NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 6

[yg1968]

Any other noteworthy Artemis predictions from the Athena document that we should keep an eye on?

Nothing too crazy, some are already in the PBR: cancel SLS after Artemis III, move workforce to NEP; find new launcher for Orion (New Glenn); use Gateway for LEO or nuclear program; etc.

The following post has the highlights of the Athena Project:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61990.msg2740769#msg2740769

[TheRadicalModerate]

Any other noteworthy Artemis predictions from the Athena document that we should keep an eye on?

Nothing too crazy, some are already in the PBR: cancel SLS after Artemis III, move workforce to NEP; find new launcher for Orion (New Glenn); use Gateway for LEO or nuclear program; etc.

In general, space jobs are a lot more plentiful than they were 15 years ago.  Job insecurity for a strategic workforce simply isn't that much of a problem.

Job insecurity for CEOs who haven't adapted to the new reality is still a problem, however.  So this is now much more a question of straight-up campaign contributions than an understandable desire to protect the jobs of your constituents.

That's the kind of story that starts looking juicy to the press.

Ultimately, SLS/Orion is subject to Stein's Law:  "If something can't continue, then it will stop."  The date and nature of the stoppage are still in doubt, but not the final outcome.

[VSECOTSPE]

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.

Just in case people are wondering if Isaacman is still following Project Athena plan:

Sorry to be nitpicky, but all Isaacman did was have someone in PAO invite a couple reporters to a telecon.  That’s not evidence or assurance that the rest of a lengthy plan will be implemented.  That’s like my kids thinking I’ll make cookies just because I ordered milk from the grocery store.

Nothing too crazy, some are already in the PBR: cancel SLS after Artemis III,

This was in the PBR, but it’s been superseded by the Orion/SLS extension to Artemis V (2030+) under reconciliation, which Isaacman endorsed twice in Senate confirmation hearings.  It’s also not part of the  the President’s latest EO on space.

move workforce to NEP; find new launcher for Orion (New Glenn); use Gateway for LEO or nuclear program; etc.

None of this was in the FY26 PBR.

[VSECOTSPE]

I don't even think Isaacman would have to say anything contradictory to his testimony:  "I will of course follow the law, as I said in my confirmation testimony, but I'm here today to tell you that Block 1B is a bad idea, and we should use the funds we would allocate to it to begin a competition for a Commercial Cislunar Crew program, starting in FY27, with the goal of using one of the selected providers for Artemis 4.  I would also ask that you authorize such a program immediately, so we can get the BAA out as soon as possible."

That just doesn’t appear to be Isaacman’s plan anymore.  Even if we disregard his endorsement under sworn testimony of Orion/SLS thru Artemis V (2030+), what he also more or less stated is that there is an opportunity for a transition once Starship and Blue Moon 2 have successfully landed astronauts, because in his mind that basically demos lunar crew transport systems.  (I disagree with that statement, but that’s beside the point.)  That’s still out in 2028+ for Starship and 2030+ for Blue Moon 2 which, again, is well after Isaacman is out of power or a lame duck.  Either he doesn’t realize that or doesn’t care.

It also doesn’t seem to be the WH plan anymore.  If it was, something like commercial lunar/Mars from the FY26 PBR or a sunset goal for Orion/SLS would have made it into the President’s new EO on space.  But all the EO offers is some vague words to the he effect of more commercial = better, which doesn’t make anything happen in the real world.

It’s a year into Trump II and we’ve all been to the abandon-civil-human-space-exploration-reform rodeo several times before with prior Administrations.  Bush II released the VSE, then abandoned it to the antediluvian Griffin.  Obama killed Ares I/Orion/Constellation, but let Congress resurrect them in Orion/SLS.  Trump I set a lunar landing goal and Pence talked tough once about contractors, but they all folded when Shelby made threats.  (Biden didn’t try and appointed Nelson.)  Under Trump II, the FY26 PBR had tough words about SLS costs and sought termination after Artemis III, but no one fought Cruz on the Orion/extension to Artemis V and Isaacman actually endorsed it twice in testimony.  Civil human space exploration reform is just not a priority and consecutive White Houses keep giving up because they always have other, more important problems to attend to.

To the extent they think at all about NASA, I think the Trump II WH is focused on pulling in Artemis III to 2028 and little else.  They don’t want to be the Administration that lost the Moon to China (as goofy as that argument is), and they want to make a Kennedy-sequel lunar return happen before Trump is out of office.  Per the President’s latest EO on space, everything else, including any commercial transition off Orion/SLS, is fluffy with undetermined timelines that are up to the next White House.

We can point to the FY26 PBR, but that’s been superseded by law and policy.  We can point to the Athena doc, but Isaacman has sorta/kinda disowned that as representing outdated planning from a prior point in time.  You and I can think of dozens of ways to effect a transition, but I think that’s projection and wish fulfillment.  I don’t see any evidence that anything like that is in work or being considered anymore.

Ultimately, SLS/Orion is subject to Stein's Law:  "If something can't continue, then it will stop."  The date and nature of the stoppage are still in doubt, but not the final outcome.

Yes, the Sun’s red giant phase and the heat death of the universe will eventually end Orion/SLS.  But I think there’s a scenario where NASA/Artemis is stuck with Orion/SLS for decades to come while the rest of the space sector is riding Starships, New Glenn, and whatever reusable launcher wins in China.  Government programs that are irrational from an economic or performance standpoint continue for seemingly ever because they satisfy political realities.  Outside the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak makes no economic sense in an age of jet aircraft and interstate highways.  But Congress continues to subsidize it because those trains stop in certain states and communities.  Sometimes the WH or Congress make a half-hearted attempt at reform, but it never goes anywhere for the same reason.  We may be in the early stages of such a parochial political survivor with Orion/SLS. 

Or, if you take the long view, Orion/SLS is just an extension of the compact that was made with parochial devils at the beginning of the Shuttle and Apollo programs.  In that light, NASA is already in the second or third cycle of its own Amtrak political phenomenon.

Hope I’m wrong.  FWIW...

[VSECOTSPE]

I didn't say the Mars spacecraft would be assembled using the SLS. That's not feasible. Perhaps the Mars spacecraft modules could be assembled using the New Glen 9x4 with a third stage.

However, once the spacecraft is finished, I do see it as feasible to use a single SLS launch to launch Orion and the co-manifested cargo module. This would mean using only one SLS launch per crewed expedition to Mars.

I apologize, but this is just idiotic.  If assembling and fueling a human Mars stack requires launch vehicles other than SLS — and it does due to the extremely low launch rate of SLS — then terminate SLS.  It would be crazy to maintain Orion/SLS at billions of dollar per year and tens of thousands of STEM careers just to get a crew to the Mars stack once every couple years, especially after a dozen or two prior launches of the stack and its propellant on other launch vehicles.  Just use those other launch vehicles instead.  What a waste.

May happen anyway due to parochial politics.  But programmatically, it’s a terrible argument for what should be.

[thespacecow]

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.

Just in case people are wondering if Isaacman is still following Project Athena plan:

Sorry to be nitpicky, but all Isaacman did was have someone in PAO invite a couple reporters to a telecon.  That’s not evidence or assurance that the rest of a lengthy plan will be implemented.  That’s like my kids thinking I’ll make cookies just because I ordered milk from the grocery store.

I'm not interested in your kids or cookies, I never claimed this single event can 100% assure us that he'll follow the plan completely, but it IS evidence that the plan still plays a part in his actions as NASA administrator.

move workforce to NEP; find new launcher for Orion (New Glenn); use Gateway for LEO or nuclear program; etc.

None of this was in the FY26 PBR.

First of all I never claimed all of these are in the PBR, you do understand what "some" means in the sentence "some are already in the PBR", right? But just in case you don't understand, it means not everything in my list is in the PBR, but some are, which you literally admitted earlier: "This was in the PBR".

But more importantly, some of the items above are also in the PBR, specifically the PBR mentioned the following regarding Gateway: "The American components produced to date have substantial potential value and NASA will explore transferring them to other potential users.", this aligns with Project Athena's idea of using Gateway hardware for LEO or nuclear programs.

[pochimax]

I didn't say the Mars spacecraft would be assembled using the SLS. That's not feasible. Perhaps the Mars spacecraft modules could be assembled using the New Glen 9x4 with a third stage.

However, once the spacecraft is finished, I do see it as feasible to use a single SLS launch to launch Orion and the co-manifested cargo module. This would mean using only one SLS launch per crewed expedition to Mars.

 Just use those other launch vehicles instead. 

Yes, my argument was weak.

[Jim]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

It's actually different this year (i.e., for FY26). Unlike other years, Congress has left the door open to other options in addition to SLS and Orion, so there is an opportunity for Isaacman and the administration to go ahead with commercial options. Because of the Big Beautiful Bill, SLS and Orion essentially can't be cancelled until after Artemis V but NASA can still initiate commercial partnerships now with some of the funding in the exploration budget. 

I have already created a thread that discusses this in more detail:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2717556#msg2717556

[yg1968]

I don't even think Isaacman would have to say anything contradictory to his testimony:  "I will of course follow the law, as I said in my confirmation testimony, but I'm here today to tell you that Block 1B is a bad idea, and we should use the funds we would allocate to it to begin a competition for a Commercial Cislunar Crew program, starting in FY27, with the goal of using one of the selected providers for Artemis 4.  I would also ask that you authorize such a program immediately, so we can get the BAA out as soon as possible."

That just doesn’t appear to be Isaacman’s plan anymore. 
Hope I’m wrong.  FWIW...

Isaacman has said several times that SLS and Orion aren't sustainable in the long term, even during his confirmation hearing. He endorsed the Big Beautiful bill provisions related to NASA because the bill had already passed, so there was no point in criticizing it during his confirmation hearing, as it was already water under the bridge.

There is no doubt in my mind that Isaacman will go ahead with a Mars equivalent to CLPS (CMPS) in the next couple of years. I also hope that the HLS services phase will be extended to cargo and crew transportation to both the Moon and Mars. A provider could offer one or both of these transportation services (to the Moon and/or Mars). The best way to ensure that SLS and Orion are cancelled after Artemis V is by initiating these two public-private partnerships as soon as possible (hopefully as soon as this fiscal year). I don't expect that SLS and Orion will be used for Mars, so accelerating cargo and eventually crew transportation services to Mars is the key in my opinion. 

[Coastal Ron]

That just doesn’t appear to be Isaacman’s plan anymore. 
Hope I’m wrong.  FWIW...

Isaacman has said several times that SLS and Orion aren't sustainable in the long term, even during his confirmation hearing.

Unfortunately he didn't define what "long term" means, so Congress can use their own interpretation of that. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Isaacman will go ahead with a Mars equivalent to CLPS (CMPS) in the next couple of years.

NASA hasn't even figured out all the things it needs to return humans to our Moon, so how in the world are they going to know how to scope out what is needed for Mars? 

I also hope that the HLS services phase will be extended to cargo and crew transportation to both the Moon and Mars.

That is like taking a spec for a small 4-seater car meant to drive across town, crossing out the word "TOWN" and writing "THE WORLD". Contracts don't work that way. Contractors don't work that way either, especially for Firm Fixed Price contracts.

A provider could offer one or both of these transportation services (to the Moon and/or Mars).

Well, SpaceX obviously could, since they have been building Starship for colonizing Mars, and the Artemis program is benefiting from the investments that SpaceX has made in the transportation system for colonizing Mars. But for EVERYONE ELSE that would be absurd to think they could use the same vehicles that they are building for returning to the Moon. Transit times are months instead of days, mission duration time is years instead of weeks, and instead of landing on an airless moon you need to land on a planet with an atmosphere.

Again, this is not a matter of changing words in a contract - there is little in common for missions to our Moon vs missions to Mars.

The best way to ensure that SLS and Orion are cancelled after Artemis V is by initiating these two public-private partnerships as soon as possible (hopefully as soon as this fiscal year).

The SLS and Orion MPCV will exist for as long as enough members of Congress are OK with the Boeing/Lockheed Martin gravy train. Because if all it took was a rational examination of what NASA needs, then the SLS and Orion MPCV would have been cancelled long ago.

I don't expect that SLS and Orion will be used for Mars, so accelerating cargo and eventually crew transportation services to Mars is the key in my opinion.

People do use small sailboats to circumnavigate the world, so never say never, but it is important to remember that the SLS and Orion are barely capable of supporting missions to our Moon, so it would be hard to understand how anyone could justify using them for missions beyond Earth local space - of any sort.

[yg1968]

Again, this is not a matter of changing words in a contract - there is little in common for missions to our Moon vs missions to Mars.

It doesn't matter, you can probably offer both options (for the Moon and Mars) in the same contract or in different contracts. That is up to NASA to decide but it's not really important.

The idea of using HLS for Mars is what is being proposed in the FY26 President's Budget request and the House and Senate Reports appear to agree with the President's request. It's important to read the source material in order to understand this proposal.

See this post and the 2 posts after that one (see the bold text under the HLS program):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61782.msg2715913#msg2715913

[sdsds]

In the latest "Space Launch System Reference Guide" (linked by @rdale at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54249.msg2750661#msg2750661) MSFC is still presenting the option of cargo missions, even for SLS Block 1. On the face of it this seems wildly out of sync with reality. Are they in an echo chamber, or is someone still pushing to have the final ICPS used for cargo rather than a crewed Artemis III?

[Coastal Ron]

Again, this is not a matter of changing words in a contract - there is little in common for missions to our Moon vs missions to Mars.

It doesn't matter, you can probably offer both options (for the Moon and Mars) in the same contract or in different contracts. That is up to NASA to decide but it's not really important.

I don't know why anyone would want to insist on using the same contracts for both the Moon and Mars. The requirements for them are so COMPLETELY different that there is no commonality. Talk about a bloated spec.

The idea of using HLS for Mars is what is being proposed in the FY26 President's Budget request...

I'm not arguing that totally irrational things can be put into a budget. That happens all the time.

I'm talking about from the standpoint of contractors who would be expected to bid on such things. That there is so LITTLE information for them to bid on.

For instance, you suggest that a CLPS contractor could bid on delivering cargo to Mars, but NO ONE has successfully delivered cargo to the Moon yet. And now you want them to extrapolate the Moon requirements for doing something similar for Mars? With all the complications that go with getting cargo to the surface of Mars? And without a detailed plan from NASA about what the NASA missions require for support?

Totally irrational.

Again, SpaceX has been working on this for years, well before the return-to-Moon Artemis program. And that is their company focus. But for everyone else, the contractors that are actually building hardware for the Moon, Mars is so COMPLETELY different that no contractor would be able to rationally bid on anything Mars related.

[yg1968]

I don't know why anyone would want to insist on using the same contracts for both the Moon and Mars. The requirements for them are so COMPLETELY different that there is no commonality. Talk about a bloated spec.

That is essentially what was done for spacesuits. LEO, the Moon and Mars are all part of the same procurement but they are separate CLINs (and thus have separate requirements). I think that part of the reason for doing it that way is that it is easier from a budgetary/appropriations standpoint.

For instance, you suggest that a CLPS contractor could bid on delivering cargo to Mars, but NO ONE has successfully delivered cargo to the Moon yet. And now you want them to extrapolate the Moon requirements for doing something similar for Mars? With all the complications that go with getting cargo to the surface of Mars? And without a detailed plan from NASA about what the NASA missions require for support?

Totally irrational.

Again, SpaceX has been working on this for years, well before the return-to-Moon Artemis program. And that is their company focus. But for everyone else, the contractors that are actually building hardware for the Moon, Mars is so COMPLETELY different that no contractor would be able to rationally bid on anything Mars related.

For CMPS, you start with an RFI, a draft RFP and a final RFP and you would publish the requirements as part of this process. It's possible that only SpaceX would win an award initially but eventually other companies will be able to win a CMPS contracts. That process will likely take several months but hopefully, the process will start as soon as the FY26 Budget is adopted (which should be this week).

Firefly was successful with its first CLPS mission. Firefly is a good example of a company that did not win an initial CLPS award but later won an award and was successful on its CLPS mission to the lunar surface.

For HLS, you could enlarge it to Mars as part of the services phase. You would also have to do a RFI, a draft RFP, and final RFP. It's possible that initially, only SpaceX would win an award for a Mars lander but eventually other companies such as Blue might also be able to bid for Mars. Like I said above, Mars could be a separate and optional CLIN.

[TheRadicalModerate]

In the latest "Space Launch System Reference Guide" (linked by @rdale at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54249.msg2750661#msg2750661) MSFC is still presenting the option of cargo missions, even for SLS Block 1. On the face of it this seems wildly out of sync with reality. Are they in an echo chamber, or is someone still pushing to have the final ICPS used for cargo rather than a crewed Artemis III?

The answer is in the caption.  It's almost certainly a cut-and-paste error.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Again, SpaceX has been working on this for years, well before the return-to-Moon Artemis program. And that is their company focus. But for everyone else, the contractors that are actually building hardware for the Moon, Mars is so COMPLETELY different that no contractor would be able to rationally bid on anything Mars related.

Blue has stated that they think they could use the BM2 HDL version for Mars landings.  I'm not sure whether they were serious when they said it or not.

Remember that BM2 is completely dependent on refueling and the CT.  There should be no problem using a refueled CT to push a refueled BM2 to Mars.  Whether that involves propulsive insertion into LMO remains to be seen.  And certainly something would have to be done to get a BM2 through the martian atmosphere.  But fairings are cheap, and maybe they think they can get through using supersonic retropropulsion from the flamey end?

I'm semi-convinced that the "bus" for the BM2 and CT will be largely common (BE-7's, thrust structure, TVC, RCS, etc.), with varying arrangements for tankage, stacking hardware, and docking hardware.  There's nothing in theory to prevent that bus from forming the basis of a Mars lander.

[catdlr]

https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/2011571480166105382

NSF - NASASpaceflight.com
@NASASpaceflight
·
3m
NASA confirms the rollout of SLS and Orion for Artemis II is no earlier than 7 a.m. Eastern on Saturday.

NASA sets milestones on the path to Artemis II crew launch
written by Chris Bergin January 9, 2026


Friday, Jan. 16:

12 p.m.: Artemis II Rollout, Mission Overview News Conference

 

Saturday, Jan. 17:

7 a.m.: Rollout, Artemis II Live Views from Kennedy Space Center feed begins

9 a.m.: Artemis II Crew Rollout Media Event

[Coastal Ron]

I don't know why anyone would want to insist on using the same contracts for both the Moon and Mars. The requirements for them are so COMPLETELY different that there is no commonality. Talk about a bloated spec.

That is essentially what was done for spacesuits. LEO, the Moon and Mars are all part of the same procurement but they are separate CLINs (and thus have separate requirements). I think that part of the reason for doing it that way is that it is easier from a budgetary/appropriations standpoint.

Hoo boy, I'm not sure you are making a good case here using the Artemis suits contract as an example.

For instance, you suggest that a CLPS contractor could bid on delivering cargo to Mars, but NO ONE has successfully delivered cargo to the Moon yet. And now you want them to extrapolate the Moon requirements for doing something similar for Mars? With all the complications that go with getting cargo to the surface of Mars? And without a detailed plan from NASA about what the NASA missions require for support?

Totally irrational.

Again, SpaceX has been working on this for years, well before the return-to-Moon Artemis program. And that is their company focus. But for everyone else, the contractors that are actually building hardware for the Moon, Mars is so COMPLETELY different that no contractor would be able to rationally bid on anything Mars related.

For CMPS, you start with an RFI, a draft RFP and a final RFP and you would publish the requirements as part of this process.

As a refresher, the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) is a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract, which means the contractors would only bid if they felt they understood the requirements. And for the Artemis program the requirements were known for a couple of years before the CLPS program was put out for bid. Operational tempo, mission days, etc.

This is NOT the case for NASA wanting to go to Mars. There is NOTHING that NASA has defined as firm requirements that a contractor could use for the bidding process.

I know you have never worked for government contractors, but I have. They NEED detailed information in order to start the bidding process.

And NASA can't even start that definition work until they understand how they are getting to, and coming back from, the surface of Mars. Not a concept of a plan, but an actual plan. 

As of today though, NASA has no idea when they can even start THINKING about any of that, much less have a well thought out mission spec.

This is why I say that talk about NASA going to Mars is all PR, because the amount of work needed to mount such a campaign - in the way that NASA does things - will greatly exceed the amount of work it took for the Artemis Moon program. Which STILL HAS NOT figured out all the things they need to return to the Moon. And you think they are ready to focus on Mars? Hah!

[Vultur]

One question would be whether a hypothetical "CMPS" was intended to 'grow an industry', or whether it would just be a program that existed because "SpaceX is going to send Starships there anyway, we want to have our payloads on board".