NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[VSECOTSPE]

It's not like the airline industry is some virtuous example of free-market economics.

Point conceded.  It’s not. 

My point is that USG willingness to fund/run an intercity rail passenger service (AMTRAK) that no commercial railroad will run in the face of competition from airlines and interstate highways has certain parallels to the USG’s willingness to fund/run a space transport system (Orion/SLS) that no commercial space company will run in the face of competition from EELV/Vulcan, Falcon/Starship, and New Glenn.  It’s not a perfect analogy.  But if the USG is willing to fund/run AMTRAK for decades, it’s within the realm of possibility that the USG will fund/run Orion/SLS (or some other set of Apollo/STS-derived vehicles) for decades. 

Folks here will argue at times that the USG will come to its senses and Orion/SLS will go away as soon as Starship proves X.  Or that the end of Orion/SLS is a couple sentences in some report language from a bill that never became law.  Or that the world will shift under Orion/SLS because a commercial personality is sitting in the NASA Administrator’s chair.

I’m saying that some of those may be necessary conditions, but alone they’re not sufficient to kill or replace Orion/SLS because, like AMTRAK, Orion/SLS exists for reasons other than efficiency, competitiveness, economics, or common sense.  You can have an outmoded, inefficient, uncompetitive, uneconomic mode of travel, and the USG will still throw billions at it annually and spend untold careers to keep it running so that certain districts, states, and Congress-critters stay happy. 

Overcoming that will be a huge deal, and it will take a helluva lot more focus, drive, and smarts than we’ve seen out of this Administration on NASA over the past year or any other Administration on NASA since and including Bush II.

Hope that helps clarify.  My argument is about the analogous political situation surrounding AMTRAK and Orion/SLS, not whether AMTRAK, Orion/SLS, or the airline industry is the worse money pit.

[Athelstane]

Hey, at least the Northeast Corridor and Auto Train lines are profitable...

[thespacecow]

So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion

No

You're contradicting yourself. In your previous comment you claimed "But waiting until after those milestones [Artemis V (2030+) or Artemis III (2028+)] seems to be the plan, which implies he’s kicking the can to the next NASA Administrator.", but now you're replying "No" to my question "So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion".

Obviously Isaacman CANNOT simultaneously "doing something wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion" AND "waiting until after 2028+/2030+ and kick the can to the next NASA administrator", so which is it?

but it IS evidence that the plan still plays a part in his actions as NASA administrator.

For the purposes of what we’re talking about here, it’s not evidence of anything.  Having PAO invite a couple reporters to a telecon is nowhere near commensurate with pissing off Cruz, going up against the other Orion/SLS supporters in Congress, working with Vought on the dirty work of turning off Orion/SLS funding, working for weeks/months to develop the programmatics/procurements for alternatives, working for years to safely and with dignity ramp down Orion/SLS workforce/faciltities, etc.  It does not follow from a phone call about Orion’s heat shield that a NASA Administrator with a billionaire’s lifestyle also wants to tilt at the windmill that none of his predecessors since at least Griffin succeeded or even tried tilting at themselves.

What ARE we talking about here, exactly? Here you are once again implying Isaacman will do nothing to change the status quo ("It does not follow from a phone call about Orion’s heat shield that a NASA Administrator with a billionaire’s lifestyle also wants to tilt at the windmill"), yet just a few paragraph ago you denied this is your claim by answering "No" to my question "So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion", you can't have it both ways.

BTW, my original comment is meant to provide this information for participants of this forum as a public service, it's not specific to anything "we're talking about here". Readers are free to make up their own mind about how relevant this evidence is to the topics of this thread, they don't need you to tell them what to think.

But more importantly, some of the items above are also in the PBR, specifically the PBR mentioned the following regarding Gateway: "The American components produced to date have substantial potential value and NASA will explore transferring them to other potential users.", this aligns with Project Athena's idea of using Gateway hardware for LEO or nuclear programs.

No one in the commercial space station world or anywhere else has come forward with an interest in Gateway or its components (or to even make variants of Gateway elements for their own stations, which should tell us something).  For better or worse, Trump II’s space nuclear interest is in a specific and unproven kind of lunar surface reactor, not space propulsion, and there’s nowhere near enough time to develop either during the remainder of the Trump II term, anyway.

All that is irrelevant to what I said, please stay on topic or you're free to skip my comment, I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

My original comment is "some [of Artemis predictions from the Athena document] are already in the PBR", how to handle Gateway is one example. I was not commenting on how realistic the plan for Gateway is.

[thespacecow]

1. IF SpaceX proposed to do Artemis III with all SpaceX hardware in their faster HLS proposal, that _is_ a commercial alternative to SLS/Orion, then it would be up to Isaacman to approve it based on existing Congressional language in the FY26 appropriation reports which I outlined and fund it using the existing HLS funding which Congress generously increased beyond PBR.

That funding is for accelerating a lander for Artemis III, not for creating an alternative to Orion/SLS for lunar crew transport, no matter how much you and I wish it was otherwise.

It can be both. SpaceX can reasonably argue that skipping SLS/Orion is how they can accelerate Artemis III lander (by removing the waiting at NRHO and by going to LLO instead NRHO, both would reduce the performance requirement on Starship HLS).

Moreover, if you think congress critters like Cantwell are going to let “their” HLS funding be used for anything other than a lander or on anyone other than their preferred contractor, then I got some lunar real estate I’d like to sell you.

Cantwell has no interest in protecting SLS/Orion, her preferred contractor is Blue Origin, not Boeing/LM. As long as Isaacman also funds Blue Origin's accelerated lander plan for Artemis III, Cantwell has no reason to object, in fact she would support it.

2. Alternatively Isaacman can start the Commercial Moon and Mars Infrastructure and Transportation program in the PBR. Congress didn't explicitly fund this, but didn't forbid it either, and there is a wedge in the exploration funding

Appropriations doesn’t work this way.  NASA can’t spend taxpayer dollars on something just because Congress didn’t explicitly forbid it.  Congress didn’t explicitly forbid a month-long drinking orgy for the NASA workforce in Tijuana, either.  But that doesn’t mean the agency has the flexibility to spend money on such a party.

NASA spending is limited to what’s in appropriations law.  Commercial lunar/Mars died with the FY26 PBR.  The WH and NASA never advocated for it and so it never made it into bill language.  The Administration could try again in FY27, but for the purposes of FY26, commercial lunar/Mars is dead.

You literally contradicted what you said above just a few paragraphs later: "The Administration could always propose a change in NASA’s FY26 operating plan that gets a start on commercial lunar/Mars.", so apparently Appropriations DOES work this way and Commercial lunar/Mars is NOT dead.

And let's stop with the dumb analogies like Tijuana, it serves no purpose except dragging down the intelligence level of the discussion.

BTW FY26 PBR didn't die either, Congress supported several changes in the FY26 PBR, for example cancelling MSR.

Isaacman will need to inform and probably get ok from Congress for these actions, but he - or in general the administration - has to take the initiative first,

The Administration could always propose a change in NASA’s FY26 operating plan that gets a start on commercial lunar/Mars.  But given the WH focus on Artemis III by 2028 and Isaacman’s repeated testimony on Orion/SLS extension to Artemis V, I wouldn’t expect it.

Well then why did you answer "No" to my previous question "So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion"? If you don't expect administration to start commercial lunar/Mars, and you don't expect accelerated HLS to be used to fund SLS/Orion alternative, what DO you expect Isaacman to do wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion?

And if such an op plan change were forthcoming, getting it past appropriations would be a difficult pull that is beyond the lobbying capabilities we’ve seen out of Isaacman and Trump II so far (or Trump I for that matter).

First of all, that is besides the point. The point is whether Isaacman will do something to start commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion. If he did do something like an op plan change, but it got shot down by Congress, then that would still refute your original claim which is "But waiting until after those milestones [Artemis V (2030+) or Artemis III (2028+)] seems to be the plan, which implies he’s kicking the can to the next NASA Administrator." (Side note, it would also refute Jim's claim that "Congress will determine whether NASA does anything wrt commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion, not Isaacman.", because in this scenario both Isaacman and Congress will need to make a decision, Isaacman has to decide whether to make the op plan change, and Congress has to decide whether to allow it)

As for whether Congress will allow commercial Lunar/Mars transportation program to happen, I'm fairly confident they will. Like I said many times before: Let's just wait and see what happens.

[VSECOTSPE]

He has been putting the long hours. See this post which says that "Isaacman is working around the clock":

This is piddling, but that’s not what the post says.  Isaacman wrote that he’s “surrounded by incredible people who are working around the clock”, not that “I’m working around the clock”.  It’s just a statement of obvious fact — there are always multiple teams on the job round the clock at NASA because there are always multiple spacecraft operating round the clock at NASA.  It’s a nice, well-meaning but ultimately meaningless sop to a workforce that’s been somewhat brutalized by this Administration over the past year.  He’s using platitudes to show a little appreciation and get the workforce a little more on his side when they have little reason to be on the side of anyone nominated by this WH after what this WH has put them through.  It’s making a bit of amends.  It has nothing to do with the hours Isaacman is or is not putting in.

It's not a theory, it's already in the FY26 House and the Senate reports

Those reports don’t say what you think they do.  And/or there’s no funding.  Here’s the report texts you highlighted in your linked thread:

Of the amounts made available for Mars exploration, NASA shall prioritize and accelerate the development of commercial systems capable of performing entry, descent, and landing of human class cargo and later crew on Mars, with a goal of a launching an initial system demonstration to Mars by the 2026 Earth-Mars transfer window.

There’s almost certainly no ESDMD money for Mars beyond the usual small planning amount.  The final mark for Exploration in the minibus is some half-billion less than the request.  (And there’s certainly still no way of meeting the 2026 window.)

So coming up with the ESDMD money for a near-term human-scale Mars cargo lander demo is almost certainly going to require an Op Plan change.  Once Isaacman learns what Op Plans are, is he really going to take money from the other parts of Artemis feeding Artemis III by 2028 for a Mars lander?  That’s the priority in the President’s latest EO on space — land astronauts on the Moon by 2028 — that Isaacman was given the day he was inaugurated, not put a big cargo lander on Mars.  That’s going to take precedence over report language.

There’s also $110M in SMD for Future Mars work.  But that’s for robotic science missions, not a human-scale cargo lander. 

As NASA considers deep space exploration, including Mars, the Committee directs NASA to leverage existing HLS contracts and investments when developing deep space capabilities.

This language doesn’t say “Provided $XXXM from HLS funding to procure lunar crew transport commercially” or “Provided $YYYM from HLS funding to demonstrate a human-scale cargo lander at Mars”.  Practically speaking, “deep space capabilities” could be anything.

What this language says is that when NASA is doing future exploration planning, it should make sure that the HLS incumbent contractors are in the mix.  It’s a soft-pedaled version of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act language that required the use of Constellation contracts and workforce in Orion and SLS.  But that 2010 bill language also said go do Orion and SLS at these dollars and here’s what else those programs should look like.  This report language doesn’t say to go do anything.  If it did, it would be in bill language.

For long-term deep space exploration, including Mars, NASA is directed to leverage existing contracts and investments to develop robust deep space capabilities.

Same as directly above.

... use of commercial innovation, fixed-price development partnerships, and follow-on procurement of commercial services.

This language doesn’t say to go do anything specific programmatically.  It just demonstrates a preference for certain procurement tools.

Again, this is all report language from a draft bill twice removed from the final bill.  It’s not law.  It’s not even report language associated with the law.  It’s earlier work product.  It’s unenforceable unless some champion on appropriations really wants to see it carried out, and there’s no champion for a big Mars lander or commercial lunar crew.  Cantwell et al aren’t going to let HLS funding go to these things, there’s probably no substantive Mars exploration budget after the request got whacked by a half billion, and even if there was, a lunar landing by 2028 is now Isaacman’s marching orders, not a big cargo landing on Mars.

Isaacman even said during the press conference of today that the architecture for Artemis will eventually change. He has said it several times.

[sarcasm on]
Ohhh... he said “eventually”?!?!  Several times, you say?!?!
[/sarcasm off]

Yawn... what is Isaacman going to do during his tenure — in the next couple years — to change that architecture?  I can tell you that twice endorsing under oath the extension of Orion/SLS thru Artemis V in 2030+ ain’t it.

When and on what pace will the Orion/SLS workforce be drawn down? 

How and when will alternative lunar crew transport capabilities be procured?

The issue of transitioning Artemis off Orion/SLS really boils down to those two questions.  And if the NASA Administrator can’t answer those questions and articulate why his answers are the right ones, then he is not in the Orion/SLS replacement game, no matter how many times he uses the adverb “eventually”.

Sigh...

[VSECOTSPE]

Obviously Isaacman CANNOT simultaneously "doing something wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion" AND "waiting until after 2028+/2030+ and kick the can to the next NASA administrator", so which is it?

Based on Isaacman’s testimony and the President’s EO, I do not expect Isaacman/Trump II to start work on alternatives to Orion/SLS during this Administration’s remaining tenure, which ends 1/29.  I expect them to kick this can to their successors because they are focused on Artemis III in 2028+ and they support Orion/SLS thru Artemis V in 2030+.

What ARE we talking about here, exactly? Here you are once again implying Isaacman will do nothing to change the status quo ("It does not follow from a phone call about Orion’s heat shield that a NASA Administrator with a billionaire’s lifestyle also wants to tilt at the windmill"), yet just a few paragraph ago you denied this is your claim by answering "No" to my question "So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion", you can't have it both ways.

Based on Isaacman’s testimony and the President’s EO, I do not expect Isaacman to start work on alternatives to Orion/SLS during his remaining tenure, which ends 1/29. 

A request that a couple journalists join a telecon is not germaine to that assessment.

BTW, my original comment is meant to provide this information for participants of this forum as a public service, it's not specific to anything "we're talking about here". Readers are free to make up their own mind about how relevant this evidence is to the topics of this thread, they don't need you to tell them what to think.

You argued that a request for attendance at a telecon was evidence that a much larger plan would be followed in the weeks and months to come.  I pointed out that it was just an invitation to a telecon.

All that is irrelevant to what I said, please stay on topic or you're free to skip my comment, I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake.

You quoted language regarding the repurposing of Gateway for other users, and then argued that this aligned thoughts in Isaacman’s plan regarding that LEO and nuclear applications.  I pointed out that there is no interest in Gateway among the commercial space station crowd and that the Administration’s nuclear plans for NASA are focused on a lunar surface reactor.

It can be both. SpaceX can reasonably argue that skipping SLS/Orion is how they can accelerate Artemis III lander (by removing the waiting at NRHO and by going to LLO instead NRHO, both would reduce the performance requirement on Starship HLS).

HLS is the long tentpole for Artemis III, not Orion/SLS.

Cantwell has no interest in protecting SLS/Orion, her preferred contractor is Blue Origin, not Boeing/LM. As long as Isaacman also funds Blue Origin's accelerated lander plan for Artemis III, Cantwell has no reason to object, in fact she would support it.

Cantwell is interested in more money for Blue, not acceleration absent money.  She’s not going to let Blue HLS money be repurposed for lunar crew transport even if Blue is the contractor for both.  She’ll want more money for Blue to provide the lunar crew transport function.

You literally contradicted what you said above just a few paragraphs later

There’s no contradiction.  The Administration cannot create new programs or programmatic content that deviates from bill language without Congressional blessing.  That blessing can come from bill language in a final appropriations bill or from an op plan change request.  The latter is frowned upon, rare, and usually requires exigencies that are not present here.

Anything could happen in future op plans — they’re in the future — but I wouldn’t bet on this.

BTW FY26 PBR didn't die either, Congress supported several changes in the FY26 PBR, for example cancelling MSR.

The commercial lunar/Mars stuff died in FY26.  If Congress had funded it, there’d be bill language like “Provided $XXXM to procure crew transport to the Moon on commercially vehicles” or “Provided $YYYM to demonstrate the landing of a human-scale cargo vehicle on Mars”.

Well then why did you answer "No" to my previous question "So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion"? If you don't expect administration to start commercial lunar/Mars, and you don't expect accelerated HLS to be used to fund SLS/Orion alternative, what DO you expect Isaacman to do wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion?

Based on Isaacman’s testimony and the President’s EO, I do not expect Isaacman/Trump II to start work on alternatives to Orion/SLS during this Administration’s remaining tenure, which ends 1/29.  I expect them to kick this can to their successors because they are focused on Artemis III in 2028+ and they support Orion/SLS thru Artemis V in 2030+.

The point is whether Isaacman will do something to start commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion. If he did do something like an op plan change, but it got shot down by Congress, then that would still refute your original claim which is "But waiting until after those milestones [Artemis V (2030+) or Artemis III (2028+)] seems to be the plan, which implies he’s kicking the can to the next NASA Administrator."

The plan in the EO and Isaacman’s testimony above intentionally or unintentionally kicks the can on Orion/SLS replacement to the next Administration/Administrator.

This Administration changed its mind once.  It went from the FY26 PBR to embracing Cruz’s additions to the reconciliation bill.  This Administration is not known for its consistency, and it could change its mind once again.  For the sake of completeness, I noted that change could start in an Op Plan (or the FY27 PBR or even a supplemental appropriation request).  But I would not bet on it given the EO and Isaacman’s testimony and how difficult it is to start new programs thru some of these mechanisms.

(Side note, it would also refute Jim's claim that "Congress will determine whether NASA does anything wrt commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion, not Isaacman.", because in this scenario both Isaacman and Congress will need to make a decision, Isaacman has to decide whether to make the op plan change, and Congress has to decide whether to allow it)

Jim’s right.  The White House proposes (the Op Plan has to be blessed by OMB before heading to Congress).  Congress disposes.

As for whether Congress will allow commercial Lunar/Mars transportation program to happen, I'm fairly confident they will.

Programs don’t “happen”.  Congress doesn’t “allow” programs to “happen”.  Congress has to explicitly provide the Administration with the authority to start a program and the funding to run it.

[yg1968]

He has been putting the long hours. See this post which says that "Isaacman is working around the clock":

This is piddling, but that’s not what the post says.

It's in the post to which Isaacman was replying. This one:

https://x.com/mouthofmorrison/status/2010032880668590420

Spoke to a NASA staffer yesterday and asked how she feels:
- Isaacman is working around the clock
- She’s been formally asked, for the first time in seven years, “how is bureaucracy holding you back, and how can I help?”
- She’s never been more excited to work at NASA

So coming up with the ESDMD money for a near-term human-scale Mars cargo lander demo is almost certainly going to require an Op Plan change.  Once Isaacman learns what Op Plans are, is he really going to take money from the other parts of Artemis feeding Artemis III by 2028 for a Mars lander?  That’s the priority in the President’s latest EO on space — land astronauts on the Moon by 2028 — that Isaacman was given the day he was inaugurated, not put a big cargo lander on Mars.  That’s going to take precedence over report language.

Thanks for your detailed response. My thinking is that was that a program could be started towards the end of FY26, so you wouldn't need that much money. I was also thinking that it would be a services type of contract (without any funding for development), so you wouldn't need as much funding because of that also. I would start with a cargo program which could be called CMPS or something else. From my very quick calculations, there is about $1.2B of deep space explorations funding that is not directed towards a particular program.

In terms of HLS, I would expand the HLS Services phase to allow NASA to purchase crew and cargo transportation services from SpaceX or Blue from the Earth to the Moon or Mars. Musk recently said that trying to land cargo on Mars in 2026 would be a distraction, so they are not going to try to land cargo on Mars until 2028. So that means that they are not sending crew to Mars until 2030. That may seem far in the future but NASA should at least provide its requirements for crew transportation to the Moon and Mars now, so that SpaceX knows what requirements, it will need to meet for NASA to purchase its services in 2030. This would not require much funding but it would at least start the process for post-Artemis V missions.

I agree that the funding and the language in the Reports isn't perfect but it still seems broad enough for Isaacman and NASA to start something like that without asking for a change to the operation plan (which probably wouldn't be accepted).

When and on what pace will the Orion/SLS workforce be drawn down? 

How and when will alternative lunar crew transport capabilities be procured?

The issue of transitioning Artemis off Orion/SLS really boils down to those two questions.  And if the NASA Administrator can’t answer those questions and articulate why his answers are the right ones, then he is not in the Orion/SLS replacement game, no matter how many times he uses the adverb “eventually”.

Isaacman didn't actually say "eventually" (I was paraphrasing) but he was talking about the fact that he would like there to be an Artemis 100 mission but he then added that the architecture would likely change but that NASA would still be sending astronauts to the Moon because we are going to the Moon to stay. He has also said in recent interviews that commercial alternatives will be available starting with Artemis III and that NASA should take advantage of these.

In terms of transitioning away from SLS and Orion after Artemis V, the language in the explanatory statement says that SLS and Orion funding can only be transferred once that a commercial alternative is ready. To me that means that Congress doesn't want SLS and Orion to be cancelled for now but that they are OK with NASA funding alternatives with other deep space human exploration funding. The fact that the Big Beautiful Bill only funds SLS and Orion until Artemis V makes me think that the cancelation of SLS and Orion after Artemis V would be possible. However, this is language that would need to be included again in the FY27 Budget for cancelation after Artemis V to be possible.

[yg1968]

Programs don’t “happen”.  Congress doesn’t “allow” programs to “happen”.  Congress has to explicitly provide the Administration with the authority to start a program and the funding to run it.

I think that the language in the House and the Senate reports are broad enough to expand HLS (and CLPS) to become what the President proposed in his request. As you know, these reports are essentially a response to the President's request and the way that I read them is that Congress left the door wide open to the President's proposals on commercial cargo and crew transportation to the Moon and Mars. As you know, to fully understand the text in these reports, you need to read what was initially proposed in the President's request and how Congress reacted to that request (i.e., the President's budget request is part of the context that needs to be taken into account to fully understand what the reports are saying). The President can't cancel SLS and Orion in FY26 but that doesn't mean that commercial options can't be initiated in FY26, especially if it's done by expanding existing programs. 

[Khadgars]

I've been following this program since 2007, I remember countless times it was said SLS was vaporware and would never fly.  Somehow its survived 5 administrations and here we are on the cusp of the first crewed mission.  Just excited its finally here 

[Coastal Ron]

So coming up with the ESDMD money for a near-term human-scale Mars cargo lander demo is almost certainly going to require an Op Plan change.  Once Isaacman learns what Op Plans are, is he really going to take money from the other parts of Artemis feeding Artemis III by 2028 for a Mars lander?  That’s the priority in the President’s latest EO on space — land astronauts on the Moon by 2028 — that Isaacman was given the day he was inaugurated, not put a big cargo lander on Mars.  That’s going to take precedence over report language.

Thanks for your detailed response. My thinking is that was that a program could be started towards the end of FY26, so you wouldn't need that much money.

No one (especially you  ) is in a position to even start estimating how much money will be required, because THERE IS NO PLAN. No details for anyone to develop anything close to scientific wild ass guesses (SWAG).

So the big question is, when will Isaacman put together a team that can develop a plan in enough detail that contractors will feel safe in bidding?

In terms of HLS, I would expand the HLS Services phase to allow NASA to purchase crew and cargo transportation services from SpaceX or Blue from the Earth to the Moon or Mars.

I've mentioned this before, but you continue to think that all it takes is a change of wording in a contract to go from our Moon to the surface of Mars. That all things considered, going to either location is about as easy. That is like a hiker thinking that all they have to do is master summiting the local hill, and they will be ready for summiting Mount Everest.

In other words, you are vastly underestimating how much work NASA needs to do to even start estimating what it will take to land humans on Mars, and because of that you seem to be believing the PR emanating from NASA regarding such "progress". It is still way too early to understand what Isaacman will be able to accomplish, especially if there is a change in leadership in Congress next year.

Musk recently said that trying to land cargo on Mars in 2026 would be a distraction, so they are not going to try to land cargo on Mars until 2028. So that means that they are not sending crew to Mars until 2030.

I am a long-time SpaceX supporter, and I think eventually SpaceX (if anyone) will figure out how to land humans on Mars. But the reality of the Starship program is that progress is far slower than what Elon Musk has been wishing for, or wants to acknowledge, and I think they will want/need more than one series of Starship landing successfully on Mars before they commit to sending humans.

That may seem far in the future but NASA should at least provide its requirements for crew transportation to the Moon and Mars now, so that SpaceX knows what requirements, it will need to meet for NASA to purchase its services in 2030.

As a reminder, SpaceX is going to Mars FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. If NASA wants to buy a ticket, great, but it isn't NASA that is driving the requirements, it is SpaceX. And if NASA wants changes to what SpaceX is doing, then they will need to pony up a lot of money for that, because a Moon version of the Starship is costing $2.9B.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, NASA HAS NO IDEA WHAT THEY WANT for Mars. None. Only concepts of a plan, but no plan. That will take time - years if they are thoughtful, and Congress will need to fund that. It won't be cheap.

This would not require much funding but it would at least start the process for post-Artemis V missions.

I'm not sure you are good at estimating things, and no one can estimate something that doesn't exist. So the first thing you should wish for is that Isaacman will put together a team of his (now) super motivated NASA workers to start coming up with a plan. Something well thought out so that our aerospace industry can provide feedback and the plan can eventually be something Congress will allocate money to. But until there is a plan, it is just wishes...

[Coastal Ron]

I've been following this program since 2007...

The SLS and Orion MPCV programs were created in 2010, and Artemis was created in 2017. So maybe you meant 2017?

I remember countless times it was said SLS was vaporware and would never fly.

The comments about "vaporware" that I remember at the time were about alternatives to the SLS, which was the justification for building the SLS (i.e. that there were no alternatives). Although that was kind of a self-licking ice cream cone justification (i.e. we must build the SLS because there is no alternative to it  ).

The actual sentiment about the SLS was that it was too expensive, and it was the wrong solution. That it shouldn't fly. And I remember specifically writing on the NSF SLS forum that I had no doubt that Boeing could build a safe vehicle, and given enough time and money that it would fly.

And look, it only took $55B (SLS+Orion) and has only taken 15 years to send four people around our Moon. Hopefully safely.

It appears the concerns about cost and schedule were not wrong...

[yg1968]

I've mentioned this before, but you continue to think that all it takes is a change of wording in a contract to go from our Moon to the surface of Mars. That all things considered, going to either location is about as easy. That is like a hiker thinking that all they have to do is master summiting the local hill, and they will be ready for summiting Mount Everest.

In other words, you are vastly underestimating how much work NASA needs to do to even start estimating what it will take to land humans on Mars, and because of that you seem to be believing the PR emanating from NASA regarding such "progress". It is still way too early to understand what Isaacman will be able to accomplish, especially if there is a change in leadership in Congress next year.

You don't understand what I am saying. The reason to do it within the HLS program (as part of the services phase) or by expanding CLPS to Mars (CMPS) is to avoid having to create a new program which is more difficult from an appropriations perspective.

Part of the reason for expanding these programs would be to allow NASA to buy cargo and crew transportation services from SpaceX when SpaceX goes to Mars. I also expect SpaceX to offer crew transportation services to the Moon once that it offers crew transportation services to Mars. So expanding HLS and CLPS would allow NASA to buy these services. Right now, NASA couldn't purchase these services from SpaceX (or Blue), even if it wanted to do so.

As a reminder, SpaceX is going to Mars FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. If NASA wants to buy a ticket, great, but it isn't NASA that is driving the requirements, it is SpaceX. And if NASA wants changes to what SpaceX is doing, then they will need to pony up a lot of money for that, because a Moon version of the Starship is costing $2.9B.

It seems likely that NASA would impose certain requirements on SpaceX if it were to purchase from them crew transportation services from the Earth to the Moon or Mars. Are you suggesting that there should be no NASA requirements? That seems unlikely. All I am saying is that NASA needs to make it possible for NASA to buy cargo transportation to Mars and crew transportation to the Moon and Mars because it isn't possible for them to do so now.

Incidentally, the HLS-Starship for Artemis IV is $1.15B (and this includes funding for its development), so each HLS mission is not $2.9B.

[TheRadicalModerate]

It can be both. SpaceX can reasonably argue that skipping SLS/Orion is how they can accelerate Artemis III lander (by removing the waiting at NRHO and by going to LLO instead NRHO, both would reduce the performance requirement on Starship HLS).

HLS is the long tentpole for Artemis III, not Orion/SLS.

I think spacecow's argument is that moving from NRHO to LLO makes Starship HLS less of a long pole, because it improves the mass margins on Starship HLS enough that it removes a lot of development risk.  I tend to agree with that argument.

If you burden an HLS based on Starship v3 with boiloff, FPR, sump/ullage losses, etc., you either have to live with extremely narrow mass margins or commit to the HEEO "final transfer orbit" conops, one of which has big development risks, while the other has big operational risks. 

If, on the other hand, you use the two-HLS+D2 architecture:

- D2 does ES-LEO-RPOD(HLS1)-loiter-RPOD(HLS1)-EDL

- HLS1 does ES-LEO-refuel-RPOD(D2)-LLO-RPOD(HLS2)-loiter-RPOD(HLS2)-LEOpropulsive-RPOD(D2)

- HLS2 does ES-LEO-refuel-BLT-LLO-loiter(90days)-RPOD(HLS1)-LS-LLO-RPOD(HLS1)-dispose

...then your mass margins are fine, all refueling occurs in LEO, and there's very little to do to crew-certify the whole conops, because HLS Starship has to be crew-certified for in-space and lunar surface ops, and D2 is already certified.

So a better way to put the argument is: the removal of SLS/Orion, and its replacement with a D2+second HLS, actually shortens the HLS schedule.  Kind of a counterintuitive, but still possibly valid, argument.

Team SLS will not be sympathetic to this argument, of course.  But there's a non-trivial chance that SpaceX will simply present it as a fait accompli.

[sdsds]

[details of two-HLS+D2 architecture omitted for brevity but worth reading]

Team SLS will not be sympathetic to this argument, of course.  But there's a non-trivial chance that SpaceX will simply present it as a fait accompli.

NASA doesn't seem like the kind of organization that is inclined to put all its eggs in one high-risk basket. Until of course the feat has actually been accomplished! ;-)

[Greg Hullender]

- D2 does ES-LEO-RPOD(HLS1)-loiter-RPOD(HLS1)-EDL

- HLS1 does ES-LEO-refuel-RPOD(D2)-LLO-RPOD(HLS2)-loiter-RPOD(HLS2)-LEOpropulsive-RPOD(D2)

- HLS2 does ES-LEO-refuel-BLT-LLO-loiter(90days)-RPOD(HLS1)-LS-LLO-RPOD(HLS1)-dispose

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but might it make more sense to have HLS2 loiter in a different orbit just to reduce boiloff? Maybe not NRHO, and maybe not LL1, but something higher than LLO.

Also, I gather the plan is to dispose of both HLS vehicles, correct? Neither is going to have TPS.

[DanClemmensen]

- D2 does ES-LEO-RPOD(HLS1)-loiter-RPOD(HLS1)-EDL

- HLS1 does ES-LEO-refuel-RPOD(D2)-LLO-RPOD(HLS2)-loiter-RPOD(HLS2)-LEOpropulsive-RPOD(D2)

- HLS2 does ES-LEO-refuel-BLT-LLO-loiter(90days)-RPOD(HLS1)-LS-LLO-RPOD(HLS1)-dispose

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but might it make more sense to have HLS2 loiter in a different orbit just to reduce boiloff? Maybe not NRHO, and maybe not LL1, but something higher than LLO.

Also, I gather the plan is to dispose of both HLS vehicles, correct? Neither is going to have TPS.

Early HLSs will not be reused. Later HLSs will not EDL but may be refilled and re-provisioned in space instead of being disposed of.

[TheRadicalModerate]

- D2 does ES-LEO-RPOD(HLS1)-loiter-RPOD(HLS1)-EDL

- HLS1 does ES-LEO-refuel-RPOD(D2)-LLO-RPOD(HLS2)-loiter-RPOD(HLS2)-LEOpropulsive-RPOD(D2)

- HLS2 does ES-LEO-refuel-BLT-LLO-loiter(90days)-RPOD(HLS1)-LS-LLO-RPOD(HLS1)-dispose

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but might it make more sense to have HLS2 loiter in a different orbit just to reduce boiloff? Maybe not NRHO, and maybe not LL1, but something higher than LLO.

Kinda depends on how the boiloff-control is implemented, and how well it works, but it's a fair point.

The constraint is you want HLS2 checked-out and qualified in an accessible orbit before HLS1 departs with the crew from LEO.  As a practical matter, that probably means that there's at least 30 days between its arrival in the crew-transfer orbit and the arrival of the crew in HLS1.  But it might be fine to capture HLS2 from some BLT into a higher orbit, to avoid albedo and re-radiation from the Moon. 

However, while margins on HLS2 are fairly comfortable, they're not so comfortable that you'd want to add gobs of extra delta-v requirements to its mission.  Staying fairly close to LLO is what gives it the margins it needs.

Also, I gather the plan is to dispose of both HLS vehicles, correct? Neither is going to have TPS.

Well, not necessarily.  HLS1, which is essentially an LEO-LLO-LEO ferry, can theoretically be reused for several missions, with the D2 bringing up crew-transferred consumables for its crew's mission.  (This "oops we're gonna have ices in the LOX from combustion products" thing might be an impediment to re-use...)

I think it's much better to load deployable cargo into HLS2's garage, launch it to LLO, and wait for the crew to deploy the cargo on the surface.  Most heavy cargo will be autonomously deployed off of one-way HDL landers, but I could see a bunch of delicate, fiddly experiments that could benefit from a human touch.  But none of that should impede HLS1 from being a multi-mission platform (other than the ices!).

[Will O Wisp]

I’m not saying Isaacman is lazy, but I think he knows to pick his fights.  And when he looked at the political landscape surrounding Orion/SLS — strong congressional support beyond his tenure, weak WH will to change anything during Trump II — I think he decided to push an Orion/SLS transition to his successor.

You think Issacman isn't going work towards cancelling SLS because it's not worth the political fight, even if he wins. I think Issacman isn't going to work towards cancelling SLS because he'll lose. Either way Issacman decided not to move in that direction, so I suppose it doesn't matter which one is true in the end.

What will be telling is if he's willing to see about setting his successors up for success. There is still room to start funding early stage funding for manned commercial options to LEO, even LLO. That could mean the difference between SLS getting canceled after Artemis V, or dragging onwards into the late 2030s and beyond.

No, this Republican majority Congress has been intimidated by and very compliant with the wishes of the Trump II WH.  They’ve held their noses and confirmed much less qualified and some outright disqualified nominees for much more important positions.  Isaacman for NASA Administrator was an easy swallow by comparison.

We're getting to the point where even Republicans are starting to get frustrated by the wild gyrations of this administration, especially in the Senate. The trust is no longer there.

We can't know what backroom deals got made or what was said behind closed doors, but renominating Issacman was a comedown from an administration that doesn't often like to be seen as reversing itself. I doubt it was a decision made completely willingly.

I’m no fan of Vought, but if I was Isaacman, I’d be working with him to use some of the same tools used against NASA Science to turn off the funding streams for outyear Orion/SLS launches and to realign/repurpose funding for alternatives and other priorities.  Vought wants to be a foil for unitary executive power.  Fine, point him in the right direction.

If you make a deal with the devil, don't be surprised if you get burned...

Not to say OMB are devils, or that agencies shouldn't work with them, but I would not trust Vought at all. He's stated, plainly, that his goal is to use budget reallocation to reshape American culture and society. Putting NASA on the frontline of the culture war will do nothing but hurt it.

The better option is to just stay under the radar, don't try to make any major moves immediately, and set NASA up for future success.

[Coastal Ron]

I've mentioned this before, but you continue to think that all it takes is a change of wording in a contract to go from our Moon to the surface of Mars. That all things considered, going to either location is about as easy. That is like a hiker thinking that all they have to do is master summiting the local hill, and they will be ready for summiting Mount Everest.

In other words, you are vastly underestimating how much work NASA needs to do to even start estimating what it will take to land humans on Mars, and because of that you seem to be believing the PR emanating from NASA regarding such "progress". It is still way too early to understand what Isaacman will be able to accomplish, especially if there is a change in leadership in Congress next year.

You don't understand what I am saying. The reason to do it within the HLS program (as part of the services phase) or by expanding CLPS to Mars (CMPS) is to avoid having to create a new program which is more difficult from an appropriations perspective.

Right, why involve Congress when you don't have to... 

Two obvious problems with that:

1. Congress is not stupid, and since they control the legislation that says what taxpayer money can be spent on, they are going to notice if/when someone in OMB sticks a line item in their budget request that says "Mars". Questions will be asked, such as "Do you have a plan for Mars?"

2. NASA can't go to Mars, without wasting a LOT of taxpayer money, without FIRST developing a fairly detailed plan. In fact NO ONE can go to Mars without first developing a fairly detailed plan. And I say this as someone that has developed plans before for a living.

I'll give you an example. You say you want a Mars version of the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS). What are the payloads? How quickly do they need to get to the surface of Mars? Where on Mars are they going? What are the temperature requirements for the payloads? What are the G-forces for the payloads? What is the largest size payload both in mass and in volume?

To determine any of that, you need a plan.

Part of the reason for expanding these programs would be to allow NASA to buy cargo and crew transportation services from SpaceX when SpaceX goes to Mars.

It is highly unlikely that SpaceX is sending humans to Mars before 2030, so there is no rush on asking Congress for an appropriation regarding buying a ticket from SpaceX for cargo and crew going to Mars. NASA talks to SpaceX all the time, and when the time comes for SpaceX to offer up the opportunity, NASA will be able to find out what SpaceX plans to charge.

But the bottom line here is that you don't seem to want Congress involved. You want this to be some sort of secret effort, with NASA having some sort of slush fund. Why don't you think Congress wouldn't want to buy room on the first Starships taking cargo and crew to Mars? Weird.

I also expect SpaceX to offer crew transportation services to the Moon once that it offers crew transportation services to Mars. So expanding HLS and CLPS would allow NASA to buy these services. Right now, NASA couldn't purchase these services from SpaceX (or Blue), even if it wanted to do so.

Don't worry, NASA Administrator Isaacman is working night and day to solve all these issues, so when the times comes to ask Congress for funding, Isaacman will have everything worked out - without the need to keep Congress in the dark.

As a reminder, SpaceX is going to Mars FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. If NASA wants to buy a ticket, great, but it isn't NASA that is driving the requirements, it is SpaceX. And if NASA wants changes to what SpaceX is doing, then they will need to pony up a lot of money for that, because a Moon version of the Starship is costing $2.9B.

It seems likely that NASA would impose certain requirements on SpaceX if it were to purchase from them crew transportation services from the Earth to the Moon or Mars. Are you suggesting that there should be no NASA requirements?

First of all, remember that NASA doesn't have statutory authority over SpaceX going to Mars, that would be other U.S. Government agencies (FAA, etc.).

Second, as a potential customer for SpaceX, NASA can ask for anything they want. But SpaceX doesn't have to agree to it. And anything that is non-standard that SpaceX does agree to will need to be paid for by NASA. Which again is something that will need to go through Congress, since it is likely to be a significant amount.

I say "significant amount" because Elon Musk is a hustler, and there are many countries around the world that would LOVE to be part of the first landing of humanity on Mars. So there could actually be a bidding war, though I think Musk will make sure that NASA will have a spot - but it will likely be the "going rate", based on demand. And that is OK with government procurement rules.

All I am saying is that NASA needs to make it possible for NASA to buy cargo transportation to Mars and crew transportation to the Moon and Mars because it isn't possible for them to do so now.

NASA buys transportation all the time - the U.S. Government buys special transportation all the time. So when the time comes that SpaceX is ready to start taking orders, NASA will know what to do. You don't have to invent new ways that may be legally dubious... 

[TheRadicalModerate]

You think Issacman isn't going work towards cancelling SLS because it's not worth the political fight, even if he wins. I think Issacman isn't going to work towards cancelling SLS because he'll lose. Either way Issacman decided not to move in that direction, so I suppose it doesn't matter which one is true in the end.

Those aren't the only two choices.  He could also go limp on SLS, but work to put a commercial cislunar program in place.  It doesn't have to cost very much.