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... 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).
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.
but that doesn't mean that commercial options can't be initiated in FY26, especially if it's done by expanding existing programs.
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.
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 Administrator Jared Isaacman said Jan. 30 that the agency is prepared to support those efforts. “We are going to do everything we can to enable the acceleration plans that were submitted by both HLS providers,” he said in an interview with SpaceNews.“We are willing to rethink a lot of our requirements in order to achieve the objective on time,” he said. “We are willing to make available any resources and expertise that we have in order to better set those missions up for success.”Asked about the acceleration plans during a Jan. 17 news conference tied to the Artemis 2 rollout, Isaacman praised both companies’ proposals without providing details.“These are both very good plans. I would say they both reduce technical risk from where we were before,” he said. He added that a key factor will be increased launch rates to demonstrate technologies such as in-space propellant transfer, which is critical for both the Blue Moon Mark 2 lander and SpaceX’s Starship.“So, I’d say if we’re on track, we should be watching an awful lot of New Glenns and Starships launch in the years ahead.”
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.
Actually I explicitly stated that this is not what I'm implying: "I never claimed this single event can 100% assure us that he'll follow the plan completely", what I said was: "it IS evidence that the plan still plays a part in his actions as NASA administrator." and I stand by this statement.
Oh, and it's no longer just an invitation to a telecon now, as the Workforce Directive he just sent out to all of NASA on Jan 14th also comes from Project Athena.
@TheRadicalModerate already explained this. SLS/Orion not being the long pole and whether removing them can accelerate the lander are two separate issues, one does not lead to the other.
There _is_ more money, as I said Congress increased HLS funding beyond what is requested in PBR, for the explicit purpose of speed up the lander
You stated: "NASA spending is limited to what’s in appropriations law.", but now you're saying NASA CAN create new program - with its associated spending - by making an op plan change request and get approval from Congress, which by definition is NOT "limited to what’s in appropriations law"
BTW, as I said earlier, recent bill language doesn't even cover SLS/Orion, they are in the report instead. And many new programs are not in the bill language, for example HLS never appeared in the bill language, they were only mentioned in report.
they don't put individual programs in bill language any more, it's all in the report.
No, he's wrong, and your comment says he's wrong.
VSE also envisioned the Ares V launch vehicle, but never implemented it.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/21/2026 05:27 amI have a couple of questions if anyone knows the answer. Right now Earth is getting hit with a major solar storm. The predictions are for a good show of northern lights for much of the country tonight. Am I safe in assuming that Artemis II wouldn't launch during such an event?maybe this helpshttps://www.nasa.gov/artemis-ii-press-kit/QuoteSolar ActivityDo not launch during severe or extreme solar activity resulting in increased density of solar energetic particles with the potential to damage electronic circuits and make radio communication with the launch vehicle difficult or impossible.
I have a couple of questions if anyone knows the answer. Right now Earth is getting hit with a major solar storm. The predictions are for a good show of northern lights for much of the country tonight. Am I safe in assuming that Artemis II wouldn't launch during such an event?
Solar ActivityDo not launch during severe or extreme solar activity resulting in increased density of solar energetic particles with the potential to damage electronic circuits and make radio communication with the launch vehicle difficult or impossible.
SLS is in trouble
The type of contracting (cost-plus) is a problem too. A fixed cost for a service/public private partnership option would provide for much better results.
Quote from: Jim on 02/09/2026 02:50 amSLS is in troubleWhat have you heard, Jim?
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 02/09/2026 09:34 amQuote from: Jim on 02/09/2026 02:50 amSLS is in troubleWhat have you heard, Jim?If Mars is off the table and SpaceX is all in on the moon, then Starship is going to be more than just a lander for Artemis.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/04/2026 12:40 amThe type of contracting (cost-plus) is a problem too. A fixed cost for a service/public private partnership option would provide for much better results.No. This is cargo cult thinking, Contract type is a third order consideration, at best.What’s most important is the competitive structure of the program. The program manager has to be able to credibly threaten a contract with termination. That usually means more than one performer — either head-to-head or leader/follower competition. Or it means some other kind of alternative — we’ll just keep using the legacy system, rely on an international partner, etc. If there is only one performer and the contract is important, then the contractor has the government over a barrel and practically every large contractor today will screw over the government to maximize revenue for shareholders, regardless of contract type. (SpaceX may be the exception, but that will probably change if/when they go public later this year.)Second most important is the requirements. Long, complex, poorly written, poorly thought- out, multi-hundred page requirements documents will kill programs regardless of contract type. They leave no room for contractor innovation and provide lots of excuses for contractor mischief.See EELV. Fixed price but ULA screwed over the Air Force for tens of billions in the absence of any competition after Boeing and LockMart consolidated. When SpaceX broke into EELV, ULA changed its org and cost structure and began charging less, things it could have done years ago but did not pursue in the absence of a competitor.See CCDev. Boeing had a fixed price contract but they still asked for a received additional hundreds of millions because NASA leadership didn’t think SpaceX was a credible competitor. Who knows if Starlines will ever be operational, but Boeing started writing off its overruns only after Crew Dragon became real.See SMD. They’ve got data on both fixed-price and cost-plus missions and don’t see fewer or lower magnitude overruns from either.The magic sauce of COTS was head-to-head competition (including the termination and replacement of one contractor with another) and a two-page requirement document. People think the fixed-price contracts and public-private cost sharing were key because those things have names. But that’s cargo cult thinking. They are not and a cost-plus contract with a solid competitive structure and simple, short requirements will be successful where a fixed-price contract with no competition and gigabytes of requirements will fail. Contractor lawyers and procurement personnel will always be better at gaming contracts of any type than their government counterparts because they’re (much) better paid. The only way a government manager can defend themselves against this inherent imbalance is with a credible threat of termination and smart requirements that disincentivize and minimize opportunities for gaming contracts.FWIW...
Again, it’s not a question of breadth. It’s a question of whether the language directs the start of a new program. Report language doesn’t do that in general. This report language especially does not. If it did, that commercial Moon/Mars cargo/crew amendment in the FY26 authorization bill would be unnecessary.
That’s not how bill or report language works. It’s not how law works in general. The legislative and executive are (or at least were) separate branches of government. Unless the bill or report language explicitly references something the White House or NASA published (Provided $X,XXX billion to implement NASA’s Super-Duper Space Initiative as described in the President Budget Request), we cannot assume what Congress has or has not read or what Congress is or is not incorporating or referencing or otherwise reacting to in bill or report language. To do so is to invite all sorts of mischief that could only be settled in the courts.
How you read report language and what it actually directs are two separate things.
NASA can’t willy-nilly take a lunar lander program and turn it into a Mars lander program. That’s nutty. That report language doesn’t direct NASA to do so. And if you think Cantwell would let that happen, I got some lunar real estate to sell you.
No Mars,,,changes in direction at Tesla,,,now the Moon,,,,,can NASA afford to depend on Space X to provide a viable landing system....isnt their concept, refueling, multiple rendezvous, and a rocket that has yet to reach orbit, a gamble,,,,,re open the contract,,,allow Blue Origin far simpler rocket and lander concept to have a chance
That report language does not authorize or fund a Mars cargo program. It doesn’t say start a program to deliver cargo to Mars. It’s just says NASA should accelerate the development of certain capabilities. Language to start a program is found in bill language and looks something like “Provided $XXXM to demonstrate the delivery of human-scale cargo to the surface of Mars and procure follow-on deliveries.” Without explicit bill language like that, the lawyers at HQ won’t let the program go forward. I ran into a similar issue regarding the language to start NASA’s prize program. We had signed bill language — law — that we thought authorized the program, but there was some snafu in the wording. The HQ lawyers wouldn’t sign off, and we had to wait a year — another appropriations cycle to get the right language in the next bill — before starting the program. It was the lawyers’ fault that they didn’t catch the issue in earlier review cycles. (In a fit of anger over their incompetence, I literally threw a pen at them over this.) But that didn’t change the outcome, which ended up taking the momentum out of the program. It never really recovered.
12 EXPLORATION13 For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 14 in the conduct and support of exploration research and 15 development activities, including research, development, 16 operations, support, and services; maintenance and repair, 17 facility planning and design; space flight, spacecraft con18 trol, and communications activities; program manage19 ment; personnel and related costs, including uniforms or 20 allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 21 5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; pur22 chase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, 23 lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and 24 administrative aircraft, $7,783,000,000, to remain avail25 able until September 30, 2027: Provided, That the Na1 tional Aeronautics and Space Administration shall provide 2 to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Senate, concurrent with the annual 4 budget submission, a 5-year budget profile for an inte5 grated system that includes the Space Launch System, the 6 Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Human Landing Sys7 tem, and associated ground systems.
If Mars is off the table and SpaceX is all in on the moon, then Starship is going to be more than just a lander for Artemis.
That is not how I read them... The Reports aren’t law... None of them are binding...
and they often say that it funds a program up until the President's Budget request.
You read the reports as being meaningless. They are not meaningless.
Eric Berger confirmed that there is funding for CMPS in the FY26 Budget. You read the reports to be meaningless, they are not meaningless.
Thanks for the interesting information on the prize program but the CJS appropriations bills for FY26 only provides for a very high level of appropriations for exploration as a whole, not for specific programs (see the quote below). It doesn't say how much each program gets. The specific amounts for each program are sometimes in the Reports/Explanatory Statements but sometimes not. Often the only place that they appear is in the President's budget request.
Quote from: Jim on 02/09/2026 01:42 pmIf Mars is off the table and SpaceX is all in on the moon, then Starship is going to be more than just a lander for Artemis. Not until after Artemis V at least, which would not put "SLS in trouble" for at least another seven years. SLS is in trouble once U.S. Congress zeroes out the budget for SLS. IMO that won't happen in the next five years. But I would love to be proven wrong.
