NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[VSECOTSPE]

Did I miss a post or something? Where are you getting the idea that the hatch could not be closed? Goretex pointed out the more likely explanation is that they simply aborted the test out of an abundance of caution.

I don’t disagree with Goretex.  I wrote “whatever was keeping the side hatch from closing”.  That could be the hatch itself or some checkout item or something else. This is the relevant reporting:

Prior to the countdown demonstration test, the agency had planned to conduct a day of launch closeout demonstration. This demonstration was paused when a blemish was found on the crew module thermal barrier, preventing hatch closure until it could be addressed,” the statement read...

It was not clear from the NASA statement how a ‘blemish’ prevented the closure of the hatch and NASA would not say exactly when the countdown rehearsal will take place.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/12/04/orion-hatch-blemish-delays-launch-day-rehearsal-for-artemis-2-astronauts/

They’re not going to launch without the hatch closed.  That’s not the issue.

The issue is that the program ignored a key Apollo 1 lesson, has not addressed that oversight in seven-odd years, and is relying on astronaut agreement just a couple/few months before launch to check that box.  Again, that doesn’t mean there will be another Apollo 1 fire.  But this history (and a lot of other safety-related issues) should fill anyone deciding whether and how long to keep using Orion with tremendous unease.  Managing to get the hatch closed doesn’t fix any of that.

FWIW...

[Phil Stooke]

This may just mean that they couldn't close the hatch until they understood what the blemish was (because then they wouldn't have access to it), rather than 'it was impossible to close the hatch'.

[VSECOTSPE]

I don't think that the commercial lunar crew transport has been abandonned. Isaacman has mentioned several times in recent interviews that a more sustainable alternative to SLS and Orion is necessary. I do expect this to be part of the FY27 Budget once more.

The commercial lunar/Mars line was abandoned after the FY26 PBR was released.  No one at NASA or the WH advocated for it.  No one owned it.  And so it’s not in the FY26 minibus.  Worse, reconciliation threw more billions at Orion/SLS to lock the legacy programs in even longer.

OMB could stick the same or similar commercial lunar/Mars language and funding stream in the FY27 PBR.  But with no concrete direction to pursue such in the President’s latest EO on space, I’m not holding my breath.

Even if commercial lunar/Mars makes a return in the FY27 PBR, the Administrator has to execute to make it reality.  As we saw with Bridenstine, even when the President sets as plain a goal as human lunar return, the Administrator can lose focus and sit on that direction for a year or two until someone in the WH slaps them upside the head.

Through no fault of his own, Isaacman is very, very late to the FY27 PBR process.  He should be sitting with OMB as we type to make some last-minute adjustments in the budget to get what he needs.  I don’t want to make too much of Isaacman’s first days.  But instead of working his budget and programs, the reporting is that he’s off giving joyrides on one of his fighter jets.

Maybe Isaacman will break the astronaut manager mold.  But in my experience having both observed and worked for former astronaut managers at HQ, this is one of their major problems — they can’t stop being astronauts and mini-celebrities instead of staying in the office and putting in the hard, anonymous work of formulating good programs, advocating for them in the budget process, and keeping them well-managed.

Recognizing that Orion/SLS are unsustainable is meaningless without a plan and a budget to create sustainable alternatives and the wherewithal to see both through.  The Trump II Administration and Isaacman can have all the right sentiments on this issue, but unless they get their act together and put those sentiments into action, those words are meaningless.

The idea of putting Orion on a New Glenn rocket in the Athena project document was just an idea to be explored, it wasn't offered as a solution that is ready to be implemented now.

I don’t mean to be preachy, but part of being a manager at NASA or in any ridiculously technical, capital-intensive, and/or multi-thousand person workforce is knowing what you don’t know and can’t do and where to go to get that expertise and capability.  Athena demonstrated that Isaacman doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and either doesn’t have good advisors or ignores them.

He’s never run a workforce anywhere near NASA’s size.  He’s never done hardware development, forget aerospace development.  Aside from a couple small DOD operations contracts, he has no govt experience.  Without that kind of experience, Isaacman is off doing what many folks here do — metaphorically playing Legos or Kerbal with launch vehicle and spacecraft elements that were never meant to work together.  This is the place to do that.  The NASA Administrator’s office is not.  He’s going to create another Orion/Ares I/Constellation if he doesn’t understand his limits and advocate for good programs and process over pet solutions.

FWIW...

[VSECOTSPE]

Note Congress already laid out conditions for ending SLS/Orion, it's not complicated, just need a commercial system which demonstrate equivalent or better capability.

Even if it was bill instead of report language, this is meaningless as a decision gate to get off Orion/SLS.  What defines “capability”?  You or I might say how often and how many astronauts the system can get to lunar orbit within a given amount of time or budget.  SLS advocates will say payload thru lunar C3 per launch, which isn’t terribly relevant to Orion/SLS’s last remaining job but is an argument that SLS can win, especially when Starship or Blue Moon refueling is counted.  And as specious as that argument might be, the congressman with Orion/SLS workforce in their backyards will buy it.

I’m a broken record tonite, but a meaningless decision gate in report language or a PBR proposal that got ignored or a NASA Administrator with commercial instincts is not enough — not by a long shot — to bring Orion/SLS replacements online and kill off the old system.  That’s going to take plans, budgets, and procurements — backed by hard work, focus, consistency, and advocacy — none of which are in evidence or on display.

With any luck, SpaceX's faster HLS proposal already covers this, just need Isaacman's approval and for SpaceX to execute, doesn't even need a new program.

Isaacman has been accused of being in Musk’s back pocket.  He can’t do stuff like this with SpaceX, and if he did, it would just be fuel for the Orion/SLS lobby to ensure that it goes nowhere.

FWIW...

[Vultur]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

Things like Starlink and Amazon LEO have changed the picture. The budget for space stuff is not overwhelmingly government anymore. SLS/Orion may be a waste of taxpayer money (if you don't value the "get back before China gets there" short term goal) but I don't think they're a threat to long term space capability development - they're simply irrelevant to it.

I don't think continuing to direct money to SLS/Orion really hampers the development of Starship or New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring.

[yg1968]

The commercial lunar/Mars line was abandoned after the FY26 PBR was released.  No one at NASA or the WH advocated for it.  No one owned it.  And so it’s not in the FY26 minibus.  Worse, reconciliation threw more billions at Orion/SLS to lock the legacy programs in even longer.

It is in reports to the minibus bill. More specifically, the House and Senate Reports have both been adopted unless they are inconsistent with the explanatory statement. The House and Senate Report both discussed commercial options in addition to SLS and Orion. SLS and Orion can't be cancelled this year but that doesn't mean that NASA can't initiate a commercial lunar and Mars transportation program through HLS or separately. Both the House and Senate seem OK with this. See the language in the following posts: 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717556#msg2717556
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717561#msg2717561

I don’t mean to be preachy, but part of being a manager at NASA or in any ridiculously technical, capital-intensive, and/or multi-thousand person workforce is knowing what you don’t know and can’t do and where to go to get that expertise and capability.  Athena demonstrated that Isaacman doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and either doesn’t have good advisors or ignores them.

Isaacman wrote the Athena plan before being confirmed which means that he was not allowed to discuss it with NASA employees at the time. In any event, commercializing Orion is more LM's problem than his problem. LM should already be thinking about ways of commercializing Orion by using on another LV than SLS. Unlike SLS, LM has accepted that Orion be purchased by NASA for a fixed price starting with Artemis VIII (from what I recall). So there might be some hope for a commercial Orion on a different LV than SLS.

[yg1968]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

NASA would still need to issue requirements for using these commercial transportation services (e.g., for lunar Starship and Mars Starship).

[deltaV]

Even if it was bill instead of report language, this is meaningless as a decision gate to get off Orion/SLS.  What defines “capability”?  You or I might say how often and how many astronauts the system can get to lunar orbit within a given amount of time or budget.  SLS advocates will say payload thru lunar C3 per launch, which isn’t terribly relevant to Orion/SLS’s last remaining job but is an argument that SLS can win, especially when Starship or Blue Moon refueling is counted.  And as specious as that argument might be, the congressman with Orion/SLS workforce in their backyards will buy it.

Yeah Congress bought that silly argument, presumably from SLS advocates. The House report (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20250724/118544/HMKP-119-AP00-20250724-SD002.pdf) says:

The commercial alternative must be capable of delivering no less than 42 metric tons to a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) trajectory, sending astronauts to lunar orbit, and safely returning them to Earth.

42 tonnes to TLI is what SLS block 1B is expected to do in a cargo configuration. I don't think there's anything in Congress's "joint explanatory statement" (https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20260105/Division%20A%20Commerce%20Justice%20Science.pdf) that contradicts the 42 tonnes to TLI requirement so per the joint explanatory statement's language this text will pseudo-bind NASA assuming the minibus is signed into law.

[AS-503]

Perhaps a dumb question, but shouldn't the SLS capability be measured as tons to TLI per launch cadence?
For example 42 tonnes once every two years?
Such that if I have a capability to fly 10 tonnes to TLI 6 times a year (or more) than I exceed the SLS "capability"?

[sstli2]

Perhaps a dumb question, but shouldn't the SLS capability be measured as tons to TLI per launch cadence?
For example 42 tonnes once every two years?
Such that if I have a capability to fly 10 tonnes to TLI 6 times a year (or more) than I exceed the SLS "capability"?

You assume the requirement was made in good faith and that the intention was to accommodate a new launch vehicle. It's just as likely that the requirement was crafted such that no vehicle would actually achieve it except for SLS.

[TheRadicalModerate]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

NASA would still need to issue requirements for using these commercial transportation services (e.g., for lunar Starship and Mars Starship).

More importantly, they need to have authorization and funding to issue a BAA or RFP, receive bids, and make a selection decision.

I'm unclear on how appropriation and the ability to issue a solicitation interact.  If NASA has enough to discretion to issue study contracts for cislunar commercial crew, that would go a long way.  Both SpaceX and Blue must already be thinking about this, so getting the plans on record would be a big step forward.

[Vultur]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

NASA would still need to issue requirements for using these commercial transportation services (e.g., for lunar Starship and Mars Starship).

I wasn't talking specifically about NASA.

I think part of what's at stake is whether NASA is driving things, or whether NASA tied by Congress to SLS/Orion is just kind of a sideshow to the primary action of US space activity.

[TheRadicalModerate]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

NASA would still need to issue requirements for using these commercial transportation services (e.g., for lunar Starship and Mars Starship).

I wasn't talking specifically about NASA.

I think part of what's at stake is whether NASA is driving things, or whether NASA tied by Congress to SLS/Orion is just kind of a sideshow to the primary action of US space activity.

You should be talking specifically about NASA in an Artemis thread.  It's a NASA program.

I think there's a pretty good chance that SpaceX, with Musk's newly-found interest in lunar surface ops, will just send a private crew using their own architecture.  SLS/Orion won't survive that embarrassment, and that will be that.  But there's also the possibility that Elon loses interest in the Moon again, and NASA is left to fend for itself.  If that's the case, then having the right set of contracts in place is essential to making lunar operations sustainable and successful.  We don't have that today.

I don't expect to convince you that the Moon should be higher priority than Mars.  FWIW, I think the Moon is 20% science, 80% economic exploitation, while Mars is 100% science, 0% economic exploitation.  (I think colonization is just flat-out silly, but I could see a fairly bustling science base evolving.)  As for other interplanetary targets, I'd be interested in some NEA work for economic purposes, but any resources outside of Mars's orbit are science fiction with the tech we currently have.

[Vultur]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

NASA would still need to issue requirements for using these commercial transportation services (e.g., for lunar Starship and Mars Starship).

I wasn't talking specifically about NASA.

I think part of what's at stake is whether NASA is driving things, or whether NASA tied by Congress to SLS/Orion is just kind of a sideshow to the primary action of US space activity.

You should be talking specifically about NASA in an Artemis thread.  It's a NASA program.

Sure but that NASA program exists in a context. In the geopolitical context of competition with China, a SpaceX or Blue Origin moonbase or whatever would be seen as an US win whether NASA astronauts were there or not.

I don't expect to convince you that the Moon should be higher priority than Mars. 

I don't really see Moon *versus* Mars being the question in the first place. Once the robust infrastructure to do stuff in space is built, it opens up Moon, Mars, the moons of Mars (also a possible resource source), and probably near-earth asteroids too.

I don't put a lot of stock in economic exploitation of the Moon, but I don't think that is a question that will be, or needs to be, answered in the next 10-15 years while that infrastructure is being built.

[yg1968]

Even if it was bill instead of report language, this is meaningless as a decision gate to get off Orion/SLS.  What defines “capability”?  You or I might say how often and how many astronauts the system can get to lunar orbit within a given amount of time or budget.  SLS advocates will say payload thru lunar C3 per launch, which isn’t terribly relevant to Orion/SLS’s last remaining job but is an argument that SLS can win, especially when Starship or Blue Moon refueling is counted.  And as specious as that argument might be, the congressman with Orion/SLS workforce in their backyards will buy it.

Yeah Congress bought that silly argument, presumably from SLS advocates. The House report (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20250724/118544/HMKP-119-AP00-20250724-SD002.pdf) says:

The commercial alternative must be capable of delivering no less than 42 metric tons to a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) trajectory, sending astronauts to lunar orbit, and safely returning them to Earth.

42 tonnes to TLI is what SLS block 1B is expected to do in a cargo configuration. I don't think there's anything in Congress's "joint explanatory statement" (https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20260105/Division%20A%20Commerce%20Justice%20Science.pdf) that contradicts the 42 tonnes to TLI requirement so per the joint explanatory statement's language this text will pseudo-bind NASA assuming the minibus is signed into law.

To be clear, the language there is just telling NASA that it can't transfer SLS and Orion funds to another program but it doesn't prevent NASA from using other exploration funds to start a commercial lunar and Mars transportation program. Funding for HLS can also be used for such a program.

[yg1968]

But as many here have pointed out, time is of the essence.

Is it really, though?

I'd argue that commercial development of new systems (Starship, New Glenn/Blue Moon/Blue Ring, etc) is already well in progress and pretty much independent of what happens with SLS/Orion. From the perspective of a sustainable presence on the Moon, SLS/Orion is basically irrelevant (though it's key to the "get back before China gets there" short term goal)

NASA would still need to issue requirements for using these commercial transportation services (e.g., for lunar Starship and Mars Starship).

More importantly, they need to have authorization and funding to issue a BAA or RFP, receive bids, and make a selection decision.

I'm unclear on how appropriation and the ability to issue a solicitation interact.  If NASA has enough to discretion to issue study contracts for cislunar commercial crew, that would go a long way.  Both SpaceX and Blue must already be thinking about this, so getting the plans on record would be a big step forward.

As I said above, the language in the Reports to the minibus bill already allows for it. See the following posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717556#msg2717556
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717561#msg2717561

[Proponent]

Perhaps a dumb question, but shouldn't the SLS capability be measured as tons to TLI per launch cadence?
For example 42 tonnes once every two years?
Such that if I have a capability to fly 10 tonnes to TLI 6 times a year (or more) than I exceed the SLS "capability"?

You assume the requirement was made in good faith and that the intention was to accommodate a new launch vehicle. It's just as likely that the requirement was crafted such that no vehicle would actually achieve it except for SLS.

It's highly suspicious when politicians write engineering specs into law. When congress backed the Apollo program in the early 60s, it actually cared about getting to the moon and left the engineering specs to the engineers.

[thespacecow]

Note Congress already laid out conditions for ending SLS/Orion, it's not complicated, just need a commercial system which demonstrate equivalent or better capability. With any luck, SpaceX's faster HLS proposal already covers this, just need Isaacman's approval and for SpaceX to execute, doesn't even need a new program.

That's the committee report.  I'm pretty sure that language didn't make it into the appropriation.  The committee report's not nuthin', but it isn't exactly public law.

The funding level for SLS/Orion/etc is also in the committee report, so they're not public law either, but you know how important they're to Congress. Just goes to show committee report is not to be taken lightly.

[thespacecow]

Note Congress already laid out conditions for ending SLS/Orion, it's not complicated, just need a commercial system which demonstrate equivalent or better capability.

Even if it was bill instead of report language, this is meaningless as a decision gate to get off Orion/SLS.  What defines “capability”?  You or I might say how often and how many astronauts the system can get to lunar orbit within a given amount of time or budget.  SLS advocates will say payload thru lunar C3 per launch, which isn’t terribly relevant to Orion/SLS’s last remaining job but is an argument that SLS can win, especially when Starship or Blue Moon refueling is counted.  And as specious as that argument might be, the congressman with Orion/SLS workforce in their backyards will buy it.

Starship can match any SLS capability, period. The HLS expendable payload through TLI is more than 500 tons (because it needs to carry all the propellant for landing), far far above SLS. Note the report language did not say you have to match the capabilities using a single launch, which is good, since this allows refueling, and with refueling Starship is unbeatable.

I’m a broken record tonite, but a meaningless decision gate in report language or a PBR proposal that got ignored or a NASA Administrator with commercial instincts is not enough — not by a long shot — to bring Orion/SLS replacements online and kill off the old system.  That’s going to take plans, budgets, and procurements — backed by hard work, focus, consistency, and advocacy — none of which are in evidence or on display.

Budget already exists for fast-track HLS, if SpaceX's faster HLS proposal ditches SLS/Orion, then the budget for bringing SLS/Orion replacement online is a done deal.

Yes, it does need hard work, hard work by SpaceX to get Starship HLS actually working, the rest is easy.

With any luck, SpaceX's faster HLS proposal already covers this, just need Isaacman's approval and for SpaceX to execute, doesn't even need a new program.

Isaacman has been accused of being in Musk’s back pocket.  He can’t do stuff like this with SpaceX, and if he did, it would just be fuel for the Orion/SLS lobby to ensure that it goes nowhere.

Isaacman won't be deterred by baseless accusation, if he worries about this he wouldn't be gunning for the job in the first place. As long as he dots all the i's and crosses all the t's, it's a non issue. And he can avoid being seen as pro-SpaceX by approving Blue Origin's faster HLS proposal too and allow Blue Origin to compete for first landing.

Also faster HLS proposal is not even started by him, it's started by Duffy. But more importantly Congress explicitly told NASA to do this in the senate committee report, so it has the congressional support as well:

The Committee remains committed to returning astronauts to
the Moon in 2027. However, spacecraft development and launch
delays are eroding confidence that the United States will be the
next nation to land humans on the lunar surface. In order to ensure
a successful program with an enduring lunar capacity, the
Committee encourages NASA to take all actions necessary, including
enhancement or augmentation of its current architecture to ensure
the quickest and safest return of Astronauts to the moon. The
Committee provides additional funding to afford NASA the flexibility
to accelerate the development of a Human Landing System
[HLS].

Human Landing System.—The Committee provides
$2,092,000,000 to fund the development of two independent HLS
vehicles, the execution of all contracted HLS missions, and the adaptation
of these crewed landers into heavy cargo landing services.
This investment aims to enable sustainable human exploration of
the Moon and lay the groundwork for future Mars missions. NASA
is encouraged to modify existing crewed lunar landing system contracts
as needed to support earlier landing opportunities. Additionally,
NASA shall facilitate accelerated schedules for lunar landing
systems by providing dedicated test facility resources, personnel,
and other appropriate support.

"all actions necessary", basically a blank check.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Note Congress already laid out conditions for ending SLS/Orion, it's not complicated, just need a commercial system which demonstrate equivalent or better capability. With any luck, SpaceX's faster HLS proposal already covers this, just need Isaacman's approval and for SpaceX to execute, doesn't even need a new program.

That's the committee report.  I'm pretty sure that language didn't make it into the appropriation.  The committee report's not nuthin', but it isn't exactly public law.

The funding level for SLS/Orion/etc is also in the committee report, so they're not public law either, but you know how important they're to Congress. Just goes to show committee report is not to be taken lightly.

No, that funding is in the actual "One Big Beautiful" appropriations bill, which was signed into law.