NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[Will O Wisp]

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.

That's exactly what I said in the next paragraph...

[thespacecow]

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.

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 @yg1968 pointed out, the Workforce Directive he just sent out to all of NASA on Jan 14th also comes from Project Athena. The wording is nearly identical in a lot of places, but he did make some changes, for example he removed the part that assigns specific percentage to each performance review rating level.

So it looks more and more likely he's following the plan in broad direction but making changes based on feedback (the percentage thing generated a lot of negative feedback) and reality on the ground.

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.

No, I didn't say PBR Gateway language aligns with Isaacman's plan regarding LEO and nuclear applications, I said "some [of Artemis predictions from the Athena document] are already in the PBR: ... use Gateway for LEO or nuclear program". In Project Athena Isaacman explicitly said "Pivot Gateway hardware to commercial LEO or nuclear programs", it's a specific goal/focus area regarding Gateway, not just some general statement "regarding LEO and nuclear applications" that is not Gateway specific.

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.

@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.

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.

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, as I outlined here

Congress is providing $2B/year for HLS, so by 2028 there are $6B available. Assuming NASA management takes 25% (very conservative), that leaves $4.5B. SpaceX HLS contract has about $1B left (part of it is for 2nd landing, so for first landing NASA owns them less than $1B), Blue HLS contract has about $2B left, that would leave at least $1.5B available by 2028 for accelerate the lander(s).

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.

Yes, there is contradiction, more than one in fact.

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"

You then stated: "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.", but now you admit WH/NASA could start commercial lunar/Mars via op plan change, as long as they get Congress approval. Again, by definition this means commercial lunar/Mars is not died because "it never made it into bill language".

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.

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”.

Again, you are contradicting yourself, because you just said NASA can start commercial lunar/Mars using op plan change, as long as they get Congressional blessing.

And no, there wouldn't 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” even if Congress wants to fund this, as I said above, they don't put individual programs in bill language any more, it's all in the report.

(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.

No, he's wrong, and your comment says he's wrong. He said "Congress will determine whether NASA does anything wrt commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion, not Isaacman.", which means Isaacman has no role to play in determining whether NASA does anything wrt commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion. As you said above, that's incorrect, because Isaacman and administration do have a role, and an very important role in fact: they need to determine to propose something first (and get OMB blessing). So whether commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion happens is NOT completely determined by Congress as Jim claimed, Isaacman and this administration has to make the determination first.

In fact you stated multiple times in your previous comment that you don't think Isaacman and the administration will make this determination, you expect them to "kicks the can on Orion/SLS replacement to the next Administration/Administrator", and that is why commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion won't happen. This alone shows how important Isaacman's determination is, because without it commercial alternative simply won't happen, thus proving Jim's comment about whether commercial alternative will happen is not determined by Isaacman to be incorrect.

[thespacecow]

[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! ;-)

This is why I think Isaacman will also fund Blue Origin's faster HLS proposal, AND allow Blue Origin to compete for Artemis III landing. This way the eggs would be in two baskets.

To game this out further: I assume Blue Origin's faster proposal would still rely on SLS/Orion, so by having both proposals in play for Artemis III Isaacman wouldn't be cutting SLS/Orion out completely, so there shouldn't be a big pushback from SLS supporters.

In fact my reading is SLS supporters already wrote off Starship HLS as a complete failure or so delayed that it's irrelevant (See Mike Griffin's recent comment about Starship HLS "cannot work"), so they are assuming Blue Origin win by default, this would further reduce their resistance to this change.

[Khadgars]

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?

VSE was created in 2004. 

[sstli2]

Mainstream news media editorial:

NASA’s New Moon Mission Is Riskier Than It Should Be

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Wish them well. Next month, four astronauts are expected to board a space capsule called Orion, blast off on a rocket known as the Space Launch System, and exit low-Earth orbit for the first time since 1972, en route to a 10-day flyby of the moon. Unfortunately, their mission will be riskier than it should be.

The planned flight is a crucial component of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Artemis mission, which aims to return humans to the lunar surface. Thus far, the mission has been plagued by soaring costs, repeated delays, technical shortcomings, contracting woes and burgeoning operational complexities. One former NASA chief recently called it “a path that cannot work.”

Orion is an especially concerning element. Across two decades of development, the capsule’s costs have exceeded $20 billion. By many accounts, it’s antiquated, overweight and ill-suited to the mission. Experts have been warning about its deficiencies since at least 2009. Key parts of its life-support system have yet to be fully tested.

In an uncrewed test flight in 2022, Orion’s separation bolts suffered unexpected melting and erosion, while its power-distribution system reported some two dozen disruptions in flight. An inspector general report after the test also noted problems with hardware, software, imagery, circuitry, batteries, launch debris and more.

Most worrying was the performance of the capsule’s heat shield, needed to protect the astronauts as they reenter the atmosphere at 25,000 miles per hour. During the test, trapped gases from the shield’s outer coating led to unexpected cracking, “char loss” and an ominous debris trail.

Finding problems during a test flight is normal, and NASA quickly worked to address them. Yet its response to the heat-shield defect was worrying. Rather than conduct another costly test flight, it relied on simulations to model one. Rather than fix the shield itself, it created an operational workaround: For next month’s mission, it will simply alter the capsule’s reentry path. The risk, as the inspector general report warned, is that such changes could “introduce new failures or unknowns into the system.”

A broader worry is what the sociologist Diane Vaughan, investigating the Challenger shuttle disaster, called “normalization of deviance”: a gradual process whereby rationalizing one technical deviation makes it easier to accept the next. All the while, risks accumulate. (Speaking of the flawed heat shield, one NASA official noted “a lot of little links in the error chain” that “accumulated over time.”)

To be clear, NASA takes safety quite seriously. Its new administrator, Jared Isaacman, said last week that the agency has “full confidence” in the mission. Yet it’s fair to ask if the appalling costs of the Artemis program — at some $100 billion and counting, with each new launch of the SLS exceeding $4 billion — may have induced officials to sign off on decisions they otherwise wouldn’t have, or to forgo additional tests that would’ve allayed more concerns.

One irony of this endeavor is that the president’s most recent budget request called for scrapping the current Artemis design post-moon landing and moving on to “more cost-effective, next-generation commercial systems.” In other words: NASA is conducting this risky and expensive mission to test an architecture that the executive branch has already concluded is obsolete.

It’s a good moment for a rethink. As a start, the SLS/Orion combination should be retired as soon as possible, in favor of private platforms. Doing so would make way for a faster, safer and vastly cheaper alternative, while allowing the agency to refocus on R&D and space science. The executive branch, for its part, should prioritize reforms to make America’s commercial space business more competitive, including by easing licensing requirements for civilian spaceflight, maximizing the spectrum available for rocket launches and streamlining permitting for spaceports.

But first things first: Get these astronauts back home safely.

[TheRadicalModerate]

To game this out further: I assume Blue Origin's faster proposal would still rely on SLS/Orion, so by having both proposals in play for Artemis III Isaacman wouldn't be cutting SLS/Orion out completely, so there shouldn't be a big pushback from SLS supporters.

If Blue and LockMart are willing to port Orion to New Glenn, then Orion, pushed by a CT to either NRHO or LLO, can form the basis of Blue's commercial cislunar crew proposal.  It's not as cheap to develop as SpaceX's (it requires making Orion safe to be pushed eyeballs-out by a CT, in addition to the actual crew-certification for the New Glenn/Orion combo), but it's not incredibly expensive.  It's certainly something that Blue would be willing to float in an RFI response.  Whether it would make the cut if bid in response to a CCC BAA is separate question.

[woods170]

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?

VSE was created in 2004. 

The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) created neither Orion, nor SLS. It only envisioned multiple possibilities for launchers and the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle), along with multiple possible lander configurations. CEV under the VSE was not envisioned as a capsule (what Orion is today), but a concept that could be implemented as anything, ranging from a spaceplane to a traditional capsule, and just about anything in between.

The "implementation" of VSE was mostly done under the "guidance" of Mike Griffin, and was called "The Constellation Program" (CxP). It started not in 2004, but in late 2005.

CxP is the program under which the "Orion" vehicle was created, which was the CxP implementation of the CEV. Lockheed was awarded the contract to build Orion in August of 2006.

VSE also envisioned a heavy the Ares V launch vehicle, but CxP never implemented it: Ares V turned out to be so horrendously expensive that it never fitted inside the available CxP budget. And although SLS superficially looks like a scaled-down Ares V, it's in fact vastly different. SLS didn't start until the summer of 2011, when NASA selected the initial design to implement the "heavy launch vehicle" requirement from the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.

So, Orion will be 20 years old later this year, and SLS will be 15 years old later this year.


Edit: added that Ares V was the intended implementation of the VSE heavy launch vehicle.

[yg1968]

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... 

It's not legally dubious. It's already in the FY2026 House and Senate Reports but you refuse to see it, that's your problem. But it won't impact anything that Isaacman does in the next few months and years. It's not really hard to figure out what Isaacman wants to do, he is telling everyone that is willing to listen in his interviews but you are not listening to them (one of the interviews where he talks about this is the one with Lara Trump linked below at 6m25s). Expecting Isaacman to fulfill none of his promises is not realistic.

[Eric Hedman]

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?  If it's too intense with particle radiation, how much warning would there be to know if it's going to be too intense to fly to the Moon?  I think it takes about three days for the particle flux to reach Earth which is not enough warning for a seven to ten day flight.  Is there anyway to tell if a massive solar flare is going to erupt in our direction before it erupts from the Sun's surface?  Could the Orion capsule shield the crew from a big flare like the one hitting Earth right now?  I'm curious.

[Robotbeat]

Fundamentally, SLS/Orion isn’t going to be canceled while it is flying and HLS is struggling.

I’m as opposed to SLS/Orion on a fundamental cost and scalability basis as anyone else, but this is kind of obvious. Jared isn’t going to cancel what is a bright spot at NASA at the moment right before Artemis 2. Should’ve been canceled 10 years ago and replaced by commercial deep space capsule (or Orion on EELV or whatever), but it wasn’t. So we have to go with what exists now.

I’m pretty bullish on Starship, but you can’t honestly expect to cancel SLS/Orion now that it’s flying and before Starship has proven reliable flights to orbit and back.

This all sounds very pro-SLS/Orion, but really it was a travesty of a program. The fact it might fly crew around the moon a few times does not justify the 10 year delay, the like $50B wasted on getting here. Honestly, unforgivable! Like with JWST, I worry this absolute failure of program management will be swept under the rug because some measure of success is gained in the end. But NASA and the nation need good news at the moment, and Artemis 2 is that. I’d do exactly what Jared is doing right now.

[yg1968]

Fundamentally, SLS/Orion isn’t going to be canceled while it is flying and HLS is struggling.

I’m as opposed to SLS/Orion on a fundamental cost and scalability basis as anyone else, but this is kind of obvious. Jared isn’t going to cancel what is a bright spot at NASA at the moment right before Artemis 2. Should’ve been canceled 10 years ago and replaced by commercial deep space capsule (or Orion on EELV or whatever), but it wasn’t. So we have to go with what exists now.

I’m pretty bullish on Starship, but you can’t honestly expect to cancel SLS/Orion now that it’s flying and before Starship has proven reliable flights to orbit and back.

This all sounds very pro-SLS/Orion, but really it was a travesty of a program. The fact it might fly crew around the moon a few times does not justify the 10 year delay, the like $50B wasted on getting here. Honestly, unforgivable! Like with JWST, I worry this absolute failure of program management will be swept under the rug because some measure of success is gained in the end. But NASA and the nation need good news at the moment, and Artemis 2 is that. I’d do exactly what Jared is doing right now.

Right but the Administration still has to decide what happens after Artemis V. The Big Beautiful bill makes it almost impossible to cancel SLS and Orion before Artemis V. I expect that this will be addressed in the President's FY27 or FY28 budget requests.

[Robotbeat]

I think that’s contingent on how well New Glenn and Starship do. As well as the respective HLSes.

A lot becomes possible if starship and new Glenn start launching reliably and regularly, with recovered Starship upper stages and refueling. And if both HLSes have successful lunar landing demos, well I think that’s when the clock starts ticking for SLS/Orion. A successful crewed lunar landing is, ironically, the death knell of SLS/Orion.

[Vultur]

I think that’s contingent on how well New Glenn and Starship do. As well as the respective HLSes.

And also on how well Artemis II goes. If Artemis II has significant problems, that might also affect things.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Fundamentally, SLS/Orion isn’t going to be canceled while it is flying and HLS is struggling.

I’m as opposed to SLS/Orion on a fundamental cost and scalability basis as anyone else, but this is kind of obvious. Jared isn’t going to cancel what is a bright spot at NASA at the moment right before Artemis 2...

...I’d do exactly what Jared is doing right now.

This would be perfectly understandable, maybe even reasonable, if it weren't for Block 1B.  I would almost rather pay ULA to reactivate the DCSS line than pay Boeing and Bechtel to build EUS and ML2.

I'm betting EUS will be delayed even further, so there will be close to a 3-year gap between Arty 3 and 4.  If that's the case, the chance of SpaceX humiliating NASA with a private, all-SpaceX lunar surface mission approach 100%, and an SLS-based Arty 4 will never happen.

[pochimax]

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?  If it's too intense with particle radiation, how much warning would there be to know if it's going to be too intense to fly to the Moon?  I think it takes about three days for the particle flux to reach Earth which is not enough warning for a seven to ten day flight.  Is there anyway to tell if a massive solar flare is going to erupt in our direction before it erupts from the Sun's surface?  Could the Orion capsule shield the crew from a big flare like the one hitting Earth right now?  I'm curious.

maybe this helps

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-ii-press-kit/

Solar Activity

Do 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.

[pochimax]

I think that’s contingent on how well New Glenn and Starship do. As well as the respective HLSes.

And also on how well Artemis II goes. If Artemis II has significant problems, that might also affect things.

Yes to both

[pochimax]

I'm betting EUS will be delayed even further, so there will be close to a 3-year gap between Arty 3 and 4.

If Artemis III happens at the end of 2028, then you'd be betting that Artemis IV would be delayed until the end of 2031. (A 3-year gap, you said.)

I don't know... we're at the beginning of 2026. That would imply more than 5 years of work (almost 6 years), from the current date.
Frankly, unless there's a catastrophic failure during the EUS Green Run, I don't see how it could be delayed that much.

[pochimax]

... than pay ...Bechtel to build ... ML2.

This is already too late; NASA has already paid most of the money for the construction of ML-2.

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80KSC019C0013_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-

[DanClemmensen]

I think that’s contingent on how well New Glenn and Starship do. As well as the respective HLSes.

A lot becomes possible if starship and new Glenn start launching reliably and regularly, with recovered Starship upper stages and refueling. And if both HLSes have successful lunar landing demos, well I think that’s when the clock starts ticking for SLS/Orion. A successful crewed lunar landing is, ironically, the death knell of SLS/Orion.

We have discussed ad nauseam how Starship (Depot/Tanker/HLS) plus D2 can completely supersede SLS/Orion. However, If Starship fails and the Appendix P hardware succeeds, is there a mission plan that does not need SLS/Orion? How does crew reach LEO, and how does crew get from LEO to the Moon and back?

[Will O Wisp]

We have discussed ad nauseam how Starship (Depot/Tanker/HLS) plus D2 can completely supersede SLS/Orion. However, If Starship fails and the Appendix P hardware succeeds, is there a mission plan that does not need SLS/Orion? How does crew reach LEO, and how does crew get from LEO to the Moon and back?

I can see a couple options:

-the most direct option would be the launch a crew Dragon to dock with the Blue Moon HLS transporter/lander in LEO. The crew transfers over to HLS, then Dragon undocks and remains in LEO under remote control. HLS proceeds with its mission, performing a LTI burn, a lunar landing, lunar takeoff, and TEI burn. Blue Moon redocks with Dragon in LEO, the crew transfers back, and finally returns to Earth.

The primary unknown factor is Blue Moon's ability to reach LEO from the lunar surface. As spec'd, it's only required to reach Gateway in NRLO. Some investigation would also be required about its ability to sustain crew on the LEO to Lunar surface trip and back, although the lunar surface and translunar space are similar enough that I don't think this will be a major issue.

Surface stays are limited by Dragon's free flying design limit of 10 days. Given Earth-Moon travel times of ~3 days, and expected ~0.5-1 days to descend to the lunar surface and back, maximum stays will be on the order of 1-2 days. Research will be limited to one or possibly two 8-hour EVAs. This would be a significant decrease from the potential of the SLS/Orion system.

-Alternatively the first crew Dragon could return after docking to HLS, and a second Dragon could be launched upon their return to LEO. This would increase risk to the crew, as a launch failure on the 2nd Dragon would be unsurvivable, but would allow full usage of HLS's 30 day design limit with weeklong stays on the Moon.

-Seeing as Dragon is going to be unmanned for most of its mission length, it seems reasonable that it could be modified for longer unmanned stays in LEO. The cargo trunk would be available for the extra supplies needed. This would allow weeklong lunar stays without increased risk to the crew.

-Assuming a commercial crew station with multiple docking ports is available, like Haven-2, Dragon and Blue Moon could meet at the station for the crew transfer. The Dragon could then be left docked until HLS returns. Dragon has a docked design limit of 210 days, leaving more than adequate time for it to remain in LEO. This would not require modifications to Dragon and would not substantially increase crew risk. Haven-2 is currently scheduled for launch in 2028. The ISS could also theoretically be used for this, assuming it still exists.

-Any of the above scenarios could also be executed by Starliner, or a new crew transport vehicle (as Blue Orgin has indicated some interest in building). A purpose built vehicle could be designed for lengthy unmanned stays in orbit, making shortening missions like in the first option unnecessary.