Recent Posts1
Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6
« Last post by thespacecow on Today at 02:32 am »If Isaacman has to take action in 2026-2027, and seeing we're currently in early Jan of 2026, by definition it's not too late.
The problem is that Isaacman doesn’t _have_ to do anything with respect to transitioning Artemis off Orion/SLS. He ignored the FY26 PBR regarding commercial lunar/Mars without repercussion. (It was more important that Isaacman contribute to the President’s PAC.) There’s nothing in statute (reconciliation) or final bill language (minibus) that requires such a transition. Isaacman instead endorsed legislation that extended Orion/SLS thru 2030+, twice. On the day Isaacman was inaugurated, the President released his latest EO on space, which set a lunar landing goal of 2028, not a commercial transition goal. Since the FY26 PBR, every signal from Isaacman and Trump II is that they have decided not to effectuate or initiate a transition off Orion/SLS during the remainder of their term. It’s up to the next WH and NASA Administrator.
That could change. But change takes time. And they don’t have much before they become lame ducks. It may very quickly become too late to start that transition before Isaacman and Trump II no longer have the influence to do so.
My original point was that Isaacman definitely can’t wait to initiate a transition off Orion/SLS until Artemis V (2030+) or Artemis III (2028+) because he’ll either be out of office or shortly on his way out. But waiting until after those milestones seems to be the plan, which implies he’s kicking the can to the next NASA Administrator.
So you're betting on Isaacman will do nothing wrt starting commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion, like I said, let's just wait and see what happens.
some people just don't learn that really don't know what is going on.
Congress will determine whether NASA does anything wrt commercial alternatives to SLS/Orion, not Isaacman.
You're the one who doesn't know what's going on:
1. IF SpaceX proposed to do Artemis III with all SpaceX hardware in their faster HLS proposal, that _is_ a commercial alternative to SLS/Orion, and it's up to Isaacman to approve it based on existing Congressional language in the FY26 appropriation reports which I outlined here and fund it using the existing HLS funding which Congress generously increased beyond PBR.
2. Alternatively Isaacman can also start the Commercial Moon and Mars Infrastructure and Transportation program in the PBR. Congress didn't explicitly fund this, but didn't forbid it either, and there is a wedge in the exploration funding - although more limited than originally requested - for it.
