NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[JIS]

2) HLS Starship. Everyone is free to think what they want regarding their preferred schedule or prediction. I believe this is NET 2032, and after listening to Duffy, my opinion is reinforced... in any case, the smart thing to do is to see how the project evolves, without hindering it.

Some brief overview of Starship testing:

2019: Starhopper testing
2020: Several hops of one engine Starships, SN8 high altitude flight. The First Booster, B1 was produced. Musk claimed at that time that B2 will fly.
2021:  4 high altitude tests of Ship, B4 and S20 was first stacked on the pad. Outfitting pad with SpaceX made big vertical tanks 
2022: Switching to Raptor 2, finishing launch pad. B7 started proper testing and was stacked with S24
2023: launching IFT1 with B7/S24. Significant upgrades of Booster and Pad were required, end of year launching IFT2
2024: 4 IFT launches evenly spaced across the year with relatively good progress.
1st half of 2025: 3 IFT launches with various problems surfacing, booster landing. S36 exploded on test stand causing slow down in testing.
2nd half of 2025: 2 highly successful IFTs, reuse of Boosters. Retooling for new version of Booster and Ship, switching to a new pad.

My observation: SpaceX has problems and delays with building infrastructure and switching to new designs this caused problems with ramping up launches. Booster reached capability to be reused, Ship reached capability to be recovered.

My prediction for 2026: SpaceX might face problems when fielding V3 version and ramping up flights. One launch every 2 months can be expected in first half (3 launches), hopefully ramping up in second half of year (6 launches). This will allow on-orbit testing.

My prediction for 2027: Regular reuse of Booster, focus on Ship reuse, more than one operational pads. Dozens of flights per year. Regular deploy of Starlinks, focus on refuel testing and long loiter, possible moon landing demo.

My prediction for 2028: Regular Booster and Ship reuse from multiple pads. Approaching 100 flights per year, optimising on orbit operation, commencing beyond LEO operation.

 
     

[yg1968]

Just to put a finer point on this, Isaacman has already missed two of this Administration’s budget planning cycles.  He had no input to the President’s FY26 Budget and we’re now in FY26.  And the President's FY27 Budget is being decided by OMB staff in meetings with the OMB Director as we speak, er, type.  (Agencies/departments submitted their FY27 budget requests to OMB back in early September.)  Unless he’s confirmed before the holidays (probably unlikely) and has a budget change chambered and ready to appeal to the POTUS, Isaacman will have had no influence over the first two budgets he’ll be handed.  (Ironically, Duffy will have had influence over NASA’s FY27 request.)

Worse, the President’s FY29 Budget request effectively belongs to the next Administration because this one ends in January 2029 and the request won’t be transmitted to Congress until March or later that year.

So Isaacman will have one budget — FY28 — to really make his mark.  That’s it.  If Isaacman were another Griffin, it might be enough.  But so far, I don’t see much evidence that Isaacman is another Griffin-like (or Goldin-like) change agent.

FWIW...

Most of the necessary changes have already been proposed in the President's FY26 Budget and the Senate and House seem to be on-board with the Mars transportation related initiatives in their proposed appropriations bills and reports (see the link below). I think that Isaacman's hands are tied for SLS and Orion until Artemis V but that doesn't mean that Mars cargo missions aren't possible for the 2028 window. See this thread for more information on these new commercial lunar and Mars opportunities (which are included in the FY26 Budget):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2715913#msg2715913

The Obama Administration will be remembered for initiating commercial crew. The Trump I Administration for iniatiating HLS and CLPS. The Trump II Administration and Isaacman will be remembered for a Mars version of CLPS and for extending HLS to Mars and this is already in the President's FY26 Budget. So I expect Isaacman to be working on implementing these changes as soon as he is confirmed. I don't think that Duffy was ever going to do that.

[VSECOTSPE]

Most of the necessary changes have already been proposed in the President's FY26 Budget

There was a vague commercial Moon/Mars line but no meat on the bones in the President’s Budget.  No one in the Administration put any thought into the details or took ownership.  The White House didn’t even make Duffy aware of it or allowed him to ignore it, as his Brayton-cycle reactor and third lander/Plan B escapades demonstrate.

and the Senate and House seem to be on-board with the Mars transportation related initiatives in their proposed appropriations bills and reports (see the link below).

Only the House made reference to a human-scale lander, and it’s unclear if they provided any funding in their bill for it.

Doesn’t matter.  FY26 will be settled in a CR with no new starts.  Whatever was behind that lone sentence in the House bill died in the House.

I think that Isaacman's hands are tied for SLS and Orion until Artemis V

He tied his own hands and should have been more circumspect in his testimony.

but that doesn't mean that Mars cargo missions aren't possible for the 2028 window.

Anything is possible, but that doesn’t mean that the White House is following up on the President’s Budget to make it happen, that the (acting or nominee for) NASA Administrator is making it a priority instead of chasing their own shiny objects and tying their hands on legacy elements, or that the legislative process is producing the necessary appropriations law.

There’s an enormous gap between what was written in the President’s FY26 Budget, Musk’s early involvement, and Isaacman’s early promise and what has actually transpired.  Gap isn’t even the right word.  Not only has the commercial Moon/Mars line come to nothing, but this Administration has allowed and bought into extending Orion/SLS much farther than they allowed in the President’s Budget.  I’d argue Artemis has gone backwards under Trump II, not forwards.

The Obama Administration will be remembered for initiating commercial crew.

Obama’s OMB Director Jack Lew surrendered to the Senate on Orion/SLS.  The program is still paying for that surrender.

The Trump I Administration for iniatiating HLS and CLPS.

Trump I’s VP Pence surrendered to Shelby on Orion/SLS when Bridenstine merely wanted to study putting Orion on a different LV.  The program is still paying for that surrender.

The Trump II Administration and Isaacman will be remembered for a Mars version of CLPS and for extending HLS to Mars and this is already in the President's FY26 Budget.

Trump II surrendered to Cruz in reconciliation on Orion/SLS, extending those legacy elements far beyond the end of Trump II’s term.  The program will be paying for that surrender for years to come.

There is no Mars CLPS (there wouldn’t be an “L” in it if there was) or HLS extension to Mars.  A mention in the President’s Budget and a dead House appropriations bill does not make a program or deliver funding for it.

So I expect Isaacman to be working on implementing these changes as soon as he is confirmed.

Setting aside the general notions that Isaacman is a commercial space advocate or SpaceX plant, there’s no reason to believe that.  Isaacman hasn’t advocated, supported, or talked about a human scale Mars lander in testimony.  He’ll have no direction in law or appropriated funding to implement and execute such a program.  And the White House has obviously not made it a priority.

I don't think that Duffy was ever going to do that.

To the extent Isaacman seems to have a vision for Artemis other than beating China back to the Moon and buying as many Orion/SLS rides as Congress tells him to, it’s nuke-electric propulsion in some super-secret Athena plan few have seen.  That’s not terribly different from the shiny object that that Duffy chased in a Brayton-cycle reactor.  They are different in tone, and I prefer Isaacman’s tone.  But in substance, there’s not much light between Duffy and Isaacman.

[yg1968]

Doesn’t matter.  FY26 will be settled in a CR with no new starts.  Whatever was behind that lone sentence in the House bill died in the House.

It's not dead. Thune is proposing a minibus today and intends to propose a second minibus that includes the CJS bill in December or January. That is the compromise that he is offering to Democrats.

He tied his own hands and should have been more circumspect in his testimony.

Cruz and Cantwell and the rest of the authorizers are behind the Cruz amendment to the Big Beutiful bill which extends SLS and Orion funding until Artemis V (it had bipartisan support according to Bridenstine and others). They didn't really care about Isaacman's testimony when they drafted that amendment.

Not only has the commercial Moon/Mars line come to nothing, but this Administration has allowed and bought into extending Orion/SLS much farther than they allowed in the President’s Budget.  I’d argue Artemis has gone backwards under Trump II, not forwards.

I think that is mostly Duffy's fault. Duffy didn't care about Mars or in-space refilling. Isaacman wants to beat China to the Moon but he also cares about Mars.

To the extent Isaacman seems to have a vision for Artemis other than beating China back to the Moon and buying as many Orion/SLS rides as Congress tells him to, it’s nuke-electric propulsion in some super-secret Athena plan few have seen.  That’s not terribly different from the shiny object that that Duffy chased in a Brayton-cycle reactor.  They are different in tone, and I prefer Isaacman’s tone.  But in substance, there’s not much light between Duffy and Isaacman.

I expect the lunar nuclear reactor and the changes proposed by Duffy to the Commercial LEO Destinations program to survive under Isaacman. I think that these changes were actually positive changes, so I don't expect Isaacman to even try to reverse them (nor should he).

[CoolScience]

Artemis III can't go to the gateway in any scenario because there will be no gateway to go to.

This is not the case. Unless there is a premature and arbitrary cancellation of Gateway, the program continues to move forward, and the PPE+HALO will launch on a Falcon Heavy and travel under its own power to NRHO.

In reality, for Artemis III, the reasonable approach would be for NASA to maintain a flexible schedule, considering that there are three independent developments, each progressing at a different pace (not necessarily a rapid one). And this is without even considering the spacesuits:

You are assuming a multi-year delay to Artemis III and specifically Starship, but less delay for the gateway to make your assertion. This is simply not a valid baseline that you can just assume, and you provide no real justification, and what you do provide actually weakens your argument:

2) HLS Starship. Everyone is free to think what they want regarding their preferred schedule or prediction. I believe this is NET 2032, and after listening to Duffy, my opinion is reinforced... in any case, the smart thing to do is to see how the project evolves, without hindering it.

You are basing things on statements from Duffy, who just made a failed attempt to prevent Isaacman's renomination by leaking a plan Isaacman had made while misrepresenting the contents. This failed attempt was coupled with lobbying from the usual cost-plus contractors that will lose out when SLS is finally cancelled, proposing something they definitely could not build on a relevant timeline. The credibility of Duffy on this topic is negative. If you are using him as a basis for any thoughts on this whatsoever, nothing you are saying can be taken seriously.

See the post from JIS above for one potential timeline that is actually grounded in facts of progress made so far.

[pochimax]

Well, I've given my opinion... I'm no longer interested in continuing the debate (not also in the SLS thread).

I want to change subject.

Why is the NRHO orbit so bad, and what would be the best alternative orbit, considering that the goal is a polar surface program with long-duration missions?

What should the staging orbit be for a revised Artemis architecture?

[TheRadicalModerate]

I want to change subject.

I'll bet you do.

[Vultur]

Depending on where you do refueling, Unless you are refueling in lunar orbit (or NRHO etc), no "staging orbit" beyond Earth orbit may be needed.

It's not necessarily a matter of moving Gateway somewhere else, or replacing its role with something else; the larger question is whether the "Gateway role" is needed/useful for the goal of landing astronauts at the lunar surface near the poles.

(Originally Gateway was invented as kind of a way to keep Mars transfer habitat development alive with no Mars program. But any near term Mars work will almost certainly involve Starship, as SLS's launch cadence will never be sufficient for Mars; so a Mars transfer habitat is no longer useful.)

[VSECOTSPE]

It's not dead. Thune is proposing a minibus today and intends to propose a second minibus that includes the CJS bill in December or January. That is the compromise that he is offering to Democrats.

The Dems rejected that after Tuesday’s elections:

An agreement had been emerging earlier this week.... It would have advanced an existing proposal to temporarily fund the government, which would later be tweaked to add three full-year spending bills [incl CJS] for specific agencies... The [Dem] caucus determined that after Tuesday’s elections, it was no longer “viable” to go along with the earlier negotiations...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/07/senate-shutdown-vote-democrats/

Even if the House CJS wasn’t dead, the human-scale Mars lander language was ignorable/forgettable report language, not bill language.  You want to make something happen, you put it in the bill, not the report.

They didn't really care about Isaacman's testimony when they drafted that amendment.

All the more reason why Isaacman should not have tied his hands on Orion/SLS in testimony.

Isaacman wants to beat China to the Moon but he also care about Mars.

I don’t think there’s much (any?) evidence that Isaacman is interested in pushing a human-scale Mars lander.  In testimony and elsewhere, he has not mentioned, nevertheless defended, the commercial Moon/Mars line in the President’s Budget that would have funded such.  AFAIK, he’s never articulated such a goal.  His “Project Athena” document supposedly points out that SpaceX/Starship could achieve such a goal in short order, but the validity of that document is uncertain and pointing out what different contractors could do is not the same thing as setting a goal or creating a program.

Ironically, even if he is interested, Isaacman may not believe that he can push for such a goal without making it look like a handout to SpaceX and that he is Musk’s pawn.  There are ways around that programmatically, but Isaacman is not the type to understand the programmatic tools he’ll have at hand as Administrator.

I expect the lunar nuclear reactor and the changes proposed by Duffy to the Commercial LEO Destinations program to survive under Isaacman. I think that these changes were actually positive changes, so I don't expect Isaacman to even try to reverse them (nor should he).

The CLD changes were good. 

Putting an unproven Brayton-cycle reactor on the critical path to anything, but especially life support for a remote outpost 240K miles away, is dumb as dirt.  Developing an expensive space reactor of any flavor to support a crew of four that will only be on the lunar surface for one week (Artemis V baseline) is an even dumber layer of dirt.

Whether Isaacman or someone in his orbit is aware of and cares about these absurdities, I dunno.  But there was no funding for Duffy’s reactor in the President’s FY26 Budget, and as much as I’d like to see a space reactor, probably the best thing that can happen now is zero funding for a reactor in the President’s FY27 Budget.  The reactor technical and procurement approach needs to be completely rethought, and Artemis first needs a manned mission cadence and duration that could actually take advantage of such power.

Cart-before-the-horse buffoonery like this is what’s killed every other US space reactor program to date.

[pochimax]

Depending on where you do refueling, Unless you are refueling in lunar orbit (or NRHO etc), no "staging orbit" beyond Earth orbit may be needed.

I'm not sure I understand correctly.
Would that architecture imply that HLS Starship would first travel from Earth orbit to the lunar surface and then return to Earth orbit, or even directly through atmospheric reentry?

[woods170]

I was referrring to the situation where no Republican president is elected in 2028. That's the "not unrealistic" part of my previous post.
Also, HLS wasn't initiated by Bridenstine. It was initiated by Trump, when he released Space Policy Directive 1 (which ordered the return to the Moon). Bridenstine only ran the organizational aspects of Space Policy Directive 1 from the NASA side.

The HLS BAA came out under Bridenstine.  SPD-1 didn't initiate any programs at all.  It just set policy.

Yes, and the policy was to put American boots on the Moon. Meaning that a lander would be needed (because there was none in development at that time), regardless of who was NASA administrator. So really, a lander was basically ordered by Trump when he signed SPD-1.

[yg1968]

It's not dead. Thune is proposing a minibus today and intends to propose a second minibus that includes the CJS bill in December or January. That is the compromise that he is offering to Democrats.

The Dems rejected that after Tuesday’s elections:

As you saw that CR/mini-bus deal finally came together this weekend. Thune said that he would like to pass other full-year appropriations bills, which hopefully means that a CJS bill (and thus NASA) will be included in the next package.

Incidentally, the Senate Report includes language that encourages NASA to use HLS contracts for Mars.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717561#msg2717561

To me, the easiest way of starting a commercial cargo and crew transportation system to the Moon and Mars is by using the HLS services contract to do it. The Administration should also propose not to fund SLS and Orion after Artemis V. Eric Berger says that the White House would like to get Isaacman confirmed by the end of the year. I am hoping that he will push for some of these changes.

[VSECOTSPE]

As you saw that CR/mini-bus deal finally came together this weekend.

But not the earlier one with NASA approps.  Like the WaPo wrote, that deal died after Tuesday’s elections,

Thune said that he would like to pass other full-year appropriations bills, which hopefully means that a CJS bill (and thus NASA) will be included in the next package.

There’s some impetus for Congress to get detailed appropriations bills passed because those details can constrain Vought’s ability to withhold spending.  Under a CR, Vought has a lot more degrees of freedom that he can use to make trouble.

That said, Thune is up against the holidays.  If the underlying problem of healthcare premiums doubling is not resolved, the Dems may rebel again.  More authoritarian or cruel moves by the Administration could also trigger more rebellion from the Dems.  And Thune is also up against the new PBR release in early February, presumably.  I do not know what odds to give Thune, but they are not good.  If CJS approps are not passed by early February, it will not happen.

Incidentally, the Senate Report includes language that encourages NASA to use HLS contracts for Mars.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717561#msg2717561

If he really wants to demo big landers at Mars, Isaacman could point to report language.  But I think we are projecting that onto him.  Aside from a weak blurb in an Athena document no one can actually reference, there is no evidence that Isaacman wants to go in that direction and some evidence he wants nuke-electric for Mars, not Starships.  And since such an effort would likely be dominated by SpaceX or reported as a handout to them, optics may prevent Isaacman from going that way in the first place.  Even if a big Mars lander is his heart’s desire and he cares not about the optics, the report language is weak and comes with no clear funding stream.  It does not help him that much.

If Trump II really wanted a big Mars lander, they should have prioritized lobbying for it and secured bill language with clear funding totals.  See bill language and funding amounts in any fiscal year for Orion and SLS for how it is done.  Instead, this Administration abandoned its commercial Moon and Mars line, handed Congress two easy wins on Orion and SLS funding, parroted Congress on China and Artemis III, and wasted what remained of their energy on internecine fighting between Trump and Musk and Duffy and Isaacman and whatever quixotic ideas Duffy thought would attract cameras.  This NASA budget cycle has been like watching grumpy preschoolers fight over toys because they missed their naps, not a competent team of adults executing on a plan.

The Administration should also propose not to fund SLS and Orion after Artemis V.

Probably does not matter.  Artemis V is already scheduled three years past the end of the Trump II Administration.  It will slip farther than that.  Artemis VI will be towards the end of the first term of the next President or in the term after that.  No matter what they do now, Trump II really has no control over what will happen four or five years after they are out of office.

I think the Administration should zero out Orion and SLS in the PBR release in early February.  And as long as Vought is willing to act extralegally, I think the reconciliation funding for Orion and SLS should be withheld. The Administration should switch to a strategy of beating China on lunar and Mars capabilities, not who is first to the surface.  As long as we are playing hardball and choosing cruel options elsewhere, Congress should be browbeaten and the old Shuttle workforce and infrastructure held hostage until adequate amounts and support are provided in appropriations language.

Not gonna happen.  This Administration is too beholden to red states, too in the pocket of legacy contractors, or just too incompetent on NASA.  If I was betting a large sum of money, I would bet on more Orion and SLS, not a change in direction, either long or short term

To me, the easiest way of starting a commercial cargo and crew transportation system to the Moon and Mars is by using the HLS services contract to do it.

The past twenty plus years of NASA manned space exploration meanderings has been avoiding the straightforward or logical or easy solution in favor of the Shuttle-era status quo.  What is obvious to us has not been in the trade space.

Eric Berger says that the White House would like to get Isaacman confirmed by the end of the year. I am hoping that he will push for some of these changes.

Based on his testimony, Isaacman is about Orion, SLS, beating China back to the Moon, near-term Artemis flights, and not torquing off Congress.  Even if those are not his priorities, that’s what the President's Budget and appropriations have prioritized so far and just what the landscape is forcing on him.  Isaacman will spend his short tenure trying to get Artemis II off, trying but failing to pull in the Artemis III schedule, and not much else besides what he can scratch together for his nuke-electric initiative, which will die with the next Administration.

As always, would love to be proven wrong.

FWIW...

[Robotbeat]

Thing is, nuclear-electric MTVs for Mars don’t actually help. If you had a complete one today, it’d still be better to do Starship. In fact, it’d probably be slower than using an SEP based MTV given likely specific power figures.

What nuclear electric really helps with is outer planets missions. Mars is too close to benefit.

[yg1968]

See below:

A plan written by Trump’s NASA pick was leaked. Here’s what to know about ‘Project Athena’
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/10/science/nasa-jared-isaacman-project-athena

A Mars shot and nuclear propulsion

One eye-popping proposal in Project Athena is to set up a new Mars program, dubbed “Olympus.”

Much of that vision, the source familiar with the document told CNN, was intended to align NASA with SpaceX’s goal of sending an uncrewed Starship spacecraft to the Martian surface next year.

SpaceX’s plan, which CEO Elon Musk discussed publicly in May, “was going to be a more-or-less free mission that SpaceX was going to do anyway,” the source said. The thinking was that NASA could step in to provide support through the Olympus program at minimal cost to taxpayers, according to the source.

[leovinus]

Thing is, nuclear-electric MTVs for Mars don’t actually help. If you had a complete one today, it’d still be better to do Starship. In fact, it’d probably be slower than using an SEP based MTV given likely specific power figures.

What nuclear electric really helps with is outer planets missions. Mars is too close to benefit.

Not sure we are thinking creative enough here. While nuclear stages were projected to have maybe twice the Isp of a chemical stage, one major drawback has always been their mass. Starship offers mass to orbit, 100t+. Starship wants to go to Mars. Duffy and Isaacman both care about nuclear in space. If starship solves the mass to orbit then what could/should we prototype? Maybe the answer is in the “Athena” document.

[yg1968]

As you saw that CR/mini-bus deal finally came together this weekend.

But not the earlier one with NASA approps.  Like the WaPo wrote, that deal died after Tuesday’s elections,

The Washington post doesn't talk about the CJS Appropriations bill. The mini-bus before and after the election didn't include the CJS bill. Senator Collins wanted to add it to the mini-bus deal back in October but it wasn't added. I am guessing that Senators Collins and Thune will now want to add the CJS Appropriations bill to the January package.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_a5dbbe98-04e3-468f-8139-01e86f74f0f5.html

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62597.msg2726282#msg2726282

[yg1968]

Thing is, nuclear-electric MTVs for Mars don’t actually help. If you had a complete one today, it’d still be better to do Starship. In fact, it’d probably be slower than using an SEP based MTV given likely specific power figures.

What nuclear electric really helps with is outer planets missions. Mars is too close to benefit.

Isn't nuclear electric cheaper?

[VSECOTSPE]

Isn't nuclear electric cheaper?

No one really knows.  An expert NRC panel recommended NASA establish common metrics for nuke thermal and nuke electric, run parallel R&D programs against those metrics, and make an intelligent downselect after more was known.  It’s jumping the gun to conclude that nuke electric is the right path now.

It’s all pink elephants, regardless.  Thse are the key quotes from the CNN article:

With this summer’s “Big Beautiful Bill” expressly extending the SLS program through at least the next four missions, it appears Isaacman may delay implementing a bold new focus on nuclear electric propulsion research…

The recent push to bolster NASA’s moon missions, including a $10 billion influx Congress gave the agency’s human spaceflight efforts in July, “brings clarity to the topic,” Isaacman said in his social media statement.

Isaacman agreed months ago that it’s Orion/SLS until well after Isaacman’s tenure has ended.

[yg1968]

It looks like the Senate wants to pass the CJS Appropriations bill (which includes NASA) right after it's done with the current package:
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1988023392495431882