Very little scientific benefit came of Artemis-2, but it did seem to wake up the general public on NASA-related issues.

Are you certain? Let’s check back in six months from now, my guess is that nothing will have changed. If it turns out otherwise, I would be pleasantly surprised.

Robert,

As a result, there was little pushback from Congress during this hearing over Isaacman’s major reshaping of Artemis. And though it is very likely they will restore most of Trump’s cuts, it is also very likely Isaacman will convince them to give him more flexibility on how to use the money.

We can only hope, he’s the first administrator willing to buck the status quo in a long time.

We’ve got some medium-lift outfits making good progress (e.g. Rocket Lab) but only Blue Origin is trying to compete in the Bigs, and they aren’t exactly setting the world on fire with having just dumped their first commercial payload, and the FAA thus grounding New Glenn.

They had better pray that New Glenn second stage doesn’t come down someplace heavily populated, but the obvious conclusion from BO’s silence is that:
a) they don’t have a clue where it will come down and,
b) they have no ability to influence it anyway.

Perhaps Congress is a bit hesitant to challenge Isaacman, as the PUBLIC may see him as an objective NASA Director who helped Artemis-2 to be a success.

There’s the rub!

As Ronald Reagan said: “”the nearest thing to eternal life”” is government program.

No Mas