Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5  (Read 482064 times)

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1855
  • Liked: 5681
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1860 on: 01/04/2025 09:56 pm »
I keep coming back to the problem that, unless Trump, NASA, and SpaceX are all willing to send astronauts on what's likely a suicide mission to Mars about 22 months from now, the only chance for American boots to be on the ground anywhere by the time Trump leaves office is to have them on the lunar south pole.  Two Mars windows + transit time is after January 20, 2029.  So the Moon is what he has.

Trump II maybe doesn’t even have that based on Lunar Starship HLS milestone slippage to date.  See Steve Pietrobon’s analysis in post #4516 here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.4500

Any (further) redirection of SX efforts towards Mars would put the human lunar return date in greater jeopardy.  Trump II may have to choose between Moon and Mars, but like you, I’m extremely skeptical of humans to Mars in the 2026 or 2028 windows.  Too many unaddressed question marks unless SX had a large but hidden division tackling them in secret.

Space Act awards for large unmanned landings — say $100M for 10t, $200M for 40t, and $300M for 100t — on Mars before 2028 or 2030 would be more realistic and extremely valuable to manned and unmanned.  But probably not enough international impact for a WH to fight for, and again, will slow Lunar Starship if SX plays.

Maximizing the probability of human lunar return before 2028 probably also means sticking it out with Orion/SLS.  That reduces the incentive for Trump II to fight to reform Artemis/replace Orion/SLS. 

I have not totally talked myself into it yet, but I’m beginning to suspect that the next four years will be more of the same.  The relative impotence of Trump/Musk to substantively influence the CR would seem to support that.

FWIW...

Offline thespacecow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • e/acc
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1861 on: 01/05/2025 01:44 am »
I keep coming back to the problem that, unless Trump, NASA, and SpaceX are all willing to send astronauts on what's likely a suicide mission to Mars about 22 months from now, the only chance for American boots to be on the ground anywhere by the time Trump leaves office is to have them on the lunar south pole.  Two Mars windows + transit time is after January 20, 2029.  So the Moon is what he has.

I am not sure how realistic this is but Musk now says that SpaceX could perhaps send a crewed flight near Mars in 2026.

There's also a Venus free return opportunity in early 2028, not as glorious as Mars but still would be a historical first.

And all these assume Trump cares enough about this stuff to make his preference the deciding factor, which is far from certain. He clearly preferred Mars over the Moon in his first term, but he was persuaded to go with the Moon instead. I think the safe assumption is that he can be convinced by people close to him.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Liked: 2695
  • Likes Given: 5196
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1862 on: 01/05/2025 03:38 am »
I have not totally talked myself into it yet, but I’m beginning to suspect that the next four years will be more of the same.  The relative impotence of Trump/Musk to substantively influence the CR would seem to support that.

This feels like the sort of thing where rapid action is all that will carry the day. I'd say Isaacman has the first ten months of his tenure to initiate major changes. Extensive studies of Artemis alternatives or long negotiations around a Space Force Command-for-SLS swap will only serve to favor the current POR.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1855
  • Liked: 5681
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1863 on: 01/05/2025 04:15 am »
This feels like the sort of thing where rapid action is all that will carry the day. I'd say Isaacman has the first ten months of his tenure to initiate major changes.

I agree, in general.  Anyone probably only has a year, give or take, before worries about mid-term elections force Congress to only think locally and parochially (Orion/SLS jobs) vice in the national interest (what’s best for the Artemis Program).

But even in that first year, substantive change or reform requires consistent and sustained support from the White House or the appropriators from the relevant districts/states will run the show.  My concern is that if Trump II measures Artemis only in terms of boots on Mars or the Moon by January 2029 — and the former is off the table and the latter is shaky — then that White House support may not be forthcoming or will melt at the first real resistance from Congress.  Absent a landing with some certainty this term, Artemis may not be a high enough priority during Trump II to spend real political capital and attention on.

A lot may come down to what bill of goods Musk can sell Trump on.  But if Trump pays attention to an honest, realistic assessment of the probabilities of these landings before his second term is up, then it’s hard to see Trump II caring enough to get over the congressional hump.

This was the pattern in Bush II, Obama, and Trump I with NASA human space exploration.  Attempt some change or reform but abandon when Congress pushed back or other priorities rose higher.  I don’t think Isaacman — a billionaire with no real government experience or connections — alone changes that.  It’s gonna take White House help, but given the likely schedules, I don’t see much White House interest forthcoming.  Again, it may come down to whether the Trump/Musk relationship endures and whether Trump listens to Musk’s sales job over other voices.

Heckuva way to run a railroad...

Quote
Extensive studies of Artemis alternatives

For the Moon, studies are not needed.  The program just needs to procure crew transport to/from lunar orbit and/or Gateway.

Mars needs study work in the Starship era.

Quote
or long negotiations around a Space Force Command-for-SLS swap will only serve to favor the current POR.

That was an anonymous rumor from Berger that remains to be verified, IIRC.  I’m skeptical until some other source confirms.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2208
  • Likes Given: 1313
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1864 on: 01/05/2025 06:49 am »
I personally don't believe Congress will go along with any major changes without a fairly clear understanding of what they are,  how long will they take and what will it cost.  I think NASA needs to quickly put out an RFP to industry asking for proposals on how they would get a crew out to lunar orbit and back significantly more efficiently than SLS/Orion.  I can imagine it might take a few iterations of proposals to get a solution or two worked out to where Congress would consider funding it/them.  I could imagine all the major aerospace companies would be interested in submitting a proposal if they think it's likely SLS and/or Orion are going away.  We might get some unexpectedly creative proposals.

I think the process would take at least a year at minimum to get the details worked out where Congress would consider funding it.  In the meantime, I don't think Congress will quietly agree to cancel SLS/Orion until an alternative is acceptably worked out.  Even then, I expect SLS/Orion to fly through at least Artemis IV.  Making quick big changes is not a slam dunk with so many powerful players involved.

What I think is likely to happen is that with a slim majority in Congress, no big change will be easy and the opposition won't be just along party lines.  Boeing will not want to give up a profitable cost plus contract on SLS and will be lobbying for its continuation.  Bechtel will lobby for continuing work on the second mobile launcher.  I think the best likely outcome will be a phaseout of SLS/Orion after anywhere from four to 8 flights.  It will be horrifically expensive, but will likely beat the Chinese for the next human lunar landing while rovers and habitats and a pile of other needed technologies are developed.

The end of SLS/Orion will inevitably happen as other reusable spacecraft become capable of travel to the Moon and beyond come on line.  I hope I am wrong.  But I doubt if Trump and Musk can hurry the transition much more than as I suggested in this post.


Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15265
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13234
  • Likes Given: 10125
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1865 on: 01/05/2025 11:45 am »
Phillip Sloss Report:

Will any of the 2024 Artemis mysteries be resolved in 2025?

Quote
Jan 5, 2025
At the beginning of 2024, Artemis II and the Starship prop transfer demo were scheduled to be completed by now, but those schedules were undetailed and uncertain.  A year later, the progress made was in some cases spectacular, but also inconclusive.  As 2025 begins, those two big test flights still seem as far away as they did a year ago.

That uncertainty and lack of clarity in public was the biggest theme of Artemis in 2024, and in this video I'll go over a few of the mysteries that lasted through the year and ones that came up during the year and still remain unresolved.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

00:00 Intro
01:19 The biggest theme of Artemis in 2024 was what was not said
04:36 2024 Artemis mysteries that remain unresolved as 2025 begins, starting with Artemis III alternatives
07:15 The mystery of the SLS commercial contract
08:51 The mystery of the Gateway target launch date
11:32 Thanks for watching!

« Last Edit: 01/05/2025 11:46 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 8125
  • Likes Given: 4056
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1866 on: 01/05/2025 01:21 pm »
 
A lot may come down to what bill of goods Musk can sell Trump on.  But if Trump pays attention to an honest, realistic assessment of the probabilities of these landings before his second term is up, then it’s hard to see Trump II caring enough to get over the congressional hump.

This was the pattern in Bush II, Obama, and Trump I with NASA human space exploration.
Heckuva way to run a railroad...

I expect SLS/Orion to fly through at least Artemis IV.  Making quick big changes is not a slam dunk with so many powerful players involved.
What I think is likely to happen is that with a slim majority in Congress, no big change will be easy and the opposition won't be just along party lines.  Boeing will not want to give up a profitable cost plus contract on SLS and will be lobbying for its continuation.  Bechtel will lobby for continuing work on the second mobile launcher.  I think the best likely outcome will be a phaseout of SLS/Orion after anywhere from four to 8 flights.  It will be horrifically expensive, but will likely beat the Chinese for the next human lunar landing while rovers and habitats and a pile of other needed technologies are developed.
The end of SLS/Orion will inevitably happen as other reusable spacecraft become capable of travel to the Moon and beyond come on line.  I hope I am wrong.  But I doubt if Trump and Musk can hurry the transition much more than as I suggested in this post.

I agree with both of yours assessments. I don’t like it, but given the realities in Congress, I agree. SLS/Orion is going to continue to suck all the air out of the room for the foreseeable future. It’s not good for the nation, but serves the interests very well of what President Eisenhower warned us against. And they are firmly entrenched and in control.

I dare to entertain another hope. It’s a slim hope, but is possible.

Both President Trump and Mr. Musk are smart enough to read the tea leaves accurately and ascertain what is and is not possible, congressionally, before 2028. My thread bare hope is that once these two reach that inevitable, unpleasant conclusion, that President Trump might suggest to Mr. Musk that SpaceX is capable of doing a lunar landing itself, without waiting for Congress, NASA, or SLS/Orion/Gateway, before the end of Trump II. And I do believe that is true. Starship HLS is already funded by Congress, so all Mr. Musk would need to do (view from 10,000 feet), is to hurry it along and not wait for SLS/Orion/Gateway. To be clear, it actually serves the interests of Mr. Musk’s primary and personal goal of reaching Mars to establish a colony. We already know that President Trump and Mr. Musk talk among themselves. The question is; would the idea occur to President Trump? If it does, would he share that with Mr. Musk? And then, would Mr. Musk act on that? Slim chance, I know.

Why wait on the SLS/Orion/Gateway boondoggle at all? Just do it!
I recall the adage: “What you DO speaks so loudly that what you SAY I cannot hear”.
There is no law against SpaceX going to the moon without Congressional – or NASA – approval.
So just do it already!
Now THAT would be how to run a railroad!
« Last Edit: 01/05/2025 01:24 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7488
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6084
  • Likes Given: 2544
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1867 on: 01/05/2025 02:01 pm »

Both President Trump and Mr. Musk are smart enough to read the tea leaves accurately and ascertain what is and is not possible, congressionally, before 2028. My thread bare hope is that once these two reach that inevitable, unpleasant conclusion, that President Trump might suggest to Mr. Musk that SpaceX is capable of doing a lunar landing itself, without waiting for Congress, NASA, or SLS/Orion/Gateway, before the end of Trump II. And I do believe that is true. Starship HLS is already funded by Congress, so all Mr. Musk would need to do (view from 10,000 feet), is to hurry it along and not wait for SLS/Orion/Gateway. To be clear, it actually serves the interests of Mr. Musk’s primary and personal goal of reaching Mars to establish a colony. We already know that President Trump and Mr. Musk talk among themselves. The question is; would the idea occur to President Trump? If it does, would he share that with Mr. Musk? And then, would Mr. Musk act on that? Slim chance, I know.

Why wait on the SLS/Orion/Gateway boondoggle at all? Just do it!
I recall the adage: “What you DO speaks so loudly that what you SAY I cannot hear”.
There is no law against SpaceX going to the moon without Congressional – or NASA – approval.
So just do it already!
Now THAT would be how to run a railroad!
There may be a compromise. If SLS/Orion are so entrenched that they cannot be cancelled, it may be possible get congress to agree to throw in some funding for a backup plan that just uses Starship HLS systems to provide the service that SLS/Orion provides, namely to take four crew to and from NRHO. Even with (almost) no additional funding, NASA can perhaps repurpose the three SpaceX HLS missions they have already contracted for (uncrewed demo, Artemis III, and Artemis IV) plus a repurposed CCP Crew Dragon mission, to do a crewed lunar landing in the Artemis III time frame. This would be advertised to congress as a backup plan in case SLS/Orion slips.

Offline Hadley Delta

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1868 on: 01/06/2025 01:06 am »

There's also a Venus free return opportunity in early 2028, not as glorious as Mars but still would be a historical first.
I know I'm in a minority here, but I've always found Venus more interesting than Mars.

I'd love to see a crewed Venus flyby happen.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18263
  • Liked: 7873
  • Likes Given: 3301
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1869 on: 01/07/2025 12:40 am »

Both President Trump and Mr. Musk are smart enough to read the tea leaves accurately and ascertain what is and is not possible, congressionally, before 2028. My thread bare hope is that once these two reach that inevitable, unpleasant conclusion, that President Trump might suggest to Mr. Musk that SpaceX is capable of doing a lunar landing itself, without waiting for Congress, NASA, or SLS/Orion/Gateway, before the end of Trump II. And I do believe that is true. Starship HLS is already funded by Congress, so all Mr. Musk would need to do (view from 10,000 feet), is to hurry it along and not wait for SLS/Orion/Gateway. To be clear, it actually serves the interests of Mr. Musk’s primary and personal goal of reaching Mars to establish a colony. We already know that President Trump and Mr. Musk talk among themselves. The question is; would the idea occur to President Trump? If it does, would he share that with Mr. Musk? And then, would Mr. Musk act on that? Slim chance, I know.

Why wait on the SLS/Orion/Gateway boondoggle at all? Just do it!
I recall the adage: “What you DO speaks so loudly that what you SAY I cannot hear”.
There is no law against SpaceX going to the moon without Congressional – or NASA – approval.
So just do it already!
Now THAT would be how to run a railroad!
There may be a compromise. If SLS/Orion are so entrenched that they cannot be cancelled, it may be possible get congress to agree to throw in some funding for a backup plan that just uses Starship HLS systems to provide the service that SLS/Orion provides, namely to take four crew to and from NRHO. Even with (almost) no additional funding, NASA can perhaps repurpose the three SpaceX HLS missions they have already contracted for (uncrewed demo, Artemis III, and Artemis IV) plus a repurposed CCP Crew Dragon mission, to do a crewed lunar landing in the Artemis III time frame. This would be advertised to congress as a backup plan in case SLS/Orion slips.

I used to think that was the most realistic option but if the Trump Administration wants to go to both the Moon and Mars, that is only possible if SLS and Orion get cancelled in my opinion.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2473
  • Liked: 615
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1870 on: 01/08/2025 07:13 pm »
I disagree with Mr. Musk on this point. In the beginning, the colony should be run the same way a military base is run, with an overall mission commander with delegated authority under the commander. In the beginning, the base (soon to be small colony) would need to follow some well laid out, long term plan to establish sustainable permanency. That needs someone in charge to direct the multitude of efforts. Direct democracy would quickly become way out of hand as the number of colonists grows. Every time a decision needed to be made, EVERYBODY would need to show up and vote. That works only with small groups. Base commanders can easily have term limits and be rotated through a growing pool of experienced colonists. Once there are many thousands of colonists, then representative democracy can begin to take over administrative, legislative and judicial responsibilities instead of the commanders. But candidates for the offices should be required to meet minimum qualifications to run for office, which are determined by the people in a constitution of some kind that was agreed to by the colonists in an initial Constitutional Convention. The goal is self governance; Martian rule by Martian people, under Martian law as enshrined in a Martian Constitution.

The worst thing would be an imposed constitution that is impossible to change and cannot adjust to changing circumstances. Hence, I totally agree with the statement "The Martians will decide how they are ruled". Martians should decide on what constitution they want, on a regular basis and without middlemen. Needless to say I have zero trust in Musk making this a reality. Martians will decide the "wrong thing" and suddenly they will only be free to decide what Elon wants.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2025 07:14 pm by Oli »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 8125
  • Likes Given: 4056
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1871 on: 01/08/2025 09:52 pm »
I disagree with Mr. Musk on this point. In the beginning, the colony should be run the same way a military base is run, with an overall mission commander with delegated authority under the commander. In the beginning, the base (soon to be small colony) would need to follow some well laid out, long term plan to establish sustainable permanency. That needs someone in charge to direct the multitude of efforts. Direct democracy would quickly become way out of hand as the number of colonists grows. Every time a decision needed to be made, EVERYBODY would need to show up and vote. That works only with small groups. Base commanders can easily have term limits and be rotated through a growing pool of experienced colonists. Once there are many thousands of colonists, then representative democracy can begin to take over administrative, legislative and judicial responsibilities instead of the commanders. But candidates for the offices should be required to meet minimum qualifications to run for office, which are determined by the people in a constitution of some kind that was agreed to by the colonists in an initial Constitutional Convention. The goal is self governance; Martian rule by Martian people, under Martian law as enshrined in a Martian Constitution.

The worst thing would be an imposed constitution that is impossible to change and cannot adjust to changing circumstances. Hence, I totally agree with the statement "The Martians will decide how they are ruled". Martians should decide on what constitution they want, on a regular basis and without middlemen. Needless to say I have zero trust in Musk making this a reality. Martians will decide the "wrong thing" and suddenly they will only be free to decide what Elon wants.

I think that's what I said:
Quote
determined by the people in a constitution of some kind that was agreed to by the colonists in an initial Constitutional Convention
Am I  missing something?
« Last Edit: 01/08/2025 09:52 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2035
  • England
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 2890
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1872 on: 01/08/2025 11:14 pm »

Both President Trump and Mr. Musk are smart enough to read the tea leaves accurately and ascertain what is and is not possible, congressionally, before 2028. My thread bare hope is that once these two reach that inevitable, unpleasant conclusion, that President Trump might suggest to Mr. Musk that SpaceX is capable of doing a lunar landing itself, without waiting for Congress, NASA, or SLS/Orion/Gateway, before the end of Trump II. And I do believe that is true. Starship HLS is already funded by Congress, so all Mr. Musk would need to do (view from 10,000 feet), is to hurry it along and not wait for SLS/Orion/Gateway. To be clear, it actually serves the interests of Mr. Musk’s primary and personal goal of reaching Mars to establish a colony. We already know that President Trump and Mr. Musk talk among themselves. The question is; would the idea occur to President Trump? If it does, would he share that with Mr. Musk? And then, would Mr. Musk act on that? Slim chance, I know.

Why wait on the SLS/Orion/Gateway boondoggle at all? Just do it!
I recall the adage: “What you DO speaks so loudly that what you SAY I cannot hear”.
There is no law against SpaceX going to the moon without Congressional – or NASA – approval.
So just do it already!
Now THAT would be how to run a railroad!
There may be a compromise. If SLS/Orion are so entrenched that they cannot be cancelled, it may be possible get congress to agree to throw in some funding for a backup plan that just uses Starship HLS systems to provide the service that SLS/Orion provides, namely to take four crew to and from NRHO. Even with (almost) no additional funding, NASA can perhaps repurpose the three SpaceX HLS missions they have already contracted for (uncrewed demo, Artemis III, and Artemis IV) plus a repurposed CCP Crew Dragon mission, to do a crewed lunar landing in the Artemis III time frame. This would be advertised to congress as a backup plan in case SLS/Orion slips.

I used to think that was the most realistic option but if the Trump Administration wants to go to both the Moon and Mars, that is only possible if SLS and Orion get cancelled in my opinion.
Why does it require the cancelling of SLS and ORION? As discussed above, SX can simply just do it as a 5th column, that is continue its own moon  and mars landing plans. Musk has sufficient access to cash, and assuming a permissive relationship with the USGOV the regulation(, and political) hurdles should all be minimised. This is quite crucial, as SX could still struggle to get launch and landing sites set up with permission for sufficient rates, to continue to cooperate with Artemis, start to "go-it-alone", send a couple of ships to Mars, and launch Starlink!
SX will not need any government funding. SX can continue with its ARTEMIS contracts and milestones until/if there are changes or cancellation, as there is a wide overlap in the technologies SX has to develop.
As SLS finally recedes into irrelevance, at some point NASA can contract services from SX fairly easily if SX is the only possible provider. This should seem much more palatable if they are much more affordable than "SLS era pricing". Other governments and agencies around the world will want to jump on board, so the US will be shamed if it doesn't jump at the offer of first priority.
Besides, with likely political alliances it SX stands to make its landings on the moon into Apollo-like national moments. If that includes boots on the Moon by 20th Jan 2028, then it will get massive political support.
NASA I hope, will dovetail with SX "going-it-alone" very much better with Isaacman at the helm. He should help it develop as a joint vision, where NASA can enthusiastically cooperate, regardless of how much money congress allocates. (And fit in any small contributions from BO as it gradually makes progress)
It is unlikely SLS will survive beyond that, if it has lasted that long.
All just IMO.  And separately I bet we see an Australian outpost in the dessert. That will require a cooperative USGOV. And will help with launch rate.
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3691
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2645
  • Likes Given: 2287
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1873 on: 01/08/2025 11:50 pm »
SX can simply just do it as a 5th column, that is continue its own moon  and mars landing plans.

SpaceX doesn't have moon plans. Any more than it had Psyche plans. It's a job for fee, not a job for free.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 8125
  • Likes Given: 4056
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1874 on: 01/09/2025 04:16 pm »

Both President Trump and Mr. Musk are smart enough to read the tea leaves accurately and ascertain what is and is not possible, congressionally, before 2028. My thread bare hope is that once these two reach that inevitable, unpleasant conclusion, that President Trump might suggest to Mr. Musk that SpaceX is capable of doing a lunar landing itself, without waiting for Congress, NASA, or SLS/Orion/Gateway, before the end of Trump II. And I do believe that is true. Starship HLS is already funded by Congress, so all Mr. Musk would need to do (view from 10,000 feet), is to hurry it along and not wait for SLS/Orion/Gateway. To be clear, it actually serves the interests of Mr. Musk’s primary and personal goal of reaching Mars to establish a colony. We already know that President Trump and Mr. Musk talk among themselves. The question is; would the idea occur to President Trump? If it does, would he share that with Mr. Musk? And then, would Mr. Musk act on that? Slim chance, I know.

Why wait on the SLS/Orion/Gateway boondoggle at all? Just do it!
I recall the adage: “What you DO speaks so loudly that what you SAY I cannot hear”.
There is no law against SpaceX going to the moon without Congressional – or NASA – approval.
So just do it already!
Now THAT would be how to run a railroad!
There may be a compromise. If SLS/Orion are so entrenched that they cannot be cancelled, it may be possible get congress to agree to throw in some funding for a backup plan that just uses Starship HLS systems to provide the service that SLS/Orion provides, namely to take four crew to and from NRHO. Even with (almost) no additional funding, NASA can perhaps repurpose the three SpaceX HLS missions they have already contracted for (uncrewed demo, Artemis III, and Artemis IV) plus a repurposed CCP Crew Dragon mission, to do a crewed lunar landing in the Artemis III time frame. This would be advertised to congress as a backup plan in case SLS/Orion slips.

I used to think that was the most realistic option but if the Trump Administration wants to go to both the Moon and Mars, that is only possible if SLS and Orion get cancelled in my opinion.
Why does it require the cancelling of SLS and ORION? As discussed above, SX can simply just do it as a 5th column, that is continue its own moon  and mars landing plans. Musk has sufficient access to cash, and assuming a permissive relationship with the USGOV the regulation(, and political) hurdles should all be minimised. This is quite crucial, as SX could still struggle to get launch and landing sites set up with permission for sufficient rates, to continue to cooperate with Artemis, start to "go-it-alone", send a couple of ships to Mars, and launch Starlink!
SX will not need any government funding. SX can continue with its ARTEMIS contracts and milestones until/if there are changes or cancellation, as there is a wide overlap in the technologies SX has to develop.
As SLS finally recedes into irrelevance, at some point NASA can contract services from SX fairly easily if SX is the only possible provider. This should seem much more palatable if they are much more affordable than "SLS era pricing". Other governments and agencies around the world will want to jump on board, so the US will be shamed if it doesn't jump at the offer of first priority.
Besides, with likely political alliances it SX stands to make its landings on the moon into Apollo-like national moments. If that includes boots on the Moon by 20th Jan 2028, then it will get massive political support.
NASA I hope, will dovetail with SX "going-it-alone" very much better with Isaacman at the helm. He should help it develop as a joint vision, where NASA can enthusiastically cooperate, regardless of how much money congress allocates. (And fit in any small contributions from BO as it gradually makes progress)
It is unlikely SLS will survive beyond that, if it has lasted that long.
All just IMO.  And separately I bet we see an Australian outpost in the dessert. That will require a cooperative USGOV. And will help with launch rate.

With Isaacman as Administrator, NASA is more likely to be encouraging and cooperative with a SpaceX effort to go to the moon by itself than with any other administrator, past or present. That's because Isaacman would be the first administrator who wouldn't view that effort as an attempt to embarrass the agency, but simply as a natural progression of SpaceX going simply because it's ready to and can, so why not? I believe that another Administrator, like Nelson, would view the effort as challenging NASA for supremacy, and would do whatever he could to discourage it, while Isaacman would not. Sooner or later, there will be missions to the moon and Mars that are not run by the USGov, and THAT is what Nelson's problem would boil down to. He's a government man through and through, and would not take kindly to anyone else besides the government mounting a lunar mission. And it's completely unnecessary because Mr. Musk has absolutely no intention of trying to usurp NASA. He simply doesn't want to wait on the snail's pace that is the best NASA can do because of the way it's hands are tied by Congress. NASA is a government agency and is running a government space program. SpaceX is a private company and is running a private space program. Just because SpaceX has contracts with NASA doesn't mean it can only do NASA missions, any more than just because Boeing has NASA contracts doesn't mean that Boeing can do only NASA contracts. Boeing still does it own thing and so will SpaceX. While Nelson would not see it that way, Isaacman would.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2025 04:18 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7488
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6084
  • Likes Given: 2544
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1875 on: 01/09/2025 04:28 pm »
With Isaacman as Administrator, NASA is more likely to be encouraging and cooperative with a SpaceX effort to go to the moon by itself than with any other administrator, past or present. That's because Isaacman would be the first administrator who wouldn't view that effort as an attempt to embarrass the agency, but simply as a natural progression of SpaceX going simply because it's ready to and can, so why not? I believe that another Administrator, like Nelson, would view the effort as challenging NASA for supremacy, and would do whatever he could to discourage it, while Isaacman would not. Sooner or later, there will be lunar missions that are not run by the USGov, and THAT is what Nelson's problem would boil down to. He's a government man through and through, and would not take kindly to anyone else besides the government mounting a lunar mission. And it's completely unnecessary because Mr. Musk has absolutely no intention of trying to usurp NASA. He simply doesn't want to wait on the snail's pace that is the best NASA can do because of the way it's hands are tied by Congress. NASA is a government agency and is running a government space program. SpaceX is a private company and is running a private space program. Just because SpaceX has contracts with NASA doesn't mean it can only do NASA missions, any more than just because Boeing has NASA contracts doesn't mean that Boeing can do only NASA contracts. Boeing still does it own thing and so will SpaceX. While Nelson would not see it that way, Isaacman would.
It seems to be more of a mindset than a reality. NASA will still run Artemis even if some Artemis missions use SpaceX systems end-to-end. But mindset is important. To my mind, NASA should contract for a pure SpaceX landing mission even if they are also attempting to continue with an SLS/Orion Artemis III mission. I doubt that SpaceX will mount a landing mission on their own unless someone offers to pay for it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 8125
  • Likes Given: 4056
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1876 on: 01/09/2025 05:05 pm »
With Isaacman as Administrator, NASA is more likely to be encouraging and cooperative with a SpaceX effort to go to the moon by itself than with any other administrator, past or present. That's because Isaacman would be the first administrator who wouldn't view that effort as an attempt to embarrass the agency, but simply as a natural progression of SpaceX going simply because it's ready to and can, so why not? I believe that another Administrator, like Nelson, would view the effort as challenging NASA for supremacy, and would do whatever he could to discourage it, while Isaacman would not. Sooner or later, there will be lunar missions that are not run by the USGov, and THAT is what Nelson's problem would boil down to. He's a government man through and through, and would not take kindly to anyone else besides the government mounting a lunar mission. And it's completely unnecessary because Mr. Musk has absolutely no intention of trying to usurp NASA. He simply doesn't want to wait on the snail's pace that is the best NASA can do because of the way it's hands are tied by Congress. NASA is a government agency and is running a government space program. SpaceX is a private company and is running a private space program. Just because SpaceX has contracts with NASA doesn't mean it can only do NASA missions, any more than just because Boeing has NASA contracts doesn't mean that Boeing can do only NASA contracts. Boeing still does it own thing and so will SpaceX. While Nelson would not see it that way, Isaacman would.
It seems to be more of a mindset than a reality. NASA will still run Artemis even if some Artemis missions use SpaceX systems end-to-end. But mindset is important. To my mind, NASA should contract for a pure SpaceX landing mission even if they are also attempting to continue with an SLS/Orion Artemis III mission. I doubt that SpaceX will mount a landing mission on their own unless someone offers to pay for it.

I believe they would be wise to try it, even if it's not their "thing". As I posted elsewhere, SpaceX iterates by testing to destruction in real world conditions, and one thing they need to do is perfect landing a Starship-size vehicle on uneven, dusty, rocky, hole-pocked and treacherous surfaces. That's what they will be facing on Mars. The moon gives them a perfect "real world condition" to do that iteration without waiting the 2 year journey time to observe and adjudicate the result.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2025 05:07 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7488
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6084
  • Likes Given: 2544
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1877 on: 01/09/2025 05:46 pm »
With Isaacman as Administrator, NASA is more likely to be encouraging and cooperative with a SpaceX effort to go to the moon by itself than with any other administrator, past or present. That's because Isaacman would be the first administrator who wouldn't view that effort as an attempt to embarrass the agency, but simply as a natural progression of SpaceX going simply because it's ready to and can, so why not? I believe that another Administrator, like Nelson, would view the effort as challenging NASA for supremacy, and would do whatever he could to discourage it, while Isaacman would not. Sooner or later, there will be lunar missions that are not run by the USGov, and THAT is what Nelson's problem would boil down to. He's a government man through and through, and would not take kindly to anyone else besides the government mounting a lunar mission. And it's completely unnecessary because Mr. Musk has absolutely no intention of trying to usurp NASA. He simply doesn't want to wait on the snail's pace that is the best NASA can do because of the way it's hands are tied by Congress. NASA is a government agency and is running a government space program. SpaceX is a private company and is running a private space program. Just because SpaceX has contracts with NASA doesn't mean it can only do NASA missions, any more than just because Boeing has NASA contracts doesn't mean that Boeing can do only NASA contracts. Boeing still does it own thing and so will SpaceX. While Nelson would not see it that way, Isaacman would.
It seems to be more of a mindset than a reality. NASA will still run Artemis even if some Artemis missions use SpaceX systems end-to-end. But mindset is important. To my mind, NASA should contract for a pure SpaceX landing mission even if they are also attempting to continue with an SLS/Orion Artemis III mission. I doubt that SpaceX will mount a landing mission on their own unless someone offers to pay for it.

I believe they would be wise to try it, even if it's not their "thing". As I posted elsewhere, SpaceX iterates by testing to destruction in real world conditions, and one thing they need to do is perfect landing a Starship-size vehicle on uneven, dusty, rocky, hole-pocked and treacherous surfaces. That's what they will be facing on Mars. The moon gives them a perfect "real world condition" to do that iteration without waiting the 2 year journey time to observe and adjudicate the result.
Interesting. NASA appears to be OK to plan for a single uncrewed mission prior to the first crewed mission for just about anything: Dragon, Starliner, Orion, Starship HLS. But maybe SpaceX will be more conservative in this regard for later stuff? It's easier to make this decision when hardware is cheap.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3778
  • Likes Given: 6567
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1878 on: 01/10/2025 04:01 pm »
I disagree with Mr. Musk on this point. In the beginning, the colony should be run the same way a military base is run, with an overall mission commander with delegated authority under the commander. In the beginning, the base (soon to be small colony) would need to follow some well laid out, long term plan to establish sustainable permanency. That needs someone in charge to direct the multitude of efforts. Direct democracy would quickly become way out of hand as the number of colonists grows. Every time a decision needed to be made, EVERYBODY would need to show up and vote. That works only with small groups. Base commanders can easily have term limits and be rotated through a growing pool of experienced colonists. Once there are many thousands of colonists, then representative democracy can begin to take over administrative, legislative and judicial responsibilities instead of the commanders. But candidates for the offices should be required to meet minimum qualifications to run for office, which are determined by the people in a constitution of some kind that was agreed to by the colonists in an initial Constitutional Convention. The goal is self governance; Martian rule by Martian people, under Martian law as enshrined in a Martian Constitution.

The worst thing would be an imposed constitution that is impossible to change and cannot adjust to changing circumstances. Hence, I totally agree with the statement "The Martians will decide how they are ruled". Martians should decide on what constitution they want, on a regular basis and without middlemen. Needless to say I have zero trust in Musk making this a reality. Martians will decide the "wrong thing" and suddenly they will only be free to decide what Elon wants.
IMO, it'll be a company town with an unhealthy dose of indentured servitude. It will have no more constitution or governing charter than a coal mining town of 100 years ago. And if you don't like it, take a hike - literally.


I don't like it but it's what I expect.
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
  • Liked: 2695
  • Likes Given: 5196
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1879 on: 01/10/2025 06:01 pm »
I disagree with Mr. Musk on this point. In the beginning, the colony should be run the same way a military base is run, with an overall mission commander with delegated authority under the commander. In the beginning, the base (soon to be small colony) would need to follow some well laid out, long term plan to establish sustainable permanency. That needs someone in charge to direct the multitude of efforts. Direct democracy would quickly become way out of hand as the number of colonists grows. Every time a decision needed to be made, EVERYBODY would need to show up and vote. That works only with small groups. Base commanders can easily have term limits and be rotated through a growing pool of experienced colonists. Once there are many thousands of colonists, then representative democracy can begin to take over administrative, legislative and judicial responsibilities instead of the commanders. But candidates for the offices should be required to meet minimum qualifications to run for office, which are determined by the people in a constitution of some kind that was agreed to by the colonists in an initial Constitutional Convention. The goal is self governance; Martian rule by Martian people, under Martian law as enshrined in a Martian Constitution.

The worst thing would be an imposed constitution that is impossible to change and cannot adjust to changing circumstances. Hence, I totally agree with the statement "The Martians will decide how they are ruled". Martians should decide on what constitution they want, on a regular basis and without middlemen. Needless to say I have zero trust in Musk making this a reality. Martians will decide the "wrong thing" and suddenly they will only be free to decide what Elon wants.
IMO, it'll be a company town with an unhealthy dose of indentured servitude. It will have no more constitution or governing charter than a coal mining town of 100 years ago. And if you don't like it, take a hike - literally.


I don't like it but it's what I expect.

History certainly suggests as much. Breaking this cycle would require the application of a benevolent, enlightened approach from the very top. The odds of that occurring appear to have diminished, but there's always room for surprise.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0