NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[Will O Wisp]

Accelerate the survive-the-night kit for CLPS landers and put a small telescope susceptible to lunar dust getting kicked up around it on one and boom — exclusion zone for a tenth the (optimistic) cost of a surface reactor and probably a faster and bigger one to boot.

This, for the love of god. Plus you'd get actual science.

But I don't think either would prevent China from landing at the South Pole or anywhere else. All it would do is keep them out of a fairly small area immediately around the reactor. If we're going to make up arbitrary rules about where China can and can't land for largely political reasons, I suspect China will respect them about as much as we respect their rules about the South China Sea.

My complaint isn’t about space reactors per se, on the Moon or anywhere else.  My complaint is about the long list of space reactors that got cancelled because they had non-existent customers and lousy programmatic justifications, and the fact that this reactor is even more poorly rationalized than all of those prior ones.

There is literally not a single program or mission asking for this. We have zero plans on how to actually use a reactor like this.

Of all the things we could be pursuing in space, this is by far the most pointless.

[TheRadicalModerate]

But I don't think either would prevent China from landing at the South Pole or anywhere else. All it would do is keep them out of a fairly small area immediately around the reactor.

I'm worried that "fairly small areas" could be very strategic.  The Shackleton connecting ridge springs to mind.  Areas in chokepoints with good landing prospects, lots of sunlight, and possible access to PSRs aren't going to be that common.

I'm also worried that we're about to be hoist with our own petards.  OST was kinda loosey-goosey about due regard, but the Artemis Accords aren't loosey-goosey at all.  They talk explicitly about keep-out zones.  Even though China isn't a signatory, they can make a big deal about Artemis Accords signatories not walking their own talk if they try to interfere, and they'll be completely in the right.  That'll tear the Artemis Accords apart, which is a medium-to-big deal.

I'm not wedded to the idea that you need a nuke to maintain a permanent claim on areas.  But it certainly has all the attributes you'd need for a permanent claim: long-term, continuous operation, high risk of damage if subjected to landing debris, and fairly dire consequences if damage is incurred.  Other pieces of equipment may also have these attributes, but if we're not doing a nuke, we'd better spend some time identifying what will do the trick.

[yg1968]

There is literally not a single program or mission asking for this. We have zero plans on how to actually use a reactor like this.

Of all the things we could be pursuing in space, this is by far the most pointless.

The Artemis program would be using it as part of the Artemis base camp. How else would you get power through the lunar night?

The official announcement hasn't been made it, so we have very few details. The only thing that we have is the Politico article which frankly isn't that great.

[TheRadicalModerate]

As long as all of the Artemis surface architectures (such as they are) rely on some kind of outboard power supply--and they seem to--swapping in a nuke instead of solar masts and batteries seems like it ought to be pretty close to plug-compatible.

The real requirements are to provide enough peak power for crewed operations, and enough base load to keep everything from freezing at night.  Initially, nighttime ops will be uncrewed and low power, but eventually there ought to be enough power to allow continuous crew ops.

Beyond that, the nuke itself is opaque to the rest of the architecture.  I don't expect work on solar masts to stop, but it's possible that the nuke will take the place of batteries for nighttime ops.

[yg1968]

The NY Times published the Directive issued by Duffy on the nuclear reactor:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/08/06/science/nasa-nuclear-directive-sean-duffy.html

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/d2c4e11c7eab0d86/a7109f2a-full.pdf

An RFP will be issued within 60 days.

Here is what the Directive issued by Duffy says about the keep out zone:

Since March 2024, China and Russia have announced on at least three occasions a joint effort to place a reactor on the Moon by the mid-2030s. The first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first.

[Vultur]

That wording kind of implies pretty ambitious plans for Artemis.

I mean, you don't need a particular PSR crater unless you plan to do ISRU. If the goal is just to have a temporarily inhabited Moon base Artemis Base Camp style... That's not going to make ISRU make sense. This seems to suggest a competition to have actual lunar industry, which I don't think we have funding for and I kind of doubt China does (Russia definitely does not).

[yg1968]

That wording kind of implies pretty ambitious plans for Artemis.

I mean, you don't need a particular PSR crater unless you plan to do ISRU. If the goal is just to have a temporarily inhabited Moon base Artemis Base Camp style... That's not going to make ISRU make sense. This seems to suggest a competition to have actual lunar industry, which I don't think we have funding for and I kind of doubt China does (Russia definitely does not).

The plans are the ones in the FY26 Budget. The idea is to replace SLS with commercial services after Artemis III. ISRU and in-situ manufacturing demonstrations are also part of these plans.

To further advance U.S. competitiveness and lunar surface leadership, NASA shall: [...]

• Provide priority to power systems capable of supporting ISRU and in-situ manufacturing demonstrations by FY30.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/d2c4e11c7eab0d86/a7109f2a-full.pdf

[TheRadicalModerate]

That wording kind of implies pretty ambitious plans for Artemis.

I mean, you don't need a particular PSR crater unless you plan to do ISRU. If the goal is just to have a temporarily inhabited Moon base Artemis Base Camp style... That's not going to make ISRU make sense. This seems to suggest a competition to have actual lunar industry, which I don't think we have funding for and I kind of doubt China does (Russia definitely does not).

This one of those capabilities vs. intentions things that the intelligence folks harp on all the time.  Does China intend to use lunar water as a strategic asset?  Beats me--probably not any time soon.  And I'm sure the Chinese have roughly the same view of the US as the US does of them.  But if China can foreclose western opportunities to get at water for a relatively low cost, why wouldn't they?  Then they have the capability and the US doesn't.

Maybe that turns out to be a big "meh" in the long run.  Maybe water isn't recoverable at an interesting cost.  Maybe it turns out that lunar water doesn't have much strategic value, because launching water from Earth is easy, cheap, and hard to interdict.  Maybe there are other pressure points that obviate water capabilities.  As Neils Bohr (and Yogi Berra) used to say, "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

But the safe play is to ensure that you don't concede capabilities to your opponent.

[catdlr]

Just a side-step here to lighten the thread:

I came across some lovely artwork on 'X' that I wanted to share with the membership. I got permission to post it. Please don't copy or reuse without the artist's permission.


Artwork Credit: Moonsteaders@moonsteaders
https://x.com/moonsteaders/status/1954370879250661850

[catdlr]

Phillip Sloss's Weekly Report.

Fueling complete, NASA ready to move Artemis II Orion for launch encapsulation

Aug 9, 2025
There's still a lot of work to do to launch the Artemis II mission, and crucial testing won't occur until days before the first launch attempt, but Exploration Ground Systems is staying close to the schedule laid out last last year and early in this one.  Fueling of the Orion spacecraft is complete and we were standing by to see when it moves to the Launch Abort System Facility for encapsulation in the next few days.

I go through the news and status of Artemis II launch preparations, updates on building flight hardware for missions after that, and Mobile Launcher-2 prime contractor Bechtel provided imagery of recent construction.  There's also more developments in the ad nauseum Artemis budget and policy mess in Washington, D.C., and progress on China's crewed lunar lander.

Imagery is courtesy of NASA, except where noted.

NASA video of Orion interior: https://x.com/NASA_Orion/status/1928534471487209741


Links to social media posts:
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewjonesspace.bsky.social/post/3lvsd2ckkrk2x
https://x.com/CNSAWatcher/status/1953377857545421070
https://x.com/raz_liu/status/1953649929488150699
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewjonesspace.bsky.social/post/3lvut36sdqs2n
https://x.com/McOfficialPlays/status/1950998440940544466



Links to stories/news pieces referenced:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/08/06/science/nasa-nuclear-directive-sean-duffy.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/aug/5/america-must-win-moon-race/

Join the channel for additional members-only content:
   / @philipsloss 

Or, consider buying me a coffee to support my work and the channel.
https://buymeacoffee.com/philipsloss

00:00 Intro
01:15 Artemis II update
09:33 Updates from Boeing on SLS Stages production
16:00 Some additional views of the SLS Core Stage-3 engine section during remate in the VAB
17:37 Mobile Launcher-2 news and pictures of recent work from Bechtel
19:19 Other news and notes, starting with the U.S. political mess
22:36 China shows recent testing of their Lanyue crewed lunar lander
23:58 Next Starship flight test pushed back a few more days
24:33 Artemis III and IV Orion hardware provides an administrator tour backdrop
25:27 Thanks for watching!

[Vultur]

That wording kind of implies pretty ambitious plans for Artemis.

I mean, you don't need a particular PSR crater unless you plan to do ISRU. If the goal is just to have a temporarily inhabited Moon base Artemis Base Camp style... That's not going to make ISRU make sense. This seems to suggest a competition to have actual lunar industry, which I don't think we have funding for and I kind of doubt China does (Russia definitely does not).

The plans are the ones in the FY26 Budget. The idea is to replace SLS with commercial services after Artemis III. ISRU and in-situ manufacturing demonstrations are also part of these plans.

To further advance U.S. competitiveness and lunar surface leadership, NASA shall: [...]

• Provide priority to power systems capable of supporting ISRU and in-situ manufacturing demonstrations by FY30.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/d2c4e11c7eab0d86/a7109f2a-full.pdf

There's a huge difference between "we want to work on power systems that can support an ISRU demonstration" and "we are actually doing stuff with ISRU". An ISRU demonstration can be pretty small scale; for operational use of ISRU to make sense, you need a pretty large scale of lunar operations.

That wording kind of implies pretty ambitious plans for Artemis.

I mean, you don't need a particular PSR crater unless you plan to do ISRU. If the goal is just to have a temporarily inhabited Moon base Artemis Base Camp style... That's not going to make ISRU make sense. This seems to suggest a competition to have actual lunar industry, which I don't think we have funding for and I kind of doubt China does (Russia definitely does not).

This one of those capabilities vs. intentions things that the intelligence folks harp on all the time.  Does China intend to use lunar water as a strategic asset?  Beats me--probably not any time soon.  And I'm sure the Chinese have roughly the same view of the US as the US does of them.  But if China can foreclose western opportunities to get at water for a relatively low cost, why wouldn't they?  Then they have the capability and the US doesn't.

I guess? To me, these feel like almost exclusive potential futures, one where there's a level of in-space infrastructure and activity that would not just make lunar ISRU make sense to do at all, but actually to make it a *strategic capability*; vs one where more or less current space rules are in place (the kind of "foreclosing" implied assumes an Artemis Accords-ish set of space rules).

Those two possibilities don't seem to go together.

[VSECOTSPE]

I'm worried that "fairly small areas" could be very strategic.  The Shackleton connecting ridge springs to mind.  Areas in chokepoints with good landing prospects, lots of sunlight, and possible access to PSRs aren't going to be that common.

Let’s put some numbers to this...

On average, the output of a US terrestrial nuclear plant is a gigawatt, and the exclusion zone around such a typical terrestrial nuclear power plant tops out at 1000 acres.  That’s 1.6 square miles.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/areas/areas.htm

Obviously, the exclusion zone for a small, non-terrestrial, 100 kilowatt reactor on the Moon will be some tiny fraction of that figure.  But let’s stick with 1.6 square mile number for the sake of argument, which is a radius of 0.7 miles and diameter of 1.4 miles, assuming a circle centered on the reactor.

By contrast, the smallest area around each lunar pole with radio or infrared signatures that may be indicative of surface or subsurface water ice is estimated at 650 square miles, or a radius of 14.4 miles, assuming circles centered on each pole:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

So at best, the exclusion zone around a lunar surface reactor will be some 0.002% of the area around the Moon’s South Pole that may harbor water ice.  In reality, it’s going to be much smaller, because we’re taking about a 100-kilowatt non-terrestrial nuclear reactor vice a 1-gigawatt terrestrial nuclear plant and because the area around each lunar pole harboring putative lunar water ice signals may be much larger than 650 square miles (some 7K to 18K square miles according to the source above). 

So the exclusion zone around a lunar surface reactor isn’t going to keep China out of more than a teeny tiny fraction of the total lunar area that may harbor water ice.

What about peaks of “eternal” light or PELs?

The reality on PELs is that there are multiple and growing numbers of PELs, and they’re separated by tens of miles.  For example, look the brown highlands near Shackleton, Scott and Cabeus craters — all of which harbor PELs — in the colorized elevation map of the lunar south pole in the article below.  And then look at the scale of that map in the lower left corner.  These areas are all more than 100km or 62 miles from each other.  A 1.6-mile or less exclusion zone for a single lunar surface reactor at a PEL in one of these areas won’t keep China from accessing the rest.

https://skyandtelescope.org/sky-and-telescope-magazine/peaks-of-eternal-light/

In fact, such a reactor wouldn’t even necessarily keep China from accessing a second PEL in the same area.  For example, there are at least two PELs along the Shackleton ridge, but they’re 8 kilometers or 5 miles from each other.  Again, an exclusion zone with a radius of less than 0.7 miles and a diameter of less than 1.4 miles can’t cover both.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light

Given how the putative water ice signals are spread at low concentrations of at most ~5% over very large areas, given that Chandrayaan/LCROSS/LRO observations rule out large areas of thick ice, given the multiple highland regions with known PELs involved, and given that the lunar North Pole harbors some of the same, I find it very hard to believe that there is some super-duper lunar sweet spot that if we don’t put a reactor there, we’ll lose out to China for decades to come.

But even if there is such a super-duper lunar sweet spot, we’re no longer doing the work to find it.  Lunar Trailblazer was supposed to definitively map lunar surface water.  It died en route.  Lunar IceCube wasn't to be as definitive, but SLS killed it on the pad, too.  The VIPER mission intended to provide some degree of ground truth, but its future is up in the air.  Same went for the PRIME-1 payload on IM-2, but that mission failed at landing.  And whatever future CLPS has is being shifted under the former astronauts and missions managers that run the human space flight side of NASA, almost none of which have experience with the remote sensing, surface operations, robotic spacecraft, or general spacecraft development necessary to pull off these precursor missions.

I’m shifting from numbers to my usual (and most folks’ here) soapbox so I’ll keep it short.  Artemis is not a lunar research and development program.  If it was, there’d be a coordinated plan with precursor activities to identify what we’re trying to do with capabilities like a lunar surface reactor and where those capabilities need to go in order to do those things.  Instead, Artemis is an employment program where the great preponderance of the dollars and management attention goes to poorly/absently planned boondoggles like Orion, SLS, and now this reactor.

Cowing indicates that someone did an end run around NASA leadership directly to a poorly counseled Duffy to get him to sign off on the reactor directive.  I don’t know if that’s true, but it sure feels like it.  Cowing also notes that the directive has yet to go official.  I hate to say this as someone who supports, has written about, and worked space nuclear power, but that directive dying in the cradle might be the best outcome for now.

https://nasawatch.com/trumpspace/nasas-random-policy-process/

I'm not wedded to the idea that you need  thera nuke to maintain a permanent claim on areas.

Like me, the guys who have actually written about potentially precious PEL lunar real estate use a easy to build but sensitive telescope to stake a claim in their thought experiment, not an expensive TBD reactor.  Looking at the numbers and maps above, I think you’d need multiples to corner a significant fraction of the real estate.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964616300194

FWIW... YMMV.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Obviously, the exclusion zone for a small, non-terrestrial, 100 kilowatt reactor on the Moon will be some tiny fraction of that figure.  But let’s stick with 1.6 square mile number for the sake of argument, which is a radius of 0.7 miles and diameter of 1.4 miles, assuming a circle centered on the reactor.

By contrast, the smallest area around each lunar pole with radio or infrared signatures that may be indicative of surface or subsurface water ice is estimated at 650 square miles, or a radius of 14.4 miles, assuming circles centered on each pole:

This seems like the wrong calculation.  You can't put a base in a PSR, or at least not without a huge nuke.  Same thing is true for the intermittently-shadowed regions on the crater floor, which have terrible illumination.

So the way to access a PSR is going to be down some kind of route from the crater rim to floor.  That's a route that can be extremely narrow, providing natural chokepoints to prevent others from accessing the crater.

Another objection:  Keep-out zones for terrestrial nukes are predicated on protecting people and property from big radiation accidents.  Keep-out zones on the Moon are largely going to be predicated on protecting the asset from debris.  It's sorta the reverse of the terrestrial situation.

Given how the putative water ice signals are spread at low concentrations of at most ~5% over very large areas, given that Chandrayaan/LCROSS/LRO observations rule out large areas of thick ice, given the multiple highland regions with known PELs involved, and given that the lunar North Pole harbors some of the same, I find it very hard to believe that there is some super-duper lunar sweet spot that if we don’t put a reactor there, we’ll lose out to China for decades to come.

I don't think the reactor is technically necessary.  Any high-value, long-lifetime piece of equipment would do fine.  But given how heavily due regard issues will be litigated if push comes to shove, the nuke has a couple of nice features:

1) It's a long-lived asset.  Even when it reaches its burnup limit, there are good arguments that it's not defunct.  So due regard will hold off the jackals better than a lot of other pieces of equipment.

2) It's a nuke.  Making any kind of international case that a nuke should be displaced or interfered with gives everybody the creeps.  Rationally, you could probably melt the thing down and traverse within a few tens of yards of it.  (No groundwater, no atmosphere to spread particulates, just a point gamma source.)  But nobody's rational about nukes.  If you interfere with it, you're at fault.

Cowing indicates that someone did an end run around NASA leadership directly to a poorly counseled Duffy to get him to sign off on the reactor directive.  I don’t know if that’s true, but it sure feels like it.  Cowing also notes that the directive has yet to go official.  I hate to say this as someone who supports, has written about, and worked space nuclear power, but that directive dying in the cradle might be the best outcome for now.

I'd be fine with this dying.  However, I do think there's a pretty strong case to be made that somebody needs to test the legal (and realpolitik) limits of due regard pretty soon, and it's much better to be on the side of owning the blocking asset than challenging its right to exist.

Again, a nuke has some very nice properties for acting as such an asset.  I'm not expecting much from this initiative, nor am I sanguine about Duffy or ESDMD management being able to handle it.  But that concern goes for pretty much the whole agency.

You'll notice my posting on this thread has reduced markedly.  That's because I'm too depressed about what's going on to muster up much enthusiasm.  Given the incredibly low bar that sets, a small nuke at least seems like a piece of tech that an HDL could land, and getting it to a high TRL seems like something that will turn out to be useful in the not-too-distant future.

I'd much rather see ESDMD cost-reducing Artemis missions to the point where it was thinking about developing a whole portfolio of surface assets and deploying them ASAP.  But our hopes of that happening any time soon have been dashed.  At least a nuke is a surface asset...

[sstli2]

Put more simply, how about we land people on the moon just once before coming up with grandiose plans for what comes after? Turns out we can't even get there on schedule.

Meanwhile, China is testing a basic, no-frills lunar lander, because they're planning to get there this decade, and we're planning to burn taxpayer money.

[yg1968]

So the exclusion zone around a lunar surface reactor isn’t going to keep China out of more than a teeny tiny fraction of the total lunar area that may harbor water ice. [...]

Cowing indicates that someone did an end run around NASA leadership directly to a poorly counseled Duffy to get him to sign off on the reactor directive.  I don’t know if that’s true, but it sure feels like it.  Cowing also notes that the directive has yet to go official.  I hate to say this as someone who supports, has written about, and worked space nuclear power, but that directive dying in the cradle might be the best outcome for now.

https://nasawatch.com/trumpspace/nasas-random-policy-process/

A lot of the assumptions in your post are incorrect. First, Duffy didn't say that the U.S.'s motivation was trying to get an exclusion zone. It's the opposite, he is saying that China could try to make the argument that it has exclusion zones where it puts its reactors. The argument is that if China is building nuclear reactors, the United States needs to be doing it also.

Secondly, it is also incorrect that this Directive comes from nowhere. Bhavya Lal recently issued a report that promotes almost the same plan. Duffy's directive is very similar to a mixture of options 1 and 2 proposed by Lal in her report. I suggest that you listen to her two recent podcasts on the subject (see the link below). It essentially explains the rational behind the directive. What is mentioned in the Directive is almost identical to what Lal said in these podcasts and likely in the report. She was at NASA during the Biden Administration, so she is obviously independent from the Trump Administration.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55268.msg2707441#msg2707441

Thirdly, it is also incorrect to say that the Directive isn't official. It's been signed by Duffy and Duffy has talked about it to the press on a number of occasions. Cowing didn't say that it wasn't official, he is just saying that it hasn't been published on NASA's website which is true.

In terms of going around NASA's leadership. I am not sure what that means, Duffy is the NASA Administrator, he is the leader, so nobody is going around the NASA Administrator.

In terms of this being part of Artemis, that is actually a good thing, this is the only way that this nuclear reactor is going to get built. Otherwise, if the project is a low profile research program, it will not get done and its budget will likely get raided at some point. This is one of the arguments that Lal makes, which is that you need to get a project that is feasible over a short time span. She suggested 2028 but 2030 is not too far off from her target date. If it is longer than that, it would not survive various rounds of budget cuts. She also suggests funding a space reactor before funding nuclear propulsion. She points out the failure of past nuclear space propulsion and reactor programs because of the long period of development which almost ensures their cancelation.

[yg1968]

Put more simply, how about we land people on the moon just once before coming up with grandiose plans for what comes after? Turns out we can't even get there on schedule.

Meanwhile, China is testing a basic, no-frills lunar lander, because they're planning to get there this decade, and we're planning to burn taxpayer money.

The plan for Artemis is to build a lunar base, not to be a repeat of Apollo.

[yg1968]

You'll notice my posting on this thread has reduced markedly.  That's because I'm too depressed about what's going on to muster up much enthusiasm.  Given the incredibly low bar that sets, a small nuke at least seems like a piece of tech that an HDL could land, and getting it to a high TRL seems like something that will turn out to be useful in the not-too-distant future.

I'd much rather see ESDMD cost-reducing Artemis missions to the point where it was thinking about developing a whole portfolio of surface assets and deploying them ASAP.  But our hopes of that happening any time soon have been dashed.  At least a nuke is a surface asset...

I think that this is true for a number of posters, they have also lost enthusiasm but I think that the pessimism is premature. We have yet to see what will happen with the FY26 Budget. I am not expecting cuts. I am expecting the budget to be frozen. The good news is that Duffy is more likely to get the ear of the President that Petro was. Duffy has recently spoken out against NASA prioritising Earth sciences but he has not spoken out against planetary science. Duffy has spoken in favor of Artemis on a number of occasions. This part of the NASA budget is obviously a priority for him and the Trump Administration.

[catdlr]

You'll notice my posting on this thread has reduced markedly.  That's because I'm too depressed about what's going on to muster up much enthusiasm.  Given the incredibly low bar that sets, a small nuke at least seems like a piece of tech that an HDL could land, and getting it to a high TRL seems like something that will turn out to be useful in the not-too-distant future.

I'd much rather see ESDMD cost-reducing Artemis missions to the point where it was thinking about developing a whole portfolio of surface assets and deploying them ASAP.  But our hopes of that happening any time soon have been dashed.  At least a nuke is a surface asset...

I think that this is true for a number of posters, they have also lost enthusiasm but I think that the pessimism is premature. We have yet to see what will happen with the FY26 Budget. I am not expecting cuts. I am expecting the budget to be frozen. The good news is that Duffy is more likely to get the ear of the President that Petro was. Duffy has recently spoken out against NASA prioritising Earth sciences but he has not spoken out against planetary science. Duffy has spoken in favor of Artemis on a number of occasions. This part of the NASA budget is obviously a priority for him and the Trump Administration.

I have reviewed nearly all the posts across various threads. I believe the downturn is related to the overall pessimism of the current administration, political issues, or the attitudes of company individuals. There appears to be a general decline in enthusiasm for engaging in discussions at all levels. Occasionally, when I attempt to post news, I discover that I authored the previous post.

Despite your feelings about the general space environment, we hope that you will continue to contribute to the forum.

Thanks,
Tony

[DanClemmensen]

You'll notice my posting on this thread has reduced markedly.  That's because I'm too depressed about what's going on to muster up much enthusiasm.  Given the incredibly low bar that sets, a small nuke at least seems like a piece of tech that an HDL could land, and getting it to a high TRL seems like something that will turn out to be useful in the not-too-distant future.

I'd much rather see ESDMD cost-reducing Artemis missions to the point where it was thinking about developing a whole portfolio of surface assets and deploying them ASAP.  But our hopes of that happening any time soon have been dashed.  At least a nuke is a surface asset...

I think that this is true for a number of posters, they have also lost enthusiasm but I think that the pessimism is premature. We have yet to see what will happen with the FY26 Budget. I am not expecting cuts. I am expecting the budget to be frozen. The good news is that Duffy is more likely to get the ear of the President that Petro was. Duffy has recently spoken out against NASA prioritising Earth sciences but he has not spoken out against planetary science. Duffy has spoken in favor of Artemis on a number of occasions. This part of the NASA budget is obviously a priority for him and the Trump Administration.

My enthusiasm has plummeted. I was still hopeful until Isaacman's nomination was withdrawn, but no longer. Basically, I see SLS/Orion as  a waste of my taxpayer money. The legislators have zero interest in any actual progress. Their goal is corporate welfare with a secondary goal of jobs in their districts. Your assertion that the budget (i.e., the SLS/Orion pork) will be frozen is very disheartening. My remaining hope is pinned to the idea that the Starship HLS element of Artemis will demonstrate that Starship can replace SLS/Orion, but I don't see how NASA can encourage this during the current administration. The alternative would be for SpaceX to do it themselves, but it's not clear why they would.

[sstli2]

I share in some of this pessimism, and I would ascribe it to enormous gap between what's been promised and what has been delivered.

Many of us were not alive for Apollo. We have been eagerly anticipating our return the moon for well, since the Constellation days, which started 20 years ago at this point. We all waited patiently through cancellation after cancellation and delay after delay. Hope was never high to begin with, so there wasn't much disappointment to be had.

In the latter half of the past decade, optimism renewed as we saw space industry thrive. With that, NASA took the goals to a new level - promising cislunar space stations, permanent human presence on the lunar surface, moon bases, etc. Others promised even more - routine space travel for civilians, settlement and colonization of other planets, etc.

Many of us - and certainly those on this forum - have bought into these ideas. But as time goes on, we see that, due to a variety of factors, we don't seem to be getting much closer. A year passes by and the target shifts by a year. Then we come to 2025, where in some ways we seem to be going backwards, and that goal of putting humans on the lunar surface still seems so elusive and so out of reach.