It only took $22 billion and 19 years: Lockheed Martin proudly announces the completion of the first Orion capsule capable of manned flight
Damage to Orion’s heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”.
Nor has this issue been fixed.
My heart be still. On May 1, 2025 Lockheed Martin proudly announced that it had finally completed assembly and testing of the first Orion capsule capable of taking human beings into space.
Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] has completed assembly and testing of NASA’s Orion Artemis II spacecraft, transferring possession to NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) team today. This milestone is a significant step for NASA and the Artemis industry team, as they prepare to launch a crew of four astronauts to further the agency’s mission in establishing a human presence on the Moon for exploration and scientific discovery. It will also help build the foundation for the first crewed missions to Mars.
Orion is the most advanced, human-rated, deep space spacecraft ever developed. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor to NASA for Orion and built the crew module, crew module adaptor and launch abort system. “This achievement is a testament to our employees and suppliers who have worked tirelessly to get us to this important milestone,” said Kirk Shireman, vice president of Human Space Exploration and Orion program manager at Lockheed Martin. “The Orion spacecraft completion for Artemis II is a major step forward in our nation’s efforts to develop a long-term lunar presence. It’s exciting to think that soon, humans will see the Earth rise over the lunar horizon from our vehicle, while also traveling farther from Earth than ever before.”
What disgusting hogwash. First of all, Lockheed Martin was issued the contract to build two capsules, one for testing and one for manned flight, in 2006. It only took the company 19 years to build both. Second, that 2006 contract was supposed to only cost $3.9 billion. Instead, NASA has forked out more than $22 billion.
And what have we gotten? Two capsules, plus a handful of prototype test versions. Worse, this first capsule will be the first to ever carry the life support systems that keep humans alive, as Lockheed Martin admits in its press release:
Artemis II [the first manned mission around the Moon in 2026] will put Orion through its final tests in deep space with a crew on board and will include learnings and significant enhancements gleaned from the Artemis I mission. To support the health and safety of the crew, new systems have been added, which include life support – air, water, thermal control, waste management – displays and controls, audio communications, an exercise machine and a fully functional Launch Abort System.
The company needed almost two decades and billions before it could install that life support system. And it will test it for the first time with humans on board, flying around the Moon.
Worse, the press release says nothing about Orion’s unsafe heat shield, which NASA admits has serious engineering flaws and carries a real risk of failing upon return to Earth.
As a taxpayer, I want my money back!
All in all, the entire SLS and Orion program has been a scam on the public, designed not to explore space but to pump cash into the pockets of the old big space companies. What makes this even more atrocious is that these facts were obvious from day one. I wrote about it repeatedly going back to the very start of this website (see here and here for just two examples). And yet, our so-called mainstream press gladly promoted the lie, and the public accepted it blindly.
Even now that same propaganda press is pushing back against Trump’s proposals to trim NASA’s budget, which includes the cancellation of both SLS and Orion. That none of this money accomplishes what it is supposed to do — establish the United States as a viable space-faring nation — matters not. These pointless projects funnel cash into these big space companies, who in turn funnel cash into the campaign bank accounts of those politicians. They all prosper while America goes bankrupt. What a deal! And the propaganda press is all for it!
Have Americans finally awakened to this scam? I have no idea, though I think we shall find out in the next three years, without doubt. Either Trump will succeed in reshaping NASA into a more efficient operation, or the same crap will go on, bankrupting the country. It will all depend on whether the public buys into the propaganda spewed at them from Washington and the press.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Damage to Orion’s heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”.
Nor has this issue been fixed.
My heart be still. On May 1, 2025 Lockheed Martin proudly announced that it had finally completed assembly and testing of the first Orion capsule capable of taking human beings into space.
Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] has completed assembly and testing of NASA’s Orion Artemis II spacecraft, transferring possession to NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) team today. This milestone is a significant step for NASA and the Artemis industry team, as they prepare to launch a crew of four astronauts to further the agency’s mission in establishing a human presence on the Moon for exploration and scientific discovery. It will also help build the foundation for the first crewed missions to Mars.
Orion is the most advanced, human-rated, deep space spacecraft ever developed. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor to NASA for Orion and built the crew module, crew module adaptor and launch abort system. “This achievement is a testament to our employees and suppliers who have worked tirelessly to get us to this important milestone,” said Kirk Shireman, vice president of Human Space Exploration and Orion program manager at Lockheed Martin. “The Orion spacecraft completion for Artemis II is a major step forward in our nation’s efforts to develop a long-term lunar presence. It’s exciting to think that soon, humans will see the Earth rise over the lunar horizon from our vehicle, while also traveling farther from Earth than ever before.”
What disgusting hogwash. First of all, Lockheed Martin was issued the contract to build two capsules, one for testing and one for manned flight, in 2006. It only took the company 19 years to build both. Second, that 2006 contract was supposed to only cost $3.9 billion. Instead, NASA has forked out more than $22 billion.
And what have we gotten? Two capsules, plus a handful of prototype test versions. Worse, this first capsule will be the first to ever carry the life support systems that keep humans alive, as Lockheed Martin admits in its press release:
Artemis II [the first manned mission around the Moon in 2026] will put Orion through its final tests in deep space with a crew on board and will include learnings and significant enhancements gleaned from the Artemis I mission. To support the health and safety of the crew, new systems have been added, which include life support – air, water, thermal control, waste management – displays and controls, audio communications, an exercise machine and a fully functional Launch Abort System.
The company needed almost two decades and billions before it could install that life support system. And it will test it for the first time with humans on board, flying around the Moon.
Worse, the press release says nothing about Orion’s unsafe heat shield, which NASA admits has serious engineering flaws and carries a real risk of failing upon return to Earth.
As a taxpayer, I want my money back!
All in all, the entire SLS and Orion program has been a scam on the public, designed not to explore space but to pump cash into the pockets of the old big space companies. What makes this even more atrocious is that these facts were obvious from day one. I wrote about it repeatedly going back to the very start of this website (see here and here for just two examples). And yet, our so-called mainstream press gladly promoted the lie, and the public accepted it blindly.
Even now that same propaganda press is pushing back against Trump’s proposals to trim NASA’s budget, which includes the cancellation of both SLS and Orion. That none of this money accomplishes what it is supposed to do — establish the United States as a viable space-faring nation — matters not. These pointless projects funnel cash into these big space companies, who in turn funnel cash into the campaign bank accounts of those politicians. They all prosper while America goes bankrupt. What a deal! And the propaganda press is all for it!
Have Americans finally awakened to this scam? I have no idea, though I think we shall find out in the next three years, without doubt. Either Trump will succeed in reshaping NASA into a more efficient operation, or the same crap will go on, bankrupting the country. It will all depend on whether the public buys into the propaganda spewed at them from Washington and the press.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the space science community on Bluesky and to a lesser extent on X has been something to behold. It appears that to be in support of these cuts renders one an antiscience fascist or something to that effect. The Mars Sample Return suggested cancelation is setting many of them off. It seems that budgeting and financial common sense is rare to nonexistent for this crowd; the cost overruns and delays appear to have no bearing on their support for the project.
I have not seen any updates on the Roman space telescope; what it really being proposed for cancelation or was that propaganda from the cost-is-no-object-hands-off-our-science crowd?
Hello Clark,
The toplines document of the Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request released by NASA does not give any detail on that, unfortunately. All we have is the leaks from the “passback” supposedly generated by OMB.
However, I think that it is generally believed by informed observers that proposed cancellation of Roman is really in there. The first Trump administration tried (in 2018) to kill it, too.
I doubt that Congressional leadership will go for it, though. Ted Cruz, for example, has been a consistent and vocal supporter. But we shall see.
“All in all, the entire SLS and Orion program has been a scam on the public, designed not to explore space but to pump cash into the pockets of the old big space companies.”
I wish I could sum up SLS and Orion better in one sentence, but I really can’t.
Well: I might add “unsafe” to “scam.” But you cover that concern pretty well in the rest of the essay, Bob.
I think Isaacman will keep his bargain with Cruz and the other senators to fly Artemis II and III on the last two SLS Block 1-Orion stacks. But I hope he requires Artemis II to fly unmanned as a test of the ECLSS and of the revised re-entry profile for the unmodified Orion heat shield. If those two items work acceptably, then Artemis III can fly with the currently designated Artemis II crew with all three Americans detailed as lander crew while the Canadian stays in NRHO to mind the Orion “store” while they’re gone.
Richard M: Sadly, I have had now decades of practice in writing about this idiocy, and that is the reason my writing is now so honed.
I’d much rather my writing was sloppily and wordily about real American achievement.
a major step forward in our nation’s efforts to develop a long-term lunar presence
Four people at a time – and it can’t land on the moon. Leaving the latter aside, how many people are required for a “long-term lunar presence”? At a billion dollars per person, that doesn’t seem to be – what’s the word? – sustainable in the short-term, let alone long-term.
Who in their right mind would want to circle the moon in a capsule that has never had its life support systems tested?
I was instantly brought to mind of the desperate but failed Soviet effort to launch a circumlunar manned Zond mission in December 1968 to beat Apollo 8, and I was going to say, “Alexei Leonov,” who was desperate to fly the mission.* But…no, not even that counts. Because the Soviets had tested out the life support on Zond 5, which had kept two tortoises alive on a circumlunar Zond mission in Sept 1968, and Soyuz 3, which had successfully sustained Georgy Beregovoy in late October 1968.
So NASA in a certain respect is being even more daring than the Soviets were in those heady days of 1968. And ASAP, of course, has shrugged its shoulders about it.
___
* This remains an undeservedly obscure piece of Space Race history, but we know more about this Soviet effort and subsequent coverup thanks to the hard work of Peter Pesavento and Charles Vick in an epic two-part article in the scholarly space journal Quest (2004 issues Volume 11, numbers 1 and 2).
How many crew versions of the Dragon capsule has SpaceX produced? And for much less than that time or money? I understand that Orion is designed for longer crewed operation, better radiation shielding, and a re-entry shield rated for higher velocity, but none of that justifies over ten times the cost in time and money.
We really need more companies to follow the trail SpaceX has blazed, and in more areas, so that we can finally kick the moribund old defense and aerospace contractors that have lost their way out the door. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, IBM, Honeywell.. they all need to learn that they will either become engineering companies that can actually deliver a product on budget and schedule, or they will go away.
David Eastman: I detailed the relatively minor technical differences between Dragon and Orion in my policy paper, Capitalism in Space (free download). On the three points you mention:
1. Longer crew operations. This delivered Orion capsule can fly independently for 21 days. It has not deep space capabilities beyond the Moon, despite numerous claims by NASA and Lockheed Martin.
Dragon capsules can fly independent for about a week.
2. Better radiation shielding. Orion’s shielding is still entirely insufficient for any deep space mission, and only adds weight that limits the capsule’s use. Dragon doesn’t bother with it, which makes the capsule more useful and light enough to launch on Falcon 9.
3. Re-entry shield. Orion’s is a failure. They say it will work on the next mission, but based on its performance on its one test from lunar space, I would not agree.
The big lie about Orion has always been the claim that it is intended to provide America an interplanetary spacecraft, when all it really is is an overweight ascent/descent capsule for getting humans into Earth orbit. We can do that far cheaper with Dragon, or even Starliner. Once in orbit humans will need a much larger space-station-sized interplanetary craft to get to Mars or beyond.
There must be a workable architecture for an HLS/Dragon lunar mission. At least, someone must be confident about that, given the administration has chosen to drop SLS/Orion after Artemis 3. I truly doubt the admin is planning on, or expects to get away with, cancelling the entirety of Artemis after A3 or A4.
David Eastman asked: “How many crew versions of the Dragon capsule has SpaceX produced?”
There is only one “version” of Crew Dragon and two versions of Cargo Dragon. Crew Dragon has had a couple of modifications, not enough to make additional “versions,” though. These modifications replaced the docking mechanism with a plexiglass dome, allowing for Earth and space observation, and an EVA port, allowing for flight testing of SpaceX’s EVA spacesuit design.
If you want to call them versions, then so far there is the dock-to-space-station version, the watch-the-universe version, and the spacewalk version.
“And for much less than that time or money? … but none of that justifies over ten times the cost in time and money.”
Robert’s policy paper gives us costs that are almost a decade old, and his commercial costs include both cargo and manned versions of spacecraft from three companies: Boeing, Orbital Sciences ATK (now part of Northrup Grumman), and SpaceX.
Keep in mind that that 1/10th cost includes launch costs for dozens of commercial missions flown so far, so the cost of Orion is even greater than the cost of the Crew Dragon and the Cargo Dragons. The cost of the Orion spacecraft is separated out from launch costs of its SLS launch vehicle.
“We really need more companies to follow the trail SpaceX has blazed, and in more areas, so that we can finally kick the moribund old defense and aerospace contractors that have lost their way out the door.”
Fortunately, this is already underway. Four commercial space stations are under development, several commercial launch companies are already operational and more are likely to become operational in the next half decade, and scores of commercial space companies have already operated satellites and probes around the Earth and on the Moon, and more companies are developing probes for other places in the solar system.
“[The moribund old defense and aerospace contractors] all need to learn that they will either become engineering companies that can actually deliver a product on budget and schedule, or they will go away.”
Some of them are helping (or sometimes hindering) some of the NewSpace companies that are, in general, doing so well. Boeing, for instance, has learned the lesson, but whether they can apply those lessons is another question.
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/intuitive-machines-athena-lander-touches-down-softly-engineers-are-assessing-spacecraft-condition/
about 10 minutes in:
“It isn’t about lessons learned but lessons applied” — 6 March 2025 Dr Nicola Fox, Associate Administrator, NASA Science Mission Directorate
I was thinking that the EVA Dragon could be modified to allow for an airlock.
This would open up a few new possibilities for the craft.
Hello Clark,
“The Mars Sample Return suggested cancelation is setting many of them off..”
Honestly surprised it wasn’t the earth science cuts that detonated them.
I clicked on the ‘new systems’ link: https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/life-encapsulated-inside-nasas-orion-for-artemis-ii-moon-mission/
“As the first time astronauts will fly aboard Orion, Artemis II will include several objectives to check out many of the spacecraft’s life support systems operating in space for the first time. The crew will provide valuable feedback for future Artemis missions to the Moon.”
I think the last question in the feedback survey will be, “But did you die?” It’s madness that they couldn’t include the life support on the first mission and are using crew to test it.
Bob Z – Thanks for the link to your 2017 paper. It provided a lot of background for the space programs, and the initial failures of Space-X that I was not aware of. (That darn Elon must have lost my email address). I can see why NASA has problems delivering for a reasonable price with their massive admin costs. Maybe they were anticipating the tariffs when they made their budgets in 2018 or so?
John, they are also (iirc) flying Artemis 2 without the docking adapter that will be needed on Artemis 3. After two decades of work.
I genuinely fear for any astronauts flying on Orion. Given NASAs track-record over the past 50 years with post-Apollo hardware, I think there is 50% chance of total crew loss on any mission on Orion beyond LEO. I’m not an expert on spacecraft design, but I have been a mechanical design engineer working in very high-tech areas (right now, hardware for generative AI) for 30 years, and based on the risks being taken, lack of testing, the extremely fat, lazy, and poor performance at America’s government-funded aerospace contractors (I worked at RTX for 3 years, never will work in defense again, ever), the known failures with the heat shield, etc…….I regard any manned missions in Orion as extremely high risk, at least as high as the Shuttle and probably quite a bit higher. I think when an organization reaches a certain level of bloat and managerial decadence – think Boeing, or the old McDonnell Douglas – they fundamentally lose the ability to design and construct extremely complex systems competently and efficiently. Or in NASAs case with manned spacecraft, at all. NASA has not designed a new manned spacecraft in almost 50 years, and their current effort has been in gestation almost twenty years, which is simply profane.
It’s very sad to see, but government corrupts absolutely, and the heady days of Apollo were over a lifetime ago for most of us (meaning, we weren’t born yet). Whatever spirit NASA possessed at that time, whatever magic, that made that epochal era possible, has long since dissipated into decay and decadence. NASA has been living off its Apollo reputation for decades. It is past time to fundamentally reevaluate how the US funds and forges access to space. Like the FBI, DOJ, EPA, and a thousand other alphabet organizations, NASA is beyond redemption and should be abandoned. At most, it should be reduced back to something like the old NACA, where it was just a small vehicle for some basic research and a vehicle for doling funds for focused development efforts at largely startup type organizations, and not a trough for feeding engorged aerocorp entities.
Larry: To everything you say I say “Hear! Hear!” I’ve been writing this now for more than three decades. I am glad others are beginning to see things the same way, though deep in my heart I wish they could have seen it three decades ago. Things would have been far better, and we really might have had colonies on the Moon and Mars now if people had.
As a Monday morning quarterback, it seems the heat shield problem is understood, and it’s probably OK assuming they can quality check the permeability. Even if they build one with defects, it still ‘worked’.
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/nasa-identifies-cause-of-artemis-i-orion-heat-shield-char-loss/
They should still test the shield under the reentry profile the four souls are going to fly.
John wrote: “Even if they build one with defects, it still ‘worked’.”
Engineering decisions like that is how we got the Challenger and Columbia disasters. When things do not work as expected, it means that we engineers do not understand the system, so to continue using it as though it is OK is dangerous.
When things do not work as expected, it means that we engineers do not understand the system
Exactly (although I’d use the word “perform” or “behave” rather than “work”). It may be perfectly fine, but if no one knows _why_ it’s perfectly fine, the only safe path is “find out more”. I’d not want to be in it for that process, but I can see a test pilot being willing to try.
It’s not _that_ different from Starship not having a launch abort system. I don’t want to be in the first few (dozen?) flights, but airplanes don’t come with parachutes (although your decades-old, hard-as-rock seat cushion is supposed to float, as if). At some point, there’s enough testing to build the correct expectations – whether than be “we need a launch abort system” or “we’re fine without one”.
Neither SpaceX nor Lockheed Martin is there, yet.