upstream, Musk is now a White House wild card and empty vessel on space issues into which those of us wish for Artemis reform or humans to Mars can pour a lot of hopes.

But... it remains to be seen if Artemis reform or humans to Mars are on Musk’s short list for his campaign quid pro quos.  And it remains to be seen if Trump II will agree with those priorities and effectively implement them.

I’ll give you a couple scenarios...

1) Mere days from now, Musk tells Trump behind-the-scenes that he wants Kathy Leuders* appointed and confirmed as NASA Administrator and political cover from the White House with appropriators for her to put Orion/SLS on a going out of business trajectory to be replaced by competitive procurements for lunar crew transport and humans to Mars demonstrations this spring.  Within the first 100 days of Trump II, Trump gives a speech announcing the goals, the White House gets Leuders confirmed, and the White House does some horse trading with appropriators like relocating Space Command so that Leuders is free to move out on those procurements.  Sometime next year, SX and BO are under contract and off to the races, while Leuders implements a plan over the next several years to rededicate the Orion/SLS workforce to other human space exploration technologies and elements as EUS/BOLE/SSME production are terminated in the near-term and Orion/SLS operations wound down after Artemis III.

2) Half a year from now, Musk’s “DOGE” commission produces a thick set of recommendations and somewhere in the back is a suggestion to replace Orion/SLS with commercial space transport capabilities.  A few months later, the Trump II White House finally gets around to appointing a new NASA Administrator.  Some more months after their confirmation and with no ownership of DOGE recommendations from a year ago, the new Administrator half-heartedly tries to initiate an underfunded alternate lunar crew transport program.  The Orion/SLS appropriators cry foul as mid-term elections are approaching.  The Trump II White House has no interest in threatening its thin congressional majorities, folds like it did against Shelby during Trump I, and the alternate lunar crew transport program dies a premature death a couple years from now.  Meanwhile, Artemis III slips again to 2030-ish, and no one in the Trump II White House besides the OMB examiner covering those programs takes notice.

Same actors, but different priorities, timelines, and approaches produce very different results.  We have a couple actors at the very top of Trump II with interests and influence that could radically change the direction of US civil human space flight.  Tuesday’s election created a potential for change that has not existed since the Columbia accident.  But whether their priorities, timelines, and approaches will produce such a change is anyone’s guess.  The past quarter century of history says to bet against reform and redirect kinds of scenarios, and that reform-then-abandon or no-change scenarios are the safe bets.  But who knows?

* I seriously doubt Leuders would take the job or even be considered, but I’m using her as an example because her Venn diagram covers respected NASA human space flight manager, proven commercial crew development experience, and known quantity to SpaceX (and presumably Musk).

[VSECOTSPE]

I still think a big driver on the short term future is the heat shield on Orion and what NASA says needs to be done to fix it.  Add fifty percent to any estimated timeline for any fix.  If it's going to take two or three years to get Orion flying with a crew, it opens up everything for a change of course.  Does anyone have any inkling of when NASA is going to announce what the problem is and the remediation?

They know the root cause of the char loss on Artemis I and they’re testing options to mitigate char loss on Artemis II, with a decision by Nelson to be made by the end of the year.  Even if they go public with the root cause and solution at that time, I doubt we’ll really know the budget and schedule implications until the President’s budget is released sometime in the late spring,

Glaze said that NASA was performing additional testing to study ways to mitigate the heat shield loss for Artemis 2. “We know what needs to be done for future missions, but the Artemis 2 heat shield is already built, so how do we assure astronaut safety with Artemis 2?”

She said the testing would be complete by the end of November. “We then anticipate discussions with the administrator, who will make the final decision on how to proceed,” she said. “We’re moving as quickly as it possibly can move, and there will be decisions forthcoming.”

Hawkins said she expected NASA to provide more details on the heat shield problem and plans for Artemis 2 “hopefully before the end of the year.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-finds-but-does-not-disclose-root-cause-of-orion-heat-shield-erosion/

If the Orion heat shield fix imposes a multi-year delay and multi-billion dollar overrun, you’re right that Trump II will have to wrestle with Artemis sooner than later.  (And Musk will want to insert himself then if he cares to.)  But if the fix is something low-cost and fast like a change to Orion’s Earth entry trajectory, then there’s no impetus to deal with Artemis other than what Musk is asking for.

[DanClemmensen]

If the Orion heat shield fix imposes a multi-year delay and multi-billion dollar overrun, you’re right that Trump II will have to wrestle with Artemis sooner than later.  (And Musk will want to insert himself then if he cares to.)  But if the fix is something low-cost and fast like a change to Orion’s Earth entry trajectory, then there’s no impetus to deal with Artemis other than what Musk is asking for.

If there is a known simple fix, then the only reason I can think of to delay the decision is that the fix is still risky, so the real administrator-level decision is whether to fly crewed or uncrewed. SpaceX' next Artemis goal is the uncrewed HLS demo, so I think that SpaceX would be basically neutral on this Artemis II decision, although Elon might have an opinion based on government waste.

Cancelling SLS/Orion immediately would put intense pressure on SpaceX to maintain the HLS demo schedule and also provide a SpaceX-only human lunar landing mission. Maintaining SLS/Orion for Artemis II and III with a year-or more-delay to fix Orion would shift the blame to SLS/Orion and increase the likelihood that the Chinese make the next crewed lunar landing.

[spacenut]

Musk will try cash in his ~$120 million investment in the Trump II campaign in some way. 

Fun fact: Since the election TSLA is up 20%. That's +$9B in his net worth
 

The whole stock market is up.  I don't even own Tesla stock and made over $14,000 in one day on my investments.  It isn't just Tesla being up, but everything is up.

[yg1968]

But... it remains to be seen if Artemis reform or humans to Mars are on Musk’s short list for his campaign quid pro quos.  And it remains to be seen if Trump II will agree with those priorities and effectively implement them.

There is no quid pro quo. There is an alignment of interest. As pointed out by Marcia Smith, Trump was already more interested in Mars than the Moon in his first term (see also this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57682.0). So a push for human Mars exploration (in addition to the Moon) is almost a given. Musk and Trump are both in favor of deregulations, so that is also likely to happen. The overturning of Chevron makes that easier. So that is still not a quid pro quo. In terms of Starlink, U.S. Presidents tend to try help U.S. companies exports products and services abroad, when they can, as it creates jobs in the United States. Also, not a quid pro quo. I don't think that Musk will be be involved in the selection of the NASA Administrator either and it won't be Lueders or Gerst.   

I don't expect Musk to even mention SLS. He has never said much about SLS because he knows that he shouldn't bad mouth the Artemis program since it also funds HLS-Starship. In any event, he doesn't need to criticize SLS and Orion since it's already obvious that Musk and SpaceX would prefer commercial options for a HLV and BLEO spacecraft.

One thing that will be interesting to follow is if the Mars Sample return mission survives. My hope is that it will be replaced by a Mars cargo transportation capability on which SpaceX and Blue among others can bid on.

[RJMAZ]

Cancelling SLS/Orion immediately would put intense pressure on SpaceX to maintain the HLS demo schedule and also provide a SpaceX-only human lunar landing mission. Maintaining SLS/Orion for Artemis II and III with a year-or more-delay to fix Orion would shift the blame to SLS/Orion and increase the likelihood that the Chinese make the next crewed lunar landing.

I think Trump will want to guarantee a man on the Moon before 2028. Gifting everything to SpaceX will be very difficult to have a man on the Moon by 2026. I can't see humans launching in Starship and performing re-entry on Starship until after 2028. Falcon Heavy doesn't have the payload capability to send a Crew Dragon derivative to the moon.

Starship with a disposable upper stage is still a tiny fraction of the cost of SLS. The current Starship would excellent exceed SLS block 2 when it comes to payload direct to moon. No orbital refueling.

I think the best option is to cancel SLS and give the heaby lift job to a derivative of Starship. The current European Service Module and Orion can sit on top of Starship. This Starship derivative would not take very long to develop. Everything needs has already been tested and works.

A Blue origin protest is guaranteed. My math estimates that a Starship version 3 will reusable booster and disposable upper stage would be able to send around 70t on a translunar injection. This is enough for the Blue Origin lunar lander, the European Service Module and Orion capsule all in one launch. No lunar gateway required.

Landing a 50 metre tall Starship on the moon is unnecessary in the short term.

[DanClemmensen]

Cancelling SLS/Orion immediately would put intense pressure on SpaceX to maintain the HLS demo schedule and also provide a SpaceX-only human lunar landing mission. Maintaining SLS/Orion for Artemis II and III with a year-or more-delay to fix Orion would shift the blame to SLS/Orion and increase the likelihood that the Chinese make the next crewed lunar landing.

I think Trump will want to guarantee a man on the Moon before 2028. Gifting everything to SpaceX will be very difficult to have a man on the Moon by 2026. I can't see humans launching in Starship and performing re-entry on Starship until after 2028. Falcon Heavy doesn't have the payload capability to send a Crew Dragon derivative to the moon.

Starship with a disposable upper stage is still a tiny fraction of the cost of SLS. The current Starship would excellent exceed SLS block 2 when it comes to payload direct to moon. No orbital refueling.

I think the best option is to cancel SLS and give the heaby lift job to a derivative of Starship. The current European Service Module and Orion can sit on top of Starship. This Starship derivative would not take very long to develop. Everything needs has already been tested and works.

A Blue origin protest is guaranteed. My math estimates that a Starship version 3 will reusable booster and disposable upper stage would be able to send around 70t on a translunar injection. This is enough for the Blue Origin lunar lander, the European Service Module and Orion capsule all in one launch. No lunar gateway required.

Landing a 50 metre tall Starship on the moon is unnecessary in the short term.

SpaceX-only mission: Dragon for Earth-LEO and LEO-Earth. Starship (refuelled) for LEO-NRHO and back. HLS for NHRO-Lunar surface and back. Use a second instance of the HLS hardware for the LEO-NHRO leg to avoid doing any extra design work. This mission can be accomplished in the same timeframe as any mission that depends on HLS. If Artemis III is feasible, then this mission is more feasible, since it does not need SLS/Orion.

[Coastal Ron]

But... it remains to be seen if Artemis reform or humans to Mars are on Musk’s short list for his campaign quid pro quos.  And it remains to be seen if Trump II will agree with those priorities and effectively implement them.

There is no quid pro quo. There is an alignment of interest.

It is too early to know that, since quid pro quo requires something in return, but Trump is not yet in a position to potentially provide something in return. And a quid pro quo could take years to come to fruition, so remember this conversation for the future, because it can only be determined in the future who is right.

In terms of Starlink, U.S. Presidents tend to try help U.S. companies exports products and services abroad, when they can, as it creates jobs in the United States. Also, not a quid pro quo.

Musk did not donate over $100M of his own money just to benefit Starlink. There is a whole range of issues that Musk needs help on that could benefit his companies and interests. One of them could be related to Artemis, but I just don't see that Musk is that interested in the Moon, not unless it directly helps his Mars colonization plans (like the HLS contract does).

For instance, replacing the SLS and Orion on Artemis will take YEARS, well beyond the next 4 years of Trump II. For a number of reasons. And replacing the SLS and Orion with Starship would only be a small incremental increase in revenue for SpaceX vs their current HLS contract, so I don't think that will be a primary concern for Elon Musk.

One thing that will be interesting to follow is if the Mars Sample return mission survives. My hope is that it will be replaced by a Mars cargo transportation capability on which SpaceX and Blue among others can bid on.

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) program at NASA has always been shortsighted, in that it doesn't connect with any future Mars efforts that could use existing and future commodity transportation options.

For instance, NASA has been restricted from assuming that refueling in space could be used, so reusable space-only transportation systems could never be considered that could have been dual use for MSR and future human missions.

[VSECOTSPE]

There is no quid pro quo.

We don’t know that and likely never will know that.  You and I are not privy to Trump and Musk’s conversations.  There may or may not be any quid pro quo yet and it may have nothing to do Artemis, but it’s naive in the extreme to believe that Musk will not want something in return for his $120M worth of effort on behalf of the Trump II campaign.  They’re both transactional billionaires.  It’s how they work.  It’s how a lot of Washington works.

You seem to think “quid pro quo” is a dirty Latin phrase.  That judgement is your own.  I’m not passing judgement.  I’m just pointing out that Artemis observers should be aware that Musk has purchased unprecedented levels of influence with the Trump II White House and that he may choose to deploy it in ways that affect Artemis given his interests in SX and Mars.  That should not be a surprising, controversial, or dirty observation.  It’s frankly stupefyingly obvious.

There is an alignment of interest. As pointed out by Marcia Smith,

Smith’s blog quotes John Logsdon, researcher and observer of White House space policy for a half century, who states:  “Space was an area of policy stability during the first Trump administration. With Elon Musk likely in a position of influence, that is not likely to be the case this time around.” 

Trump was already more interested in Mars than the Moon in his first term (see also this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57682.0). So a push for human Mars exploration (in addition to the Moon) is almost a given.

Adding Mars goals will take money.  That money has to come from somewhere — taxes, debt, Artemis, MSR, etc.  If Musk asks or has asked for that, that’s a quid pro quo.  Even more so if Musks asks that the funding be directed towards SX.

Musk and Trump are both in favor of deregulations, so that is also likely to happen. The overturning of Chevron makes that easier. So that is still not a quid pro quo.

If Musk asks or has asked for Trump II to drop certain regulatory court cases, that’s a quid pro quo.  If Musk asks or has asked for expedited regulatory review or certain regulatory outcomes, that’s quid pro quo.  If Musk asks or has asked that Trump II review or drop enforcement of certain regulations, that’s a quid pro quo.

In terms of Starlink, U.S. Presidents tend to try help U.S. companies exports products and services abroad, when they can, as it creates jobs in the United States. Also, not a quid pro quo.

Not sure why StarLink keeps coming up in he quid pro quo context, but Musk has repeatedly and publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the FAA’s launch clearance process for Starship, which affects future StarLink deployment.  If he asks the Trump II White House to apply pressure or resources to speed up FAA launch reviews, that’s a quid pro quo.

I don't think that Musk will be be involved in the selection of the NASA Administrator either

It’s naive to think that Musk will not be consulted on the appointment for the next NASA Administrator.  Trump publicly extolled Musk and Starship in his victory celebration. It would be strange if Trump or his chief of staff or someone else in Trump II did not ask Musk for his input on this or that NASA candidate.

I don't expect Musk to even mention SLS.

Musk himself?  Publicly?  Probably not.

Would Musk identify SLS behind closed doors as a source of funding that could be more productively redirected?  Maybe.

Would Musk’s “DOGE” commission identify SLS as an example of a poorly performing government program?  Seems more likely.

Will any of this happen and will it make any headway against entrenched SLS interests and the quid pro quos those appropriators owe to other parties?  Hard to say with any certainty.

In any event, he doesn't need to criticize SLS and Orion since it's already obvious that Musk and SpaceX would prefer commercial options for a HLV and BLEO spacecraft.

This is how some or a lot of these quid pro quos will be addressed and changes will happen.  Trump, Musk, and other senior preferences will be known or assumed, and political appointees lower on the totem pole will work to satisfy those real or perceived preferences without any direction from above.  It won’t always be a direct request from Musk to Trump.  Even the new NASA Administrator, FAA Administrator, etc. may take actions that they perceive will keep Musk happy and the White House off their backs without any actual request from Musk.  This is (one way) how power works.