NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[spacenut]

SpaceX could probably launch Orion to the moon with a stripped down Starship expendable upper stage.  No fairing, but an adapter from the stage two to Orion + service module.  Probably could get Orion + a Blue Moon lander ala Saturn V.  It could probably be done very quickly if all they want is flags and footprints. 

Blue Origin would have to make the 9x4 configuration at minimum just to get Orion to the moon like SLS.  It also might have to be completely expendable. 

This SpaceX proposal would be cheaper than SLS because the first stage is reusable already.  V3 would have to be tested, but it by-passes in orbit refueling.  It does expend a Starship core. 

[DanClemmensen]

SpaceX could probably launch Orion to the moon with a stripped down Starship expendable upper stage.  No fairing, but an adapter from the stage two to Orion + service module.  Probably could get Orion + a Blue Moon lander ala Saturn V.  It could probably be done very quickly if all they want is flags and footprints. 

Blue Origin would have to make the 9x4 configuration at minimum just to get Orion to the moon like SLS.  It also might have to be completely expendable. 

This SpaceX proposal would be cheaper than SLS because the first stage is reusable already.  V3 would have to be tested, but it by-passes in orbit refueling.  It does expend a Starship core.

How would this contract be structured? Are you thinking about a NASA competitive bid?
Why would SpaceX be interested in this? It requires a one-off design effort for a product that will be used only one or two times.

[sdsds]

PAFs don't work for Orion, or any other capsule.  They attach things inside the fairing, which would defeat Orion's escape capabilities.

Other capsules do launch inside fairings. Soyuz. Shenzhou.

[TheRadicalModerate]

SpaceX could probably launch Orion to the moon with a stripped down Starship expendable upper stage.  No fairing, but an adapter from the stage two to Orion + service module.  Probably could get Orion + a Blue Moon lander ala Saturn V.  It could probably be done very quickly if all they want is flags and footprints. 

Blue Origin would have to make the 9x4 configuration at minimum just to get Orion to the moon like SLS.  It also might have to be completely expendable. 

This SpaceX proposal would be cheaper than SLS because the first stage is reusable already.  V3 would have to be tested, but it by-passes in orbit refueling.  It does expend a Starship core.

It'll never happen.  Why would SpaceX want to help build a competitor, at non-trivial opportunity cost?

If NASA wants dissimilar redundancy ASAP, without SLS, then SpaceX has a solution using D2 and HLS, and Blue has a solution using Orion and CT.  Attached below.

Note that the Blue architecture would only be limited to NRHO if NASA insists on a direct launch to TLI.  If CT is used as a transfer vehicle, it can take Orion all the way to LLO if it needs to.

[TheRadicalModerate]

PAFs don't work for Orion, or any other capsule.  They attach things inside the fairing, which would defeat Orion's escape capabilities.

Other capsules do launch inside fairings. Soyuz. Shenzhou.

Orion launches inside a fairing as well.  The launch escape system pulls the fairing away with the command module.  In the case of Shenzhou 3 and Soyuz, the LES pulls at least the orbit and descent modules away, along with the fairing.  Pretty sure that Soyuz works the same way.

But Orion, like Shenzhou and Soyuz, is stacked directly on the launcher.  The fairing is part of the capsule stack, not a payload fairing.  PAFs work with payload fairings.

You could certainly stack an Orion on an FH, if SpaceX were even slightly interested in doing such a thing.  It would require a vehicle-to-Orion adapter.  That PAF isn't it.  Also note:  FHE can't get an Orion to TLI.

[spacenut]

SpaceX has mentioned a stripped down Starship could launch 200-250 tons to LEO.  That alone should leave enough margin to launch Orion without SLS.  NASA would have to make the ultimate call if there is enough margin for a competitors lander.  Superheavy has twice+ the thrust of Saturn V's first stage and probably stages higher.  A stripped down upper stage shouldn't be that hard.  Don't add the fins or TPS.  For launching Orion, don't add the nosecone.  An adapter would be the only thing that would have to be developed. 

I just think it would be less expensive than SLS and the booster can be reused multiple times.   

[TheRadicalModerate]

SpaceX has mentioned a stripped down Starship could launch 200-250 tons to LEO.  That alone should leave enough margin to launch Orion without SLS. 

But why would they do the work?

NASA would have to make the ultimate call if there is enough margin for a competitors lander. 

Nope, SpaceX would make the ultimate call.  NASA can't force them to execute a contract, and they wouldn't be interested.

[martink]

SpaceX has mentioned a stripped down Starship could launch 200-250 tons to LEO.  That alone should leave enough margin to launch Orion without SLS. 
.... 
An adapter would be the only thing that would have to be developed. 

Plus a taller launch tower, a way of stacking the Orion, hypergolic tankage and GSE, and a crew access arm.

[spacenut]

IF the second stage has the cargo area and nosecone removed the Orion with service module could be attached there and probably have room for a small lander.  Then SpaceX is going to eventually attach a crew access arm to their launch towers, so it could be attached near the top of their tower.  Not much to develop.  An adapter for Orion and a crew access arm to one of their towers.  Saturn V all over again.  Of course NASA would have to approve, but SpaceX might do it for the money and opportunity to show the public what they have and can do.

SLS money freed up for more missions to the moon instead of once a year.  SpaceX continues to develop Starship for the lunar cargo ship.  Given a couple of years, then New Glenn 9x4 is developed as a second Orion launcher and can aid by sending supplies to the moon. 

[DanClemmensen]

SpaceX has mentioned a stripped down Starship could launch 200-250 tons to LEO.  That alone should leave enough margin to launch Orion without SLS. 
.... 
An adapter would be the only thing that would have to be developed. 

Plus a taller launch tower, a way of stacking the Orion, hypergolic tankage and GSE, and a crew access arm.

Plus crew certification of the SH, an in-flight abort test, and an uncrewed flight test.

I think it's smarter to wait a bit longer to see how Starship refilling is progressing before trying any frankenship alternatives. If NASA thinks the current PoR might fail, then by all means start planning for some alternatives now so they can be activated as soon as possible, but I don't see how this particular scheme can result in a Moon landing before 2030. Duffy had no clue as to how long a new project takes. Isaacman does, I think.

[TheRadicalModerate]

SpaceX has mentioned a stripped down Starship could launch 200-250 tons to LEO.  That alone should leave enough margin to launch Orion without SLS. 
.... 
An adapter would be the only thing that would have to be developed. 

Plus a taller launch tower, a way of stacking the Orion, hypergolic tankage and GSE, and a crew access arm.

Plus crew certification of the SH, an in-flight abort test, and an uncrewed flight test.

I think it's smarter to wait a bit longer to see how Starship refilling is progressing before trying any frankenship alternatives. If NASA thinks the current PoR might fail, then by all means start planning for some alternatives now so they can be activated as soon as possible, but I don't see how this particular scheme can result in a Moon landing before 2030. Duffy had no clue as to how long a new project takes. Isaacman does, I think.

The political case for this is much stronger than the engineering case.  But given that the use of Orion might actually be an advantage for a Blue-based cislunar crew offering, it'd be much cleaner to fob the politics off on them.

[VSECOTSPE]

The LAS is likely a showstopper for transferring Orion to another LV.  At a minimum, there will probably be a lot of rewiring and reprogramming to integrate the LAS with the new LV’s sensors and wiring bus.  And then that integration will require another abort test.  Given Orion costs, I’m guessing that’s all a couple billion dollars or so.

Because it has to escape thrusting solids that can’t be shut down, the Orion LAS is also way oversized for liquid LVs.  All that unnecessary mass and explosives may necessitate a redesign.  Then we’re probably talking several or a handful of billions.

It took Orion 15 years to go from program start to the final abort test in 2019.  One would hope it wouldn’t take that long to modify or redo the LAS, but we’re almost certainly looking at between five to ten years here.

Not to pour cold water on folks’ musings here, but I don’t see this happening.  Or at least I can’t drink that much Kool Aid.

For these kinds of dollars, between New Shepherd and Blue Moon, Blue could maybe field a new crew capsule.  The smart thing for Artemis to do would be to procure commercial lunar crew transport.  But that seems to have died in the FY26 PBR for NASA, and the program seems to be on the same old Orion/SLS path thru the end of this Administration and at least partway thru the next or longer.

FWIW...

[Eric Hedman]

The LAS is likely a showstopper for transferring Orion to another LV.  At a minimum, there will probably be a lot of rewiring and reprogramming to integrate the LAS with the new LV’s sensors and wiring bus.  And then that integration will require another abort test.  Given Orion costs, I’m guessing that’s all a couple billion dollars or so.

Because it has to escape thrusting solids that can’t be shut down, the Orion LAS is also way oversized for liquid LVs.  All that unnecessary mass and explosives may necessitate a redesign.  Then we’re probably talking several or a handful of billions.

It took Orion 15 years to go from program start to the final abort test in 2019.  One would hope it wouldn’t take that long to modify or redo the LAS, but we’re almost certainly looking at between five to ten years here.

Not to pour cold water on folks’ musings here, but I don’t see this happening.  Or at least I can’t drink that much Kool Aid.

For these kinds of dollars, between New Shepherd and Blue Moon, Blue could maybe field a new crew capsule.  The smart thing for Artemis to do would be to procure commercial lunar crew transport.  But that seems to have died in the FY26 PBR for NASA, and the program seems to be on the same old Orion/SLS path thru the end of this Administration and at least partway thru the next or longer.

FWIW...

All good points.  These are the kind of reasons as much as I would like to see a near term replacement SLS/Orion, I'm sticking with my prediction that SLS/Orion will fly through at least Artemis VIII.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The LAS is likely a showstopper for transferring Orion to another LV.  At a minimum, there will probably be a lot of rewiring and reprogramming to integrate the LAS with the new LV’s sensors and wiring bus.  And then that integration will require another abort test.  Given Orion costs, I’m guessing that’s all a couple billion dollars or so.

If LockMart and Blue together can't change the instrumentation and software for abort conditions, then they have no business launching humans on any platform.

Note that abort tests don't actually exercise the instrumentation:  somebody has to poke the flag to get the system to abort.  So a test wouldn't be buying down any risk, unless there's something really different about New Glenn.  (I'd be surprised if NG had higher acceleration than SLS.)

I do think there's a lot of analysis needed to compute a trajectory for NG that doesn't contain any Orion black zones on ascent.  If there's a showstopper, I'd expect it to be there.

$2B sounds a little excessive, but I agree the DDT&E is non-trivial.  Blue would be buying time to market, and NASA would be buying dissimilar redundancy.

Of course, the other way NASA could go would be to keep SLS/Orion and buy dissimilar redundancy through a SpaceX HLS+D2 transport combo.  Then we'll wait a year or two while the Washington State delegation summons their righteous indignation and gets a secondary contract.

Because it has to escape thrusting solids that can’t be shut down, the Orion LAS is also way oversized for liquid LVs.  All that unnecessary mass and explosives may necessitate a redesign.  Then we’re probably talking several or a handful of billions.

It might be unnecessary but it's not harmful.  They could just leave well enough alone for a mission or two.

For these kinds of dollars, between New Shepherd and Blue Moon, Blue could maybe field a new crew capsule.  The smart thing for Artemis to do would be to procure commercial lunar crew transport.  But that seems to have died in the FY26 PBR for NASA, and the program seems to be on the same old Orion/SLS path thru the end of this Administration and at least partway thru the next or longer.

Unlike the last who knows how many times the SLS/Orion dance has been done, both in the political and technical arenas, I don't think anybody's uncertain any more about SLS's eventual fate.  LockMart has an outside chance to come out of the debacle relatively unscathed, but they have to be willing to pry the other contractors' fingers off of the gunwales before they sink the lifeboat.  If they're smart, they already have a plan for the inevitable.  I can't think of a better one that to throw in with Blue.

The other possibility is for Blue and LockMart to agree to evolve Orion into a less stupid form.  They could start with Orion as-is, then do a subsequent version that met Blue's orbital as well as cislunar needs, and didn't cost a billion a pop.

I'm still unclear on what rights LockMart has to commercialize Orion.  Note that this is different from the OPOC-style commercialization of Orion ops.  And of course there's the ESM of it all.  It might be less complicated just to pass through an existing Orion or two as GFE, then clean things up later.

I do expect Blue to have their own capsule at some point, one way or another.  But I don't expect it to be ready faster than anybody else's, which makes it unlikely to appear before the mid-2030's.  With an evolved Orion, they might shave a couple of years off of that.

[DanClemmensen]

The LAS is likely a showstopper for transferring Orion to another LV.  At a minimum, there will probably be a lot of rewiring and reprogramming to integrate the LAS with the new LV’s sensors and wiring bus.  And then that integration will require another abort test.  Given Orion costs, I’m guessing that’s all a couple billion dollars or so.

Because it has to escape thrusting solids that can’t be shut down, the Orion LAS is also way oversized for liquid LVs.  All that unnecessary mass and explosives may necessitate a redesign.  Then we’re probably talking several or a handful of billions.

It took Orion 15 years to go from program start to the final abort test in 2019.  One would hope it wouldn’t take that long to modify or redo the LAS, but we’re almost certainly looking at between five to ten years here.

Not to pour cold water on folks’ musings here, but I don’t see this happening.  Or at least I can’t drink that much Kool Aid.

For these kinds of dollars, between New Shepherd and Blue Moon, Blue could maybe field a new crew capsule.  The smart thing for Artemis to do would be to procure commercial lunar crew transport.  But that seems to have died in the FY26 PBR for NASA, and the program seems to be on the same old Orion/SLS path thru the end of this Administration and at least partway thru the next or longer.

FWIW...

All good points.  These are the kind of reasons as much as I would like to see a near term replacement SLS/Orion, I'm sticking with my prediction that SLS/Orion will fly through at least Artemis VIII.

These are all reasons why Orion must fly on SLS. They are not reasons to keep SLS/Orion. Replace SLS/Orion. Don't try to retain Orion. the PoR Artemis III depends on Starship HLS (with Tanker and Depot). NASA can structure replacement Artemis III architecture using D2 for Earth-LEO-Earth, and using any of several combinations of Starship HLS, Tanker, and Depot for LEO-lunarsurface-LEO, using only instances of hardware that must already be available for Artemis III PoR.

[yg1968]

For these kinds of dollars, between New Shepherd and Blue Moon, Blue could maybe field a new crew capsule.  The smart thing for Artemis to do would be to procure commercial lunar crew transport.  But that seems to have died in the FY26 PBR for NASA, and the program seems to be on the same old Orion/SLS path thru the end of this Administration and at least partway thru the next or longer.

If Orion and SLS are to be cancelled after Artemis V, that decision has to be made now. In a way, cancelling SLS and Orion after Artemis V works out well since the HLS program already has awarded missions until Artemis V (Options A & B and Appendix P) but after that the HLS program should be converted into a commercial crew from Earth to the lunar surface program. I get the impression that Senator Cruz is open to ending SLS and Orion after Artemis V.

[Proponent]

I'm still unclear on what rights LockMart has to commercialize Orion.  Note that this is different from the OPOC-style commercialization of Orion ops.  And of course there's the ESM of it all.  It might be less complicated just to pass through an existing Orion or two as GFE, then clean things up later.

Given Orion's high cost, very heavy LAS and other shortcomings, I find it hard to credit that even LM believes commercialization in any meaningful sense (i.e., something other than a NASA contract for Orion characterized as the purchase of services rather than hardware) is anything other than PR.

[Proponent]

I get the impression that Senator Cruz is open to ending SLS and Orion after Artemis V.

Sen. Cruz's aggressive support for Orion/SLS over the last decade and a half, the Tea Party principles on which he was first elected notwithstanding, leads me rather to suspect that he would prefer to keep it going indefinitely unless offered an equally juicy replacement. It seems to me that what is more likely to soften is not his desire for Orion/SLS but the tenability of supporting it.

What I find interesting about Cruz is the strength of his support for SLS itself, since it is Orion that serves the parochial interests of his constituents. I take that as an indicator of the infeasibility, technical or political, of launching Orion on anything other than SLS.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Given Orion's high cost, very heavy LAS and other shortcomings, I find it hard to credit that even LM believes commercialization in any meaningful sense (i.e., something other than a NASA contract for Orion characterized as the purchase of services rather than hardware) is anything other than PR.

All of those things are true, but it's also true that Orion is more-or-less ready to go right now, and I doubt it's incredibly difficult to port to a new launcher.

There's nothing particularly horrid about Orion's CM, and subsequent evolutions of it could have a LAS that's appropriately sized for the new launcher and a service module that wasn't constrained by the need to keep the mass to TLI under what ICPS could manage to fling.  In short, it's not a terrible place for Blue to start on a more general-purpose capsule.

Is it worth getting in bed with LockMart to get an earlier offering for a commercial cislunar replacement?  I think so, but it kinda depends on whether that replacement starts flying in the Arty 5 timeframe vs. say Arty 8.  It also depends on whether they want to be dependent on LockMart for whatever evolution occurs after they get Orion up and running on their launcher.

Blue has a lot on its plate.  Unlike SpaceX, it doesn't have a set of cash cows that allow it to diversify as fast.  Punting on clean-sheet capsule development seems like a viable option, but it comes at a cost.

Sen. Cruz's aggressive support for Orion/SLS over the last decade and a half, the Tea Party principles on which he was first elected notwithstanding, leads me rather to suspect that he would prefer to keep it going indefinitely unless offered an equally juicy replacement. It seems to me that what is more likely to soften is not his desire for Orion/SLS but the tenability of supporting it.

What I find interesting about Cruz is the strength of his support for SLS itself, since it is Orion that serves the parochial interests of his constituents. I take that as an indicator of the infeasibility, technical or political, of launching Orion on anything other than SLS.

Yeah, Ted's a great mystery.  I still think there's something deeply transactional going on, because you're right that he really shouldn't care about SLS, and any of the replacements for Orion would feed JSC just as well.  This is in sharp contrast to Shelby, whose motivations for supporting SLS were completely transparent and reasonable.

The nice thing about transactional relationships is that they can end when they become inconvenient, or if something more convenient comes along. 

If Elon's suddenly found religion wrt the Moon, then SpaceX's lobbying operations will begin to reflect that, and it's very important for Ted not to make an enemy of Elon in Texas.

[VSECOTSPE]

If LockMart and Blue together can't change the instrumentation and software for abort conditions, then they have no business launching humans on any platform.

It’s probably not a question of whether it can be done but how long and how much.  Getting two computer systems and a set of sensors that were never designed to work together to reliably make a decision about an impending LV failure and deliver that decision to the LAS with enough fractions of a second head start to avoid an impending fireball is obviously not trivial.  Even if that turned out to be trivial, Orion has had multi-hundred million dollar overruns on flight software ($900M from 2015-2019) and multi-month delays accessing and replacing avionics and power distribution sets (one year for one lousy PDU).  Given all that, I think we’re looking at a couple years of work, minimum, which is probably a couple billion bucks in Orion dollars.

It might be unnecessary but it's not harmful.  They could just leave well enough alone for a mission or two.

I dunno.  The Orion LAS uses ~2500kg of propellant.  I get that ~1250kg of the same propellant going off at the wrong time in the wrong way will almost certainly kill the crew just as well as ~2500kg.  But I’m not sure the NASA safety orgs will agree.  It’s a lot of unneeded energetics in the system.

That assumes Orion doesn’t need to shed weight for its new LV and flight profile.  If it does, then an LAS redesign and abort test may be necessary.

Blue would be buying time to market, and NASA would be buying dissimilar redundancy.

Given how hard, long, and expensive Orion has been to work with, I’m not sure that porting Orion to New Glenn buys Blue Origin time to market vice leveraging New Shepherd and Blue Moon heritage that presumably has a lot of commonality with New Glenn’s systems.  A new LAS for a new capsule might actually take less time than adapting Orion’s LAS to New Glenn.  The “missing” subsystems for a new capsule with New Shepherd/Blue Moon heritage would be the TPS and the life support.  On the former, get whatever the latest PICA is from Ames.  On the latter, I think that between all the existing capsules (Dragon, Starliner, Orion) and commercial stations (including whatever happened to Blue Reef) there should be life support suppliers and components.

Maybe Orion would still beat the clean sheet capsule, but I’m guessing we’re talking by months to a year or so — not years and years of schedule savings.  Same probably goes for the dollars. At which point, just build the new capsule, IMO.

Of course, the other way NASA could go would be to keep SLS/Orion and buy dissimilar redundancy through a SpaceX HLS+D2 transport combo.  Then we'll wait a year or two while the Washington State delegation summons their righteous indignation and gets a secondary contract.

The way to do this is to run a competition for commercial lunar crew transport, as implied by the FY26 PBR before it was abandoned.  Let Blue figure out if Orion buys them anything substantive, let them bring that forward to compete if they think it does, and then let the proposal evaluators and God sort it out.

The wrong way to go about it is to have a NASA Administrator with no aerospace development experience and no Washington experience suggest putting a certain capsule on a certain LV because it might make his political lift a little easier, regardless of whether the combination makes any technical or programmatic sense.  Even supposedly technically astute NASA Administrators like Griffin get this stuff grossly wrong when they dictate or weigh in on solutions in the absence of a proper competition with formal proposals and evaluations.  A flyboy like Isaacman has no business making unsupported development calls.

Again, I’m not trying to throw cold water on anyone’s spreadsheets here.  I’m just saying that in the real world, I’m not sure Isaacman’s intimations about Orion on New Glenn pan out or make sense.  I’d rather he just lobby for and run a good commercial lunar crew transport competition, as unsexy as that might be.

Unlike the last who knows how many times the SLS/Orion dance has been done, both in the political and technical arenas, I don't think anybody's uncertain any more about SLS's eventual fate.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “eventual”, but after the past year, I expect more Orion/SLS extensions to Artemis VI and beyond out of Congress, Isaacman nodding uncritically because “it’s the law” and he has zero political power base to draw on, and no one else in Trump II paying attention because it’s “mission accomplished” if Artemis III goes off in 2028.  With the path we’re on, there’s no real end in sight for SLS yet.

LockMart has an outside chance to come out of the debacle relatively unscathed, but they have to be willing to pry the other contractors' fingers off of the gunwales before they sink the lifeboat.  If they're smart, they already have a plan for the inevitable.  I can't think of a better one that to throw in with Blue.

LockMart doesn’t need to find another ride for Orion when the Coalition for Space Exploration/Bridenstine’s new employers can just keep extending Orion/SLS to Artemis VI+.  That game plan worked great in FY26.  They have every reason to repeat it in FY27.

I’m sure LockMart will pay lip service to putting Orion on New Glenn if Isaacman keeps bringing it up.  But as long as they can end-run him in Congress and the rest of Trump II looks the other way or is asleep at the wheel, they won’t put any real effort into it.  The old primes are out extend Orion/SLS as far as they can and maybe even steal some of the lander business from SpaceX and Blue.

The other possibility is for Blue and LockMart to agree to evolve Orion into a less stupid form.  They could start with Orion as-is, then do a subsequent version that met Blue's orbital as well as cislunar needs, and didn't cost a billion a pop.

Cost always comes down to workforce.  I don’t have a good feel for the Orion workforce numbers, how much is driven by generic bloat versus stupid design choices requiring lots of labor (TPS, avoionics/power accessibility, etc.).  At some point, it makes more sense to just build a better capsule from scratch rather than try to fix Orion.

I'm still unclear on what rights LockMart has to commercialize Orion.  Note that this is different from the OPOC-style commercialization of Orion ops.

I don’t think LockMart has any rights to Orion IP.  I could be wrong, but I think they’d have to approach NASA and get permission.

OPOC is just a production contract that switches from cost-plus to fixed-price after the first six flight articles.  So if I understand correctly, LockMart won’t be in a position to offer NASA a fixed price for Orion until Artemis VIII, forget other customers.

LockMart keeps talking about bringing Orion costs down thru reusability.  I think they’re kidding themselves given the poor accessibility of Orion avionics and power boxes.

If LockMart was serious about bring Orion costs down, they’d be talking about workforce reductions.  That’s what the budget pays for, workforce.  But they’re not talking about that.

And of course there's the ESM of it all.

My impression is that the Europeans want to apply ESM subsystems and production to a cargo lander. Whether they’d be interested in or have the bandwidth to churn out more ESMs is unclear to me.

These are all reasons why Orion must fly on SLS. They are not reasons to keep SLS/Orion. Replace SLS/Orion. Don't try to retain Orion.

I agree.  And it’s not just the cost.  Orion and SLS are both just woefully incapable on flight rate and worse-than-Shuttle-probability accidents waiting to happen.  The sooner Artemis is rid of them, the better. 

Again, folks should have fun their spreadsheets here.  But folks should also keep in mind that there’s a lot Orion showstoppers and considerations not covered by the rocket equation.

If Orion and SLS are to be cancelled after Artemis V, that decision has to be made now.

Like I’ve written here dozens of times before, that decision needed to be made some years ago.  Even bringing a fully operational Starship lunar crew transport capability into Artemis will take at least a couple years between the budget, Congress, procurement, court challenges, and NASA safety.  And if you want a competitor/alternative, they’re going to need at least as long as crew Dragon took (about six years), plus some since they won’t be SpaceX.

There was a glimmer of hope in the FY26 PBR that this Administration would finally bite that bullet.  But between Isaacman’s repeated confirmation testimony, a total lack of attention from anyone else at NASA or the WH on this, and the lack of any mention in the new policy, I think they’re focused on Artemis III in 2028, a surface reactor that will be cancelled by the next Administration, and not much else.  I’m not sure the situation is salvageable if it’s left up to the next Administration to get off Artemis off Orion/SLS.  Given the lead times involved, at some point, a budget crunch or accident cancels Artemis before a future WH fixes it.

I get the impression that Senator Cruz is open to ending SLS and Orion after Artemis V.

From the bill language, which IIRC directed NASA to reuse Orions (whatever that means) after Artemis V, I don’t think that’s his or Congress’s intent.

There's nothing particularly horrid about Orion's CM,

Let’s see... ingress/egress issues as late as last November due to side hatch design originally based on Apollo 1 (of fire fame), repeated Avcoat issues and redesigns with flight performance under the new reentry regime TBD, ECLSS untested in flight before first crew flight, more than 20 power outages during the Artemis I flight and three successive battery redesigns with the latest still unflown, grossly inaccessible avionics and power systems, docking system still in development, etc.

Not the CM, but the erosion on the separation bolts for the SM, Aerojet’s $100M per unit price tag for the AJ10 engines in the SM, etc.

Even if Orion continues to muddle through all this, sometimes programs are just too sick to keep going, and it’s better to terminate and start over someplace else.

FWIW...