NASA Changes the Mileposts, Again

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): NASA’s February 2026 somewhat confusing graphic that seems to indicate we will either be on the Moon by 2028 or simply orbiting around the Moon and thinking about it for years to come. (NASA)

It is hard to keep up with the space program these days, between potential budget cuts last year, the recent changes to the Artemis III mission, and now the changes this week by the new NASA administrator.

So what is the latest? Let’s start with the Moon mission in today’s post. According to a new set of initiatives released this week, the idea of a permanently crewed lunar base, or even a base that can be used for two months at a time, is moving further into the future. The whole theme appears to be “ignition,” but not “arrival,” mind you.

Here are the new plans:

  • Phase One: Build, Test, Learn: NASA shifts from bespoke, infrequent missions to a repeatable, modular approach. Through CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) deliveries and the LTV (Lunar Terrain Vehicle) program, the agency will increase the tempo of lunar activity, sending rovers, instruments, and technology demonstrations that advance mobility, power generation (including radioisotope heater units and radioisotope thermoelectric generators), communications, navigation, surface operations, and a wide range of scientific investigations.

  • Phase Two: Establish Early Infrastructure: With lessons from early missions in hand, NASA moves toward semi‑habitable infrastructure and regular logistics. This phase supports recurring astronaut operations on the surface and incorporates major international contributions, including JAXA’s (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) pressurized rover, and potentially other partner scientific payloads, rovers, and infrastructure/transportation capabilities.

  • Phase Three: Enable Long‑Duration Human Presence: As cargo‑capable human landing systems (HLS) come online, NASA will deliver heavier infrastructure needed for a continuous human foothold on the Moon, marking the transition from periodic expeditions to a permanent lunar base. This will include ASI’s (Italian Space Agency) Multi-purpose Habitats (MPH), CSA’s (Canadian Space Agency) Lunar Utility Vehicle, and opportunities for additional contributions in habitation, surface

Phase One makes sense – let’s keep trying. You may remember the various commercial lunar missions in recent years that have faced severe issues on or around the Moon. For instance, we had:

What worries me is that the past could be a predictor for the future. Other than Blue Ghost, NASA and the commercial sector have little to brag about. If this continues, how long do we wait? Is the commercial sector even ready for this new work and expected pace?

Phase Two is talking about agreements with Japan at a time that NASA’s credibility with any of its partnerships is questionable given the attitude in the White House. For instance, since 2022 Japan has been a partner in the Lunar Gateway project that the White House tried to kill last year and NASA has now paused (or more likely killed) this week. Such actions do not build confidence between the two space programs, nor the space programs of other nations also assisting with the Lunar Gateway. Also, what does it mean to live in semi‑habitable infrastructure? That is a semi-scary term. Do they mean “semi-permanent” infrastructure?

Phase Three assumes the successful creation of a HLS by SpaceX and Blue Origin, but the companies do not have a lot of time to create simpler landing craft for Artemis III, iron out their bugs, and maybe even completely scrap their current multiple rocket refueling design. Moreover, these simpler models are expected to expand into the full HLS models. So what does that mean in terms of getting actual astronauts on the Moon for Artemis IV and cargo thereafter?

NASA notes that the simpler landing systems will not only need to be created for the Artemis III low Earth orbit test in 2027, but then those companies have to also prove that they can safely land whatever they create on the lunar surface without a crew before Artemis IV in early 2028. We are asking this of two companies that have never done anything like this. SpaceX is still playing with its Starship after all of his promises that it would be much further ahead by now. SpaceX has not even had a launch test in the past six months. Again, is it any surprise if the public’s confidence is waning?

Finally, a new timeline interlaced with the Artemis timeline would be nice. My fear is that all of this complexity and busy work means we will be arriving on the Moon after the Chinese have set up camp. Having some clear dates aligned with the phases above would help to alleviate this concern.

Pic of the Week: Blue Origin Moon Landing

Posted on by onespaceman2000

The image above is from a NASA Office of the Inspector General audit report on the Human Landing System. It shows the complexity of the Blue Origin process for getting a crew on the Moon. It is complex, and has one more step than the SpaceX plan, which already seems close to impossible.

This is how the audit report explained the graphic you see above:

For the Artemis V mission, Blue Origin is developing its Blue Moon lander. Standing 52 feet tall, Blue Moon will launch on Blue Origin’s reusable New Glenn heavy-lift rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The lander will utilize Blue Origin’s BE-7 engines, which are fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Prior to the Artemis V mission, Blue Origin will launch a transporter to low Earth orbit, essentially serving as a propellant depot. From there a fleet of refuelers will launch, rendezvous with the transporter, and transfer propellant. The Blue Moon lander will then launch to low Earth orbit to receive fuel from both a refueler and the transporter before traveling to NRHO to dock with Gateway for the Lunar Orbit Checkout Review. The transporter, left in low Earth orbit, will receive additional propellant there before traveling to a higher “stairstep” orbit for final propellant aggregation.14 Once the transporter has traveled to NRHO, Blue Moon will undock with Gateway to receive its final propellant transfer and then dock with Gateway a second time. Next, Orion will deliver the astronauts to Gateway, who will then transfer to Blue Moon for transit to the lunar surface and back to the station. At the end of the mission, Orion will return the astronauts to Earth and the lander will transition to another orbit for disposal or later reuse.

Audit Report: Questions about the Human Landing System

Posted on by onespaceman2000

Auditors with NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated three aspects of the Human Landing System (HLS) to be used with the Artemis Moon landing: (1) the extent to which the HLS providers are meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals; (2) the HLS Program’s implementation of the insight/oversight model; and (3) the Program’s identification and mitigation of risks to astronaut safety.

In its report, NASA’s Management of the Human Landing System Contracts, the auditors found issues in all three areas. In particular, the report stated:

…both SpaceX and Blue Origin have experienced schedule delays and face technical and integration challenges that have the potential to further impact lander costs and delivery schedules. In particular, SpaceX’s lander will not be ready for a June 2027 lunar landing.

It is possible that the draft version of this audit report was already the desk of NASA Administrator Isaacman right before he decided to move the Moon landing date again. Pending audit reports have a tendency to stir action.

Yet, even once we get to the moon, the auditors identified some safety issues. Specifically, the auditors stated:

We also observed limitations in the Agency’s approach to crew survival analyses—the evaluation of available crew survival capabilities to counter a catastrophic event—due to functional constraints and the availability of resources…While NASA is taking steps to prevent catastrophic events from occurring, ultimately, should the astronauts encounter a life-threatening emergency in space or on the lunar surface, NASA does not have the capability to rescue the stranded crew.

None of this is too surprising with a new approach like this one. Delays are inevitable, and even the best of plans cannot account for everything, as Apollo 13 demonstrated. It also shows that NASA has a tough balancing act, with the need for speed weighed against the mechanisms to ensure the safety of the astronauts.

One of the safety concerns stated later in the report really should have been its own report. It discussed the height of the HLS. As shown in the image above, the Starship Lander is huge compared to the Apollo lander and even Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Lander. Here are the dimensions per the report:

Landers may also encounter hazards such as boulders or mounds that are too large or depressions that are too deep for the landing legs and stability design. For example, steep slopes of up to 20 degrees on the lunar South Pole present navigation and landing challenges. Given Starship’s height of 171 feet— about the equivalent of a 14-story tall commercial building—there is a risk that its momentum will continue after landing causing it to tip over. Blue Moon—standing at 53 feet tall—also faces landing risks, including exceeding the lander’s tilt tolerance for safe and effective execution of critical crew functions. Surpassing the tilt tolerance for either lander, which NASA established as not to exceed 8 degrees to support all post-landing crew activities, could impact the operation of equipment such as the hatch used by the crew to exit and enter the vehicle. By comparison, the Apollo Lunar Module stood 23 feet tall.

This is scary given the multiple spacecraft we have already witness toppling over onto the lunar surface just last year. Why would we ever want to land a 14-story tall rocket with an elevator on the Moon as our first attempt after 50 years? I can understand Elon Musk proposing this ridiculous idea, but it is not clear how the original planners could have gone along with it. This is a “catastrophic event” waiting to happen.

The auditors also added a Apollo 15 Lunar Module story (shown below) to the report. After reading this report and the Apollo 15 clip, I think I will also have trouble sleeping tonight due to an uncomfortable feeling that the current Artemis approach was a mess (if not doomed) from the start.

Senator Cruz Has Big Ambitions for NASA

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): A artist’s rendering of Nanoracks, Voyager Space, and Lockheed Martin’s Starlab commercial space station. (Nanoracks/Lockheed Martin/Voyager Space)

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, earlier today highlighted some of the sections in the NASA Authorization Act of 2026 designed to counter Chinese ambitions on the Moon while also keeping the US in the forefront of space stations.

In a Committee press release, he stated:

Let me touch on a few highlights of the NASA Authorization Act.  The bill— 

  • Directs NASA to create a permanent “moon base” so we can get there before the Chinese; 
  • Keeps American astronauts in space, extending the ISS through 2032 and requiring the launch of two independent commercial space stations before the ISS can be retired; 
  • Protects against disclosure of NASA tech secrets to Chinese spies; and 
  • Restores fiscal discipline while modernizing NASA’s workforce through public-private partnerships. 

This all sounds good, but first we need to successfully get to the Moon before worrying about permanent versus temporary Moon bases. I would rather we focus just getting a manned spacecraft back on the Moon after more than 50 years. The more burdens we place on these initial missions, the less likely we will have the chance to land on the Moon.

Mr. Musk’s complex dance with multiple Starships was designed to handle a spacecraft with four astronauts and a complex lunar habitat. A simpler mission just to replant the flag may have made more sense if the latest Space Race is about being the first to get back on the lunar surface. And if a Moon base is really a national priority, we should be able to find the funds do to both – a quick, basic mission to put boots on the lunar surface and a more complex mission supporting a Moon base. However, last year’s proposed budget cuts indicated the White House doesn’t know what it wants.

In terms of a space station, the idea of getting more years out of the enormous investment in the International Space Station makes perfect sense. That said, requiring long-term investment from the commercial sector for space stations seems presumptuous. While NASA can support the design of future stations, it cannot ensure their construction and viability. Besides, it is not clear we have enough research, both government and commercial, to support one space station. Do we really need two? And should that be NASA’s decision?

I believe the private sector can decide on the need for space stations all by itself, and so far it has not shown enough interest in this area. The government is good at big things, while the private sector has very specific profit-driven interests when it comes to space missions, like anything else. So far, the commercial funding seems to be drifting towards orbiting data centers and even space tourism. Is this what Senator Cruz envisions?

We may need to simplify our milestones if we are trying to beat the Chinese and maintain our presence in space. Big ideas need to be supported with big budgets and/or clear private sector benefits. With the current administration starting costly wars around the world while also sending mixed signals to the private sector via excessive tariffs and various crony-capitalist actions, we will be lucky to keep the lights on at NASA.

Podcast: Jerod Isaacman Speaks with Ross Douthat

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat speaking on the Interesting Times program. (New York Times)

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat sat down with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman recently to discuss the future of NASA and more. You can listen to the interview, titled ‘The New Space Race,” via the New York Times‘ Interesting Times podcast or watch it on YouTube.

I was a little skeptical about what I would learn from NASA’s new administrator, a billionaire space tourist until recently, but Jared Isaacman was well spoken during the interview. He seemed both candid with his answers as well as well comfortable with everything Ross tossed his way. His only stumble in my opinion was when he was trying to cover for the proposed draconian cuts to NASA by the White House in 2025. Fortunately, Congress saved the agency and his butt, though you would not know that from his answer.

I particularly liked his openness about his own space travels as well as the return mission to the Moon. In terms of himself, he compared his own gravity-free experience in space as the equivalent of being an upside down chipmunk. He also did not appear overwhelmed by his privileged view of the Earth from low Earth orbit. He said the high-definition images from the International Space Station (ISS) over the years has given everyone a great view of the Earth.

As far as establishing an early settlement on the Moon, he did not try to oversell it. He stated:

For the first maybe, I don’t know, 10 years, it’s going to look like a pretty cool futuristic junkyard with lots of landers and rovers around.

Mr. Isaacman also restated his critique of NASA’s handing of the Boeing Starliner mission to the ISS, did not exaggerate the profits to be made in space at the moment, expressed his opinions on intelligent life elsewhere as well as the public’s interest in UFOs, and stated he expected a manned mission to land on Mars within about 10 years.

Check it out for yourself if you want to learn a little more about the man running NASA. The interview runs for about an hour.