NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[JIS]

Could they launch a BO transporter and a blue moon 2 lander on a space x SS?
and sen the lander straight to the moon in 1 launch?

No. SpaceX is unable to launch any cryogenic propellants inside the Starship nose cone at the moment and they are unlikely to modify their infrastructure for this. Definitely not for LHX. That is why I think the only option is storable propellants (or ion electric). Is Mechazilla even capable to lift Starship with some really heavy cargo inside? Isn't 200t payload too heavy? 

[JIS]

It will be more than V3 100t capacity and cargo bay volume.
So, it will need V4 with longer cargo section and cargo bay doors, timeline - unknown, unknown if they even intent to do it.

V3 100t payload is for reusable configuration. However I have expendable propellant depot version in mind. Are they going to build propellant depot on V3 basis or V4? They probably don't need to build any propellant depot for a while. I don't think they would be willing to expend any tanker variant.

For HLS demo landing they will need plenty of refueling so they will also need propellant depot and expendable starship version. Therefore I assume they will do the demo landing with propellant depot variant rather than with tanker variant. Also HLS should be build on it. At that time they can also be willing to do some super heavy cargo mission to LEO using this expendable variant. All it needs is just payload deployment. For really big cargo the nose cone ejection would work the best. The problem could be with huge stainless steel structure (nose cone) in LEO so perhaps the cargo would need it's own light weigh shroud with sub orbital disposal system.

Not very comfortable or cheap but perhaps doable for 200t class payload.       

[321]

It will be more than V3 100t capacity and cargo bay volume.
So, it will need V4 with longer cargo section and cargo bay doors, timeline - unknown, unknown if they even intent to do it.

V3 100t payload is for reusable configuration. However I have expendable propellant depot version in mind. Are they going to build propellant depot on V3 basis or V4? They probably don't need to build any propellant depot for a while. I don't think they would be willing to expend any tanker variant.

For HLS demo landing they will need plenty of refueling so they will also need propellant depot and expendable starship version. Therefore I assume they will do the demo landing with propellant depot variant rather than with tanker variant. Also HLS should be build on it. At that time they can also be willing to do some super heavy cargo mission to LEO using this expendable variant. All it needs is just payload deployment. For really big cargo the nose cone ejection would work the best. The problem could be with huge stainless steel structure (nose cone) in LEO so perhaps the cargo would need it's own light weigh shroud with sub orbital disposal system.

Not very comfortable or cheap but perhaps doable for 200t class payload.       

I was replying on suggestion to launch BM2 and LM Transporter on SX SS V3.  That is no-go.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1996009801952686403

[Coastal Ron]

Interesting article today:

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work” - Ars Technica

Nothing really new, except that it is yet another day that Congress is told how bad things are with the Artemis program. Yet. Another. Day.

It is almost like Congress doesn't care about the goal, just that the right companies (*cough* Boeing, *cough* Lockheed Martin, *cough* Northrop Grumman) get paid for doing something.

And I think it is in some ways funny that the person quoted as saying “It cannot work” is the person who came up with the first plan that would not work for returning to the Moon - Michael Griffin. In his testimony he said:

Griffin reiterated that criticism on Thursday, without naming SpaceX or Blue Origin, and their Starship and Blue Moon Mk 2 landers.

“The bottom line is that an architecture which requires a high number of refueling flights in low-Earth orbit, no one really knows how many, uses a technology that has not yet ever been demonstrated in space, is very unlikely to work—unlikely to the point where I will say it cannot work,” Griffin said.

I really hope no one listens to him for that bolded part, because unless we can figure out how to refuel in space, then humanity will never expand out into space.

In the article, the only good part from the hearing was this:

Cheng said that whatever priorities policymakers decide for NASA, failing to achieve objectives should come with consequences.

“One, it needs to be bipartisan, to make very clear throughout our system that this is something that everyone is pushing for,” Cheng said of establishing priorities for NASA. “And two, that there are consequences, budgetary, legal, and otherwise, to the agency, to supplying companies. If they fail to deliver on time and on budget, that it will not be a ‘Well, okay, let’s try again next year.’ There need to be consequences.”

This is because of Congress refusing to do their duty of ensuring that taxpayer money is well spent, specifically on the SLS and Orion MPCV programs, but it should apply to any government program. I won't hold my breath that things will change, but it is good that it was stated publicly.

[thespacecow]

Griffin reiterated that criticism on Thursday, without naming SpaceX or Blue Origin, and their Starship and Blue Moon Mk 2 landers.

“The bottom line is that an architecture which requires a high number of refueling flights in low-Earth orbit, no one really knows how many, uses a technology that has not yet ever been demonstrated in space, is very unlikely to work—unlikely to the point where I will say it cannot work,” Griffin said.

Good, I like people claiming something is impossible, because once reality proves them wrong (like when SpaceX made reusability work) they can't wiggle out of it by claiming "no that's not exactly what I claimed..."

Cheng said that whatever priorities policymakers decide for NASA, failing to achieve objectives should come with consequences.

“One, it needs to be bipartisan, to make very clear throughout our system that this is something that everyone is pushing for,” Cheng said of establishing priorities for NASA. “And two, that there are consequences, budgetary, legal, and otherwise, to the agency, to supplying companies. If they fail to deliver on time and on budget, that it will not be a ‘Well, okay, let’s try again next year.’ There need to be consequences.”

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

[Vultur]

I really hope no one listens to him for that bolded part, because unless we can figure out how to refuel in space, then humanity will never expand out into space.

Thankfully, SpaceX and probably others will continue developing orbital refueling regardless of NASA funding.

[TheRadicalModerate]

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

FFP doesn't necessarily prevent a contractor from cutting its losses and backing out of a contract.  I'd like to see some mandates that made what Collins did with xEVAS extremely expensive.

[yg1968]

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

FFP doesn't necessarily prevent a contractor from cutting its losses and backing out of a contract.  I'd like to see some mandates that made what Collins did with xEVAS extremely expensive.

I am not sure that I agree with that. Part of the problem with the xEVAS is that there was so many NASA requirements that companies like SpaceX didn't even bother to bid (despite the fact that they are already working on a spacesuit). Adding more contractual requirements is not the answer.

[thespacecow]

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

FFP doesn't necessarily prevent a contractor from cutting its losses and backing out of a contract.  I'd like to see some mandates that made what Collins did with xEVAS extremely expensive.

I'm not sure that's a good idea, just on general principle if a contractor is unwilling or unable to continue the contract, I think it's best for both sides to cancel the contract.

The problem with xEVAS is not that Collins backed out, it's why NASA hasn't been willing or able to get another contractor to take up this contract.

[VSECOTSPE]

And I think it is in some ways funny that the person quoted as saying “It cannot work” is the person who came up with the first plan that would not work for returning to the Moon - Michael Griffin.

Griffin’s objection apparently comes down to boil-off:

But Mike Griffin stresses it needs to be a GOOD plan, and Artemis is not. He continues to insist in-space refueling will not work because of boil-off. Only stick to a plan if it makes sense and this one doesn't. NASA should start over in his view.

https://x.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1996601170664562697

If Marcia Smith’s summary is accurate (I didn’t watch and she lacks a technical background), Griffin is making an ignorant and/or bizarre claim.  NASA’s RRM3 tech demo maintained zero boil-off of LCH4 for four months:

A critical part of RRM3 is the demonstration of zero boil off storage of its 42 liter liquid methane supply through the use of active cooling. By using cryocoolers and advanced multilayer insulation to balance temperatures, RRM3 successfully stored liquid methane for four months with zero boil off, demonstrating a system which will dramatically lower fluid loss and eliminate the need for oversized tanks and extra propellant.

https://www.nasa.gov/nexis/robotic-refueling-mission-3/

And Blue has apparently proven similar for LH2 and LOX:

Our Lunar Permanence team is testing zero-boil-off technology to store liquid propellants at extremely low temperatures for Blue Origin’s lunar missions. We have successfully met all NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration objectives, demonstrating our ability to make liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in-space storable propellants at two times the performance of the current state of the art. This system is key to fueling our Blue Moon MK 2 lander, which will ultimately deliver astronauts to the Moon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1mckanl/zero_boil_off_confirmed/

There’s more to refueling than boil-off, namely transfer.  But SpaceX has proven transfer between tanks at some scale:

During that flight, SpaceX performed an in-flight propellant transfer demonstration under a NASA Tipping Point contract awarded in 2020. SpaceX planned to transfer at least 10 metric tons of liquid oxygen from a header tank to the main tank within the Starship upper stage while in space.

While SpaceX said the day of the flight that it performed the demonstration, neither the company nor NASA provided any updates since then. At the advisory committee meeting, though, Kshatriya said the test appeared to go well.

“On Flight 3, they did an intertank transfer of cryogens, which was successful by all accounts,” he said, adding that analysis of the test is ongoing.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-making-progress-on-starship-in-space-refueling-technologies/

Griffin has half a leg to stand on if his skepticism is that transfer at full-scale between multiple spacecraft at the necessary tempo is unachievable for the foreseeable future.  Not a bet I’d make, but unlike low/zero boil off, at least that has not been proven.  But that’s doesn’t seem to be Griffin’s argument.

I glanced thru Griffin’s testimony.  His alternate architecture requires two launches of a SLS Block 2/Centaur III variant.   Block I launches are at least one year apart based on the Artemis manifest, and more like two or three based on experience to date.  Block 2 is unflown.  Centaur III is going out of business and gawd only knows what hideous nightmares are hiding in integrating stages from such wildly disparate launch vehicle families with each other and with Orion’s LAS.  Oh and NASA will need to also swallow an Altair-scale lander that costed out at low tens of billions of dollars the last time around and without cost-sharing.  All to avoid refueling to orbit.  Good luck with that.

It’s also worth noting that Doug Cooke and Walt Faulconer contributed to Griffin’s written testimony (says so at the end).  They each run one-man consulting/lobbying shops on the Boeing and LockMart payrolls, respectively, and have penned recent op-eds in favor of a third Artemis lander.  It would not surprise me to find of out that Griffin’s little two-person consulting shop, LogiQ, is also on the payroll for one or more legacy prime contractors.

FWIW…

[Coastal Ron]

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

FFP doesn't necessarily prevent a contractor from cutting its losses and backing out of a contract.  I'd like to see some mandates that made what Collins did with xEVAS extremely expensive.

I am not sure that I agree with that. Part of the problem with the xEVAS is that there was so many NASA requirements that companies like SpaceX didn't even bother to bid (despite the fact that they are already working on a spacesuit). Adding more contractual requirements is not the answer.

Look, it isn't the number of requirements that is the important metric, especially since not every complex system can be boiled down to a one paragraph description.

I see two potentially big issues with the xEVAS contract, and I'm not even that familiar with it. But it is the same problem with many parts of the Artemis program, which is:

1. Even though we've already been the Moon, we are returning in a completely different way, and that requires a completely new design for what is needed. And unfortunately NASA was not allowed to solve these challenges in a progressive way, but instead a completely fake need date was mandated to them. Well guess what, it turns out that you can't compress the amount of time it takes to mature new systems, and xEVAS is bleeding edge technology.

2. With bleeding edge technology you get requirement changes, because the technology is so immature that changes are REQUIRED. Unfortunately that causes price increases and schedule changes, and then everyone on the outside of the program is pointing fingers while conveniently forgetting that fake need dates are the cause, not NASA or the contractors.

[VSECOTSPE]

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

Nope.  This is common misperception.  There’s nothing that prevents a fixed-price contract from being renegotiated when the contractor underperforms. 

That’s exactly what happened on Starliner back when NASA didn’t think SpaceX would perform on commercial crew.  Boeing came back for more in 2017 and got an extra $287M/7% cost increase, despite the existing fixed-price contract.  Only after it became clear that crewed Dragon would fly did Boeing stop asking for more.

Same things happened to repeatedly on EELV in between consolidation under ULA and the entry of Falcon 9.  USAF ate billions and billions in cost increases on EELV despite the fixed-price contract because the Boeing/LockMart consolidation put national security launch over a barrel until SpaceX could compete for national security launches.  After Falcon 9’s entry, ULA’s fixed-price overruns stopped, they shrank their workforce to better compete, and their costs started coming down,

Same goes for studies of low tens of both fixed-price and cost-plus NASA science missions, where there was no clear reduction in cost increases with the former because each mission is one-of-a-kind and has no alternative, regardless of contract type.

The only thing that keeps cost growth at bay is the threat of termination, i.e., the government will replace the overrunning contractor with an alternative:  a head-on competitor, fall back to an existing/older system, turn to an international partner to supply the system, do without a low-priority system, etc.  Without a credible alternative there is no credible threat of termination for underperforming contractors.  Contractors know when they have the USG over a barrel and most will leverage that to maximize revenue/profit whenever possible.

Cheng is right to highlight consequences, but he’s always been an ivory tower/think tank theoretician.  He’s never worked a development program and has no idea how to effectuate the consequences he wants for underperforming contractors.  Almost no one does because they study procurement law instead of game theory.

FWIW...

[VSECOTSPE]

Couple observations from Isaacman’s re-nomination hearing...

1. At least publicly, Isaacman continues to buy the Orion/SLS-thru-Artemis-V argument hook, line, and sinker:

Cruz noting that Artemis is crucial, and that space programs require stability. BBB provides clear guidance, for space stations in LEO, and Artemis. Asks for confirmation that Jared will follow that law. He says he will. Asking what long-term steps will be taken to maintain the Artemis program objectives. Jared saying that he believes that SLS is the quickest way to carry out the plan, and grateful for Artemis 4 and 5.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/2025/12/02/the-isaacman-rehearing/2/

And Isaacman has agreed to the competition that could lead to a third lander:

Isaacman agreed today with Duffy’s decision to reopen the HLS contract for Artemis III

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/isaacmans-second-hearing-mostly-friendly-nomination-could-clear-senate-soon/

Very status quo thru the end of Trump II and beyond and potentially a big step backwards with a third lander.  Unless Isaacman was lying thru his teeth or Vought/OMB do something in the President’s FY27 Budget request and/or withhold reconciliation bill funding, this ties up Artemis with an anemic flight rate on a nearly unaffordable HLV, capsule, and maybe lander for the foreseeable future.  Not the (lack of) change I expected from a commercial astronaut with SpaceX ties.

2. It appears that Isaacman bought the position of NASA Administrator:

During Wednesday’s hearing, Isaacman also faced questions about how he regained favor with Trump after having been on the outs for months. Sen. Gary Peters noted that Isaacman had recently donated roughly $2 million to President Trump’s Super PAC.

Notably, when Trump first rescinded Isaacman’s first nomination in May, he appeared to indicate he took issue with Isaacman’s history of donating to Democrats as well as Republicans.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/science/nasa-jared-isaacman-confirmation-hearing

For what should be obvious reasons, pay-for-play is patently illegal.  You can’t dump millions into a politician’s campaign coffers in exchange for a federal position.  Appointees are supposed to be the best qualified, not the highest bidders:

Criminal provisions of the United States Code prohibit offering or threatening federal jobs to induce payments, political activities, or contributions. Specifically, federal law prohibits anyone from asking for or receiving anything of value, including a campaign contribution, in return for promising to help someone obtain a federal post.  Further, candidates may not directly or indirectly promise appointment or use of influence or support in obtaining “any public or private position or employment” in return for someone’s political support... These provisions carry penalties ranging to fines of $10,000 and imprisonment for two years.

https://ethics.house.gov/manual/illegal-hiring-and-firing-practices/

Likely nothing will come of this.  This DOJ is not going to investigate the WH from the Trump side of this apparent quid pro quo.  And it would take a brave NASA IG to start the ball rolling from Isaacman’s side.  But the NASA IG has also not been whacked like the other federal IGs under Trump II.  I wouldn’t put a lot money on it, but this may come back to sting Isaacman.

In fairness to Isaacman, he tried to explain it away thusly:

“I wouldn’t even begin to want to speculate why the President nominated me,” Isaacman said Wednesday.

Regarding his Trump Super PAC donations, Isaacman said that after his NASA nomination was rescinded — he considered a political career. “It shouldn’t be surprising that I supported the Republican Party,” he said.

That said, I checked Isaacman’s political donations on OpenSecrets.  Since 2014, he’s made only six donations to Republicans out of 37.  He’s never made a seven- or six-digit donation to any politician or party.  Isaacman’s largest political donation was only $50K.  A $2M donation to the President’s Republican PAC is one heckuva an outlier.  It doesn’t made sense absent the competition for the NASA Administrator nomination.

FWIW...

[Eric Hedman]

I still personally think SLS/Orion will fly though Artemis VIII because of lobbying behind the scenes by old space.  Only after SpaceX and or Blue Origin have landed a few crews on the Moon will those members of Congress who listen to the lobbyists accept that it is not a good architecture and should be canceled.  And by that time everything for a few more flights will be almost ready so they will fly them out.

Some members of Congress listen to Michael Griffin, the father of the Constellation mess, because he is useful to old space who wants to milk every dollar out of an obsolete architecture.  Every time I hear Griffin say something I just think back that he tried to put a massive shock absorber between the stages of ARES I to solve an oscillation problem on a rocket that was already struggling to lift a heavy Orion capsule and Service Module to orbit.  His credibility should be gone.

[thespacecow]

Couple observations from Isaacman’s re-nomination hearing...

1. At least publicly, Isaacman continues to buy the Orion/SLS-thru-Artemis-V argument hook, line, and sinker:

Well yeah, because it's the law, he can't possibly admit to Congress of all people that he's not going to follow the law.

But he didn't "buy it hook, line and sinker", he very pointedly said to Ted Cruz that once crew actually landed on the Moon, then it must mean US have at least one, maybe two commercial heavy lift ready, and orbital refueling is ready, which can be used to replace SLS.

And Isaacman has agreed to the competition that could lead to a third lander:

No he didn't, he very carefully arranged his answer to promise he'll open the competition to Blue Origin only. From Reuters youtube video at  ~40 minutes:

Senator Cantwell: "So when Secretary Duffy as the acting [administrator] announced NASA would reopen to compete Aremis 3 human lander to ensure America would reach the lunar surface in 2028. Um you agree with that decision and will you fully commit to this recompetition?"

Jared Isaacman: "Well, Senator, I mean, both SpaceX and Blue Origin were already awarded contracts through a competitive process to build the lander. And I don't think it was lost on either one of those organizations that the first company that is capable of delivering a lander to take American astronauts to the lunar surface and back is the one that this nation is going to go with. I think that competition is fantastic. I think the best thing for SpaceX is a Blue Origin right on their heels and vice versa."

And given only Cantwell asked this question, I don't think there's much support for the 3rd lander in senate anyways. It should be obvious to senators why this is a non-starter, there's no money for it.

For what should be obvious reasons, pay-for-play is patently illegal.  You can’t dump millions into a politician’s campaign coffers in exchange for a federal position.  Appointees are supposed to be the best qualified, not the highest bidders:

Criminal provisions of the United States Code prohibit offering or threatening federal jobs to induce payments, political activities, or contributions. Specifically, federal law prohibits anyone from asking for or receiving anything of value, including a campaign contribution, in return for promising to help someone obtain a federal post.  Further, candidates may not directly or indirectly promise appointment or use of influence or support in obtaining “any public or private position or employment” in return for someone’s political support... These provisions carry penalties ranging to fines of $10,000 and imprisonment for two years.

https://ethics.house.gov/manual/illegal-hiring-and-firing-practices/

There's nothing illegal here. As the paragraph you quoted shows, it's only illegal if Trump asked for campaign contribution in exchange for the nomination or promised nomination after receiving the contribution ("federal law prohibits anyone from asking for or receiving anything of value, including a campaign contribution, in return for promising to help someone obtain a federal post"), I don't think Trump is stupid enough to do that.

So as long as Isaacman made the contribution without Trump asking him to do so and Trump didn't promise nomination afterwards, even if he made it with the intention to build up relationship with Trump in the hope of being renominated, there's nothing wrong with it. I mean Congress is full of lawyers, if this is indeed illegal don't you think senators would make a bigger deal of it instead of just asking it in passing?

As for the ethic of this move, I don't think it's any worse than Biden nominated Nelson to be the administrator because Nelson is a good friend. What this does show is Isaacman has good political instincts, something he'll need to be the administrator.

In fairness to Isaacman, he tried to explain it away thusly:

“I wouldn’t even begin to want to speculate why the President nominated me,” Isaacman said Wednesday.

Regarding his Trump Super PAC donations, Isaacman said that after his NASA nomination was rescinded — he considered a political career. “It shouldn’t be surprising that I supported the Republican Party,” he said.

That said, I checked Isaacman’s political donations on OpenSecrets.  Since 2014, he’s made only six donations to Republicans out of 37.  He’s never made a seven- or six-digit donation to any politician or party.  Isaacman’s largest political donation was only $50K.  A $2M donation to the President’s Republican PAC is one heckuva an outlier.  It doesn’t made sense absent the competition for the NASA Administrator nomination.

There's no contradiction here. Isaacman didn't donate a lot before because he's not interested in a political career before.

[yg1968]

This guy just reinvented FFP from first principles. Yes we already have this, it's called a FFP contract. If you go over budget then the budgetary consequence is you don't get one more penny to cover your expenses. And if you go over time, the extra work hours won't be covered by government either.

FFP doesn't necessarily prevent a contractor from cutting its losses and backing out of a contract.  I'd like to see some mandates that made what Collins did with xEVAS extremely expensive.

I am not sure that I agree with that. Part of the problem with the xEVAS is that there was so many NASA requirements that companies like SpaceX didn't even bother to bid (despite the fact that they are already working on a spacesuit). Adding more contractual requirements is not the answer.

Look, it isn't the number of requirements that is the important metric, especially since not every complex system can be boiled down to a one paragraph description.

I see two potentially big issues with the xEVAS contract, and I'm not even that familiar with it. But it is the same problem with many parts of the Artemis program, which is:

1. Even though we've already been the Moon, we are returning in a completely different way, and that requires a completely new design for what is needed. And unfortunately NASA was not allowed to solve these challenges in a progressive way, but instead a completely fake need date was mandated to them. Well guess what, it turns out that you can't compress the amount of time it takes to mature new systems, and xEVAS is bleeding edge technology.

2. With bleeding edge technology you get requirement changes, because the technology is so immature that changes are REQUIRED. Unfortunately that causes price increases and schedule changes, and then everyone on the outside of the program is pointing fingers while conveniently forgetting that fake need dates are the cause, not NASA or the contractors.

That's not it. Collins didn't pull out because of the 2024 date. They pulled out because they didn't think that they could make money from their contract. The requirements in the xEVAs program were made to favor a suit that is similar to NASA's prior in-house xEMU suit which means that very few companies (including SpaceX) were interested in bidding.

[yg1968]

There's no contradiction here. Isaacman didn't donate a lot before because he [was] not interested in a political career before.

I agree. I think that Isaacman's more recent political donations (in late 2024 and 2025) to Republicans are more related to the fact that Isaacman wants to prove that he is actually a Republican and not a Democrat. Isaacman went on conservative podcasts and on a TP USA event for the same reason. Isaacman's nomination was initially pulled by Trump partly because he was perceived as a Democrat as he had previously given to Mark Kelly's campaign and to other Democrats.

[yg1968]

See below:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1998115427244028075

Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
The Senate Commerce Committee has released the questions for the record from Jared Isaacman's second confirmation hearing last week, ahead of this afternoon's committee vote.

Rep Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/47066FFE-3D17-4C53-B054-552065AE6353

Dem Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/103818D3-119E-4C54-8E8D-2F93E6FFA979

From page 20 of the Democrats' questions:

Artemis Mission Supply Chain

In response to a question regarding the One Big Beautiful Bill’s funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) for Artemis missions through Artemis V, you seemed to indicate that by that point, there will be other heavy lift options available and thus revised architectures may be possible. However, hardware is in flow now that supports SLS and Orion for flights beyond Artemis V. To interrupt the existing supply chain would risk putting in place another gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability – and as you rightfully stated in your testimony, we can never afford to let that happen again.

Question 16: Mr. Isaacman, since we may not know the status or success of these alternative launch vehicles and landers for at least 3-4 more years, will you commit to maintaining the existing supply chain and progress on hardware to support future Artemis missions beyond Artemis V at least until such time as we have a new vehicle (or vehicles) in place that is fully certified to fly with humans?

Answer: I will certainly commit to working with Congress and will always follow the law. As it stands, the One Big Beautiful Bill contemplates funding through Artemis V, and in that respect, I agree that SLS and Orion are the most expeditious path to meeting near-term lunar objectives. However, it is worth acknowledging the cost of SLS as highlighted by NASA’s Inspector General, and recognizing that if we want an enduring presence on the Moon--with mission cadence greater than every few years--and future missions to Mars and beyond, it will be imperative to eventually pivot to an architecture that enables more frequent and affordable launches.

[thespacecow]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1998115427244028075

Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
The Senate Commerce Committee has released the questions for the record from Jared Isaacman's second confirmation hearing last week, ahead of this afternoon's committee vote.

Rep Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/47066FFE-3D17-4C53-B054-552065AE6353

Dem Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/103818D3-119E-4C54-8E8D-2F93E6FFA979

This part is also interesting, just in case anybody still have doubts about Isaacman's stands on the 3rd lander:

RANKING MEMBER MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA)

Commitment to Competition and Redundancy for Critical Missions As we discussed during the
hearing, NASA’s exploration programs are faced with steep competition from China. Given
significant taxpayer investment in these programs, the United States cannot afford to allow
critical missions to have a single point of failure and must ensure that contract formulation
fosters competition among commercial providers.

Question 1: I appreciated the comments you made during our exchange in support of competition
between SpaceX and Blue Origin. However, I have been made aware that contracting differences
between the two HLS providers may not provide an even playing field for them to compete for
the Artemis III mission. For example, SpaceX is contracted for Artemis III with fewer
requirements, while Blue Origin is not on contract to deliver until the Artemis V mission and has
more requirements. What is your plan to put both providers on equal footing, making Artemis III
a true competition so the U.S. can beat China to the Moon?

Answer: If confirmed, I fully intend to solicit feedback from all commercial partners on
ways to reduce requirements and remove obstacles that impede America’s near-term
lunar objectives. This applies not only to Blue Origin and SpaceX, but to Lockheed
Martin, Boeing, Northrop, and every other vendor contributing to Artemis and NASA’s
broader mission. As I stated during the hearing, America is best served when both HLS
providers are able to compete--and as a nation, we must select the first landing system
ready to ensure the United States returns to the Moon before China.

"Both HLS providers are able to compete", no 3rd lander. And of course Cantwell is Blue Origin's senator, so she only cares about Blue here. As far as I can see, no other senator asked about re-open Artemis III, I think the 3rd lander thing is DOA.