Tag: ARTEMIS

SLS is back in the Vehicle Assembly Building

9:43 am

Last night NASA yesterday successfully completed the roll back of its SLS rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB).

The SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft for NASA’s Artemis II mission arrived at the Vehicle Assembly Building from Launch Pad 39B at approximately 8 p.m. EST Feb. 25, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. While in the assembly building, technicians will troubleshoot the helium flow issue to the rocket’s upper stage, replace batteries on the rocket’s upper stage, core stage, and solid rocket boosters as well as service its flight termination system.

NASA officials have not said what will happen next, once that helium flow problem is resolved. I suspect NASA administrator Jared Isaacman will insist on another wet dress rehearsal to not only test the rocket’s troublesome fueling system, but to also test the helium system used to drain the tanks afterward.

If so, it is very unlikely a launch can occur prior to April 6th, when the present launch window closes. The odds of there being no issues on the next dress rehearsal are slim, based on SLS’s past record, and even if all goes well, the time margins are very very tight, allowing for no delays of any kind.

Leave a comment

SLS begins trip back to Vehicle Assembly Building

9:12 am

NASA’s SLS rocket today began its long slow journey from the launchpad back to Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) so that engineers can safely troubleshoot the failure of helium to properly flow into the tanks of the rocket’s upper stage following the dress rehearsal countdown last week.

NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft for the Artemis II mission began rolling off the launch pad at 9:38 a.m. EST, Feb. 25, at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Rolling from Launch Pad 39B to the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA Kennedy is expected to take up to 12 hours.

At this time NASA officials have not yet determined whether they will need another wet dress rehearsal countdown. There are concerns however that the movement to and from the VAB might be contributing to the fuel leaks that have plagued previous rehearsals and countdowns, and if so, those concerns almost guarantee the need to do another countdown rehearsal once the helium issue is fixed and the rocket is back on the launchpad.

Officials are also reviewing potential future launch dates both in late April as well as May and June. The present window closes on April 6, though there is one launch opportunity on April 30th. Nothing has been decided as yet.

11 comments

NASA to return SLS to assembly building tomorrow Wednesday

9:10 am

UPDATE: Due to weather, the roll back to the VAB is now delayed until Wednesday, February 25, 2026.

Original post:
————————
According to its most recent update, NASA is now planning on rolling its SLS rocket back to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) no sooner than tomorrow, February 24, 2026, in order to begin its investigation into the helium flow issue in the rocket’s upper stage that has now delayed any launch until April at the earliest.

Returning to the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy is required to determine the cause of the issue and fix it.

Teams are reviewing the exact time to begin the approximately 4 mile, multi-hour trek. The quick work to begin preparations for rolling the rocket and spacecraft back to the VAB potentially preserves the April launch window, pending the outcome of data findings, repair efforts, and how the schedule comes to fruition in the coming days and weeks.

The present launch window closes on April 6, 2026. For a launch to occur, NASA engineers need to identify and fix the flow issue. They will also need to test it, which suggests they will have to do some form of fueling test once the rocket is returned to the launchpad.

All of this takes time. First we have one week to get back to the VAB. Then at least a full two weeks in the VAB to identify and fix the upper stage. Then another week to roll the rocket back to the launch pad. And then another week to do another fueling test on the launchpad. That brings us to the beginning of April.

In other words, NASA has no time margin at all. If anything takes just a little longer than planned, it will not make the April launch window.

None of this is a surprise. SLS in its first launch attempt in 2022 missed its spring launch window due to similar issues and ended up launching six months later (after more launch scrubs). I predicted it would happen again now. NASA at this moment has not revealed any later launch windows, so we don’t yet know how long a delay to expect if it misses this window. Based on 2022, I suspect the delay would be until the fall.

17 comments

Problem pops up during SLS roll back after wet dress rehearsal countdown

9:33 am

Not so fast! According to an update posted by NASA today, during the process to roll back the SLS rocket from the launchpad following the wet dress rehearsal countdown two days ago, crews suddenly detected “interrupted helium flow” in the upper stage that appears to be of some concern.

NASA is taking steps to potentially roll back the Artemis II rocket and Orion spacecraft to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida after overnight Feb. 21 observing interrupted flow of helium in the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket’s interim cryogenic propulsion stage. Helium flow is required for launch.

Teams are actively reviewing data, and taking steps to enable rollback positions for NASA to address the issue as soon as possible while engineers determine the best path forward. In order to protect for troubleshooting options at both Pad B and the VAB, teams are making preparations to remove the pad access platforms installed yesterday, which have wind-driven constraints and cannot be removed during high winds, which are forecasted for tomorrow. This will almost assuredly impact the March launch window. NASA will continue to provide updates. [emphasis mine]

The helium flow is likely used to fill the tanks as the actual and dangerous fuel is pumped out. They need to drain those tanks in order to roll the rocket from the launchpad. If it has stopped flowing, it means they can’t drain the tanks as planned.

During launch the helium is also likely pumped into the tanks to maintain pressure as the fuel burns. If during launch the helium stopped flowing it would almost certainly result in a failed launch.

This issue not only impacts the tentative March 6th launch date that NASA announced yesterday, if a fix is not found quickly it almost certainly means no launch can occur before this launch window closes on April 6th.

64 comments

NASA today completes SLS wet dress rehearsal with few problems

8:35 pm

NASA today successfully completed its SLS wet dress rehearsal countdown with few problems, fueling the rocket completely and then running the countdown down to T-33 seconds and then recycling back to T-10 minutes and running the countdown down again, this time to T-29 seconds.

During the day-long event there were only two minor issues, neither of significance. Early in the day there was “an issue with ground communications” that required mission control to shift to “backup communication methods” for about a half hour before the issue was resolved.

Then, during the first countdown to T-33 the count was paused and recycled once “due to a booster avionics system voltage anomaly.” This also appeared to be minor issue quickly resolved.

NASA will hold a press conference tomorrow at 11 am (Eastern) to discuss the results of the entire rehearsal.

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman had stated previously that he needed to see a perfect rehearsal before he would approve the launch of Artemis-2, carrying four astronauts on a ten-day mission around the Moon. While today’s rehearsal was not “perfect,” the issues were very minor. I suspect he will give the okay, with a tentative launch date of March 6, 2026 already being considered. The present launch window closes on April 6, 2026.

That mission, should it fly, still carries enormous risk. The Orion capsule will be using a life support system never tested in space before. It will also be using a heat shield that is questionable, having failed to behave as expected in the first Artemis mission in 2022.

3 comments

NASA now targeting February 19, 2026 for 2nd SLS wet dress rehearsal countdown

8:20 am

According to an announcement yesterday afternoon, NASA is now targeting February 19, 2026 for the second SLS wet dress rehearsal countdown.

During the rehearsal, the team will execute a detailed countdown sequence. Operators will conduct two runs of the last ten minutes of the countdown, known as terminal count. They will pause at T-1 minute and 30 seconds for up to three minutes, then resume until T-33 seconds before launch and pause again. After that, they will recycle the clock back to T-10 minutes and conduct a second terminal countdown to just inside of T-30 seconds before ending the sequence. This process simulates real-world conditions, including scenarios where a launch might be scrubbed due to technical or weather issues.

If this dress rehearsal goes off perfectly, NASA is considering the possibility of an actual launch attempt on March 6, 2026, though it admits that date is very preliminary That launch will carry four astronauts on a ten-day mission slingshot around the Moon and back to Earth, using an Orion capsule with untested life support system and a questionable heat shield.

The present launch window for this mission closes on April 6th, so NASA’s margins will shrink considerably if this second dress rehearsal has any further problems.

2 comments

NASA testing SLS fuel leak repairs; UPDATE: Problems!

10:33 am

UPDATE: NASA posted a late update today describing vaguely the results of this fueling test, and revealed that while the test of the replacement seals appeared to go well, there were other problems:

During the test, teams encountered an issue with ground support equipment that reduced the flow of liquid hydrogen into the rocket. … Engineers will purge the line over the weekend to ensure proper environmental conditions and inspect the ground support equipment before replacing a filter suspected to be the cause of the reduced flow.

In other words, the SLS fueling system is like playing whack-a-mole. You fix one problem, and others show up.

I predicted this. It remains entirely possible NASA will not be able to complete a perfect full wet-dress rehearsal countdown in time to launch before April 6th, when this present launch window closes.

Original post:
———————-
NASA yesterday did an unannounced test fueling of its SLS rocket to check out the repairs in the fueling system.

NASA is loading liquid hydrogen aboard its Space Launch System moon rocket at the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday for an unpublicized but crucial test of the repairs made to a leaky umbilical that derailed a countdown rehearsal on Feb. 2.

The operation to load liquid hydrogen into the huge fuel tank on the rocket’s core stage was thought to be already underway at launch complex 39B on Thursday morning. The test will determine if new seals installed in the launch pad umbilical are working. “As part of our work to assess the repair we made in the area where we saw elevated hydrogen gas concentrations during the previous wet dress rehearsal, engineers are testing the new seals by running some liquid hydrogen across the interface and partially filling the core stage liquid hydrogen tank. The data will inform the timeline for our next wet dress rehearsal,” a NASA spokesperson said about the previously unannounced test.

If the new seals work on these fueling tests, another full dress rehearsal countdown could take place as early as next week.

Posting is going to very light for the rest of the day. I am fighting a bad head cold and just want to go back to bed.

43 comments

NASA provides update on Artemis-2 repairs for future dress rehearsal countdown

8:01 am

NASA late last night posted an update describing the fuel leak repair work taking place in advance of a second dress rehearsal countdown prior to the launch of the manned ten-day Artemis-2 mission around the Moon.

While teams continue evaluating the cause of the leak, reconnecting the interfaces is expected to be complete on Monday, Feb. 9. Testing is planned to occur at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, to evaluate additional dynamics of the plates. Engineers are reviewing options to test the repair work prior to the next wet dress rehearsal to ensure the seals are performing as expected.

NASA also will update several operations for the next wet dress rehearsal to focus on fueling activities. The Orion crew module hatch will be closed prior to the test, and the closeout crew responsible on launch day for assisting the Artemis II crew into their seats and closing Orion’s two hatches will not be deployed to the launch pad. The crew access arm will not be retracted during the next rehearsal, after engineers successfully demonstrated the ground launch sequencer can retract it during the final phase of the countdown.

Additionally, NASA has added 30 minutes of extra time during each of two planned holds in the countdown before and after tanking operations to allow more time for troubleshooting, increasing the total time of the countdown by one hour. The additional time will not affect the crew’s timeline on launch day.

In other words, the next rehearsal will focus almost entirely on fueling to make sure these issues are resolved.

The agency however has not set a date for that countdown rehearsal. To launch in March, as presently planned, it must occur sometime in the next three weeks, and go perfectly. Otherwise that launch will slip again, and begin to bump up against the end of the launch window on April 6th.

Right now I am betting that second rehearsal will not go perfectly, as this was SLS’s track record leading up to November 2022 first launch. It took five countdowns before the agency was able to get the rocket off the ground without issues.

And if it does go perfectly and Artemis-2 is launched manned, it is essential to note again that it will be flying a manned capsule with a questionable heat shield and an untested life support system.

Leave a comment

Isaacman: SLS stands on very thin ice

2:46 pm

Though NASA administration Jared Isaacman continues to support unequivocally NASA’s planned Artemis-2 ten-day manned mission around the Moon — presently targeting a March launch date — in a statement today on X he revealed that he also recognizes the serious limitations of the SLS rocket.

And it takes two-plus years between launches
And it also takes two-plus years between launches

The Artemis vision began with President Trump, but the SLS architecture and its components long predate his administration, with much of the heritage clearly traced back to the Shuttle era. As I stated during my hearings, and will say again, this is the fastest path to return humans to the Moon and achieve our near-term objectives through at least Artemis V, but it is not the most economic path and certainly not the forever path.

The flight rate is the lowest of any NASA-designed vehicle, and that should be a topic of discussion. It is why we undertake wet dress rehearsals, Pre-FRR, and FRR, and why we will not press to launch until we are absolutely ready.

These comments were also in connection with the first wet dress rehearsal countdown that NASA performed with SLS/Orion in the past few days, a rehearsal that had to be terminated early because of fuel leaks. NASA now plans to do another wet dress rehearsal, requiring it to push back the Artemis-2 launch until March.

I think there is more going on here than meets the eye.
» Read more

34 comments

NASA makes right decision and delays Artemis-2 launch to do a 2nd dress rehearsal countdown

8:53 am

Artemis Program logo

NASA management announced today that it has decided to postpone the launch of the manned Artemis-2 mission around the Moon until March in order to give it time to do a second wet dress rehearsal countdown of the rocket and fix the hydrogen fuel leaks that occurred in yesterday’s rehearsal.

Engineers pushed through several challenges during the two-day test and met many of the planned objectives. To allow teams to review data and conduct a second wet dress rehearsal, NASA now will target March as the earliest possible launch opportunity for the flight test.

Moving off a February launch window also means the Artemis II astronauts will be released from quarantine, which they entered in Houston on Jan. 21. As a result, they will not travel to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida Tuesday as tentatively planned. Crew will enter quarantine again about two weeks out from the next targeted launch opportunity.

It should be understood that these hydrogen leaks have been systemic to SLS’s core stage rocket engines, which come from the shuttle era. Shuttle launches were routinely delayed due to similar leaks. This was partly because hydrogen is extremely difficult to control, as its atom is so small and light, and partly because of the engine design. This was the first rocket system ever to use hydrogen as fuel, and was thus cutting edge, in the 1970s. We should not be surprised by such issues.

Newer hydrogen-fueled designs have apparently overcome the problem. For example, Blue Origin uses hydrogen as a fuel in the upper stage of its New Glenn rocket, and though it has only launched twice, it has not had such issues on either launch.

In its announcement NASA also noted a bunch of other issues that occurred during this first rehearsal, all of which suggest that a delay is called for. There was a valve issue in the Orion capsule, some audio communication channels kept dropping out, and the cold weather affected some equipment. Waiting until warmer weather will help alleviate some of this.

10 comments

Fuel leaks cause Artemis-2 dress rehearsal countdown to terminate at T-5:15, several minutes early

11:15 pm

Artemis Program logo

Two hydrogen fuel leaks during today’s Artemis-2 dress rehearsal countdown forced an early termination of the count as well as the cancellation of a second practice countdown.

The Artemis II wet dress rehearsal countdown was terminated at the T-5:15 minute mark due to a liquid hydrogen leak at the interface of the tail service mast umbilical, which had experienced high concentrations of liquid hydrogen earlier in the countdown, as well. The launch control team is working to ensure the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket is in a safe configuration and begin draining its tanks.

An earlier leak of hydrogen in the count forced a hold and a recycling of the count, though it did not stop the rehearsal.

The initial plan had been to do two terminal counts. First they would run the countdown down to T-33 seconds, hold for a few minutes, then recycle back to T-10 minutes and do it again. Because of that first leak delay the launch director canceled the second count. And because of the second leak they were unable to run that one count all the way to T-33 seconds.

The wise action would be for NASA to review their data, figure out what caused the leaks, correct it, and then do another dress rehearsal countdown. This being NASA, do not be surprised if they review the data, figure out what caused the leaks, and decide they can go ahead with the launch on February 8, 2026.

Why not? They are already launching this manned 10-day mission around the Moon with an untested life support system and a questionable heat shield. Might as well try a launch when you haven’t worked out all the fueling kinks.

23 comments

NASA delays Artemis-2 wet dress rehearsal countdown due to weather

9:30 am

NASA today announced it is delaying until February 2, 2026 the wet dress rehearsal countdown of its Artemis-2 mission due to weather concerns.

NASA is targeting Monday, Feb. 2, as the tanking day for the upcoming Artemis II wet dress rehearsal at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, as a result of weather. With this change, the first potential opportunity to launch is no earlier than Sunday, Feb. 8.

Over the past several days, engineers have been closely monitoring conditions as cold weather and winds move through Florida. Managers have assessed hardware capabilities against the projected forecast given the rare arctic outbreak affecting the state and decided to change the timeline. Teams and preparations at the launch pad remain ready for the wet dress rehearsal. However, adjusting the timeline for the test will position NASA for success during the rehearsal, as the expected weather this weekend would violate launch conditions.

I had previously said this dress rehearsal countdown would include the astronauts inside Orion. This was incorrect. The astronauts are in quarantine in preparation for the actual mission. Orion will be unmanned during the rehearsal countdown.

6 comments

NASA targeting January 31, 2026 for Artemis-2 dress rehearsal countdown

8:25 am

The flight plan for the Artemis-2 mission around the Moon
The flight plan for the Artemis-2 mission around the Moon. Click for original.

NASA engineers are now targeting January 31, 2026 for the manned dress rehearsal countdown of the Artemis-2 SLS rocket and Orion capsule.

The upcoming wet dress rehearsal is a prelaunch test to fuel the rocket. During the rehearsal, teams demonstrate the ability to load more than 700,000 gallons of cryogenic propellants into the rocket, conduct a launch countdown, and practice safely removing propellant from the rocket without astronauts inside the spacecraft.

During several “runs,” the wet dress rehearsal will test the launch team’s ability to hold, resume, and recycle to several different times in the final 10 minutes of the countdown, known as terminal count. The rehearsal will count down to a simulated launch at 9 p.m. EST, but could run to approximately 1 a.m. if needed.

This rehearsal will include the four-person crew inside the Orion capsule, which will once launched take them in a wide ten-day Earth orbit that will swing them past the Moon and then back to Earth. The crew entered quarantine at the end of last week to reduce the chance they will catch any illnesses prior to launch.

This mission carries great risk, as the capsule’s life support system has never been used in space before, while the viability of its heat shield remains questionable.

5 comments

Another Zimmerman op-ed today at PJ Media

9:17 pm

Our mindless propaganda press
Our mindless propaganda press

PJ Media tonight posted another op-ed by yours truly:

Artemis II Ready for Dress Rehearsal: Propaganda Press Misses the Real Story of This Dangerous Mission

My readers know I strongly oppose flying this mission manned because of questions about Orion’s heat shield and its untested life support system. In this op-ed however my purpose was not to argue this point again. Instead, I wanted to take our bankrupt media to task for their utter failure to report these facts.

When NASA this past week rolled SLS/Orion to the launchpad, I was appalled by the coverage. In reviewing every article I could find about that rollout, it seemed I was “reading the state-run presses of China and the Soviet Union”, not a free independent press charged with covering the news.

The write-up of every one of these so-called news outlets is cloying and worshipful. The worst examples are those that focus on the ridiculous quote by one astronaut, “We are very likely going to see things that no human eye has ever seen.” This may be true (four humans will see the Moon from a new perspective), but it is hyperbole of the worst sort. Not only have humans circled the Moon before, but unmanned orbiters have also mapped the entire globe at a resolution far better than anything that will be visible to the Artemis-II crew.

Furthermore, these media reports repeat without any questioning NASA’s very false claim that it has done everything possible to make sure this flight is safe.

Only one article out of almost 20 news outlets mentioned Orion’s questionable heat shield, and that article made it seem as if NASA had fixed the problem. None of the articles even mentioned the fact that Orion’s life support system will be flying in space for the very first time, essentially using four human beings as guinea pigs.

Instead, every article was a propaganda piece extolling mindlessly the wonders of NASA and this mission, making believe all was perfect and well planned.

This is bad journalism of the worst sort. If you are going to report on this mission, good journalism requires you to at least note these issues. In fact, good journalism demands it, because it actually makes for a much better story: NASA is sending four astronauts around the Moon in a capsule with questionable engineering!

14 comments

Isaacman makes it official: Artemis-2 will fly manned around the Moon, despite Orion’s heat shield concerns

8:01 am

Orion's damage heat shield
Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”

In a tweet yesterday afternoon, NASA administration Isaacman essentially endorsed the decision of the NASA managers and engineers in its Artemis program who decided they could live with the engineering issues of Orion’s heat shield (as shown in the image to the right) and fly the upcoming Artemis-2 mission around the Moon carrying four astronauts with that same heat shield design.

Isaacman’s statement however suggests to me that he is not looking at this issue as closely as he should.

Human spaceflight will always involve uncertainty. NASA’s standard engineering process is to identify it early, bound the risk through rigorous analysis and testing, and apply operational mitigations that preserve margin and protect the crew. That process works best when concerns are raised early and debated transparently.

I appreciate the willingness of participants to engage on this subject, including former NASA astronaut Danny Olivas, whose perspective reflects how serious technical questions can be addressed through data, analysis, testing, and decisions grounded in the best engineering judgment available. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted sentence is fundamentally incorrect. » Read more

12 comments

Former astronaut once again blasts NASA decision to fly Artemis-2 manned

10:13 am

Charles Camarda on the shuttle
Charles Camarda on the first shuttle flight
after the Columbia failure.

The opposition to NASA’s decision to fly humans in the Orion capsule around the Moon with a questionable heat shield continues. Charles Camarda, an engineer and former NASA astronaut who has repeatedly expressed concerns about that heat shield and had been invited to attend the review meeting that NASA administrator Isaacman had arranged to ease his concerns, has now revealed his concerns were not eased in the slightest by that meeting, and that the Ars Technica article by Eric Berger that suggested otherwise was wrong, and that he is still “outraged” at NASA’s bad engineering decisions.

The rage you witnessed was my observing the exact behaviors used to construct risk and flight rationale which caused both Challenger and Columbia Accidents. Using “tools” inappropriately and then claiming results to be “Conservative.” Not to mention the reliance on Monte Carlo simulations to predict failure probabilities which were also proven to be inaccurate by orders of magnitude in my book “Mission Out of Control” which you claim to have read.

I suggest, in the spirit of transparency, you should ask NASA to release just the “Findings” of NESC Report TI-23-01849 Volume I. Finding 1 states the analysis cannot accurately predict crack initiation and propagation at flight conditions. And there was so much more which was conveniently not presented.

In other words, he finds NASA’s engineering claims that Orion’s heat shield will work using a different less stressful return trajectory as it dives back into the atmosphere about 25,000 mph to be false and untrustworthy. Worse, he sees it as proof that this is a continuation of the same culture at NASA that resulted in the Columbia failure.

Some of the exact same people responsible for failing to understand the shortcomings of the Crater Analysis tool (used tiny pieces of foam impacts to Shuttle tiles to predict a strike from a piece of foam which was 6000 larger and which caused the Columbia Accident) were on the Artemis Tiger Team now claiming they could predict the outcome of the Orion heatshield using a tool (similar to CRATER) called the Crack Identification Tool (CIT) which was also not physics based and relied on predictions of the key paramenter, permeability, which they claim to be the “root” cause, pressure, to vary by three orders of magnitude (that’s over 1000x).

In defense of NASA, those engineers had also presented data that showed Orion’s hull was strong enough to survive re-entry, even if the heat shield failed entirely. It is unclear if Camarda’s objections here apply to that data as well.

Regardless, his strong public disagreement with NASA on this once again raises serious questions about the upcoming manned Artemis-2 mission, set to launch sometime in the February to March time frame.

24 comments

An outline of NASA’s present schedule leading up to the Artemis-2 manned lunar fly-by mission

8:11 am

Link here. The mission will slingshot four astronauts around the Moon and back to Earth. The update includes lots of details about the rollout, the dress rehearsal countdown, the follow-up, and finally the various launch windows and the requirements that determine them.

This paragraph however about those requirements struck me:

The launch day and time must allow SLS to be able to deliver Orion into a high Earth orbit where the crew and ground teams will evaluate the spacecraft’s life support systems before the crew ventures to the Moon.

That life support system will be making its first flight in space, with four humans as the guinea pigs. Though this is another example of NASA putting schedule ahead of safety (the system should have flown at least once unmanned), it does indicate the agency recognizes the risk it is taking, and has added this extra longer orbit to give engineers time to test the system.

There are three launch windows, within which there are only five available launch dates:

January 31 to February 14 (February 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11)
February 28 to March 13 (March 6, 7, 8, 9, 11)
March 27 to April 10 (April 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)

In 2022, once NASA managers chose their first launch window, they were able to get the rocket off on the first attempt. There were no scrubs or aborts, though prior to that attempt the launch date was delayed numerous time over five years. Based on that past history, it is likely the agency will succeed on its first attempt in February, barring weather issues.

2 comments

Isaacman okays flying Artemis-2 manned, despite heat shield questions

1:53 pm

According to an article posted today at Ars Technica, after a thorough review NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has decided to allow the Artemis-2 mission — set to launch sometime before April and slingshot around the Moon — to fly manned with four astronauts despite the serious questions that still exist about its heat shield.

The review involved a long meeting at NASA with NASA engineers, several outside but very qualified critics, as well as two reporters (for transparency).

Convened in a ninth-floor conference room at NASA Headquarters known as the Program Review Center, the meeting lasted for more than three hours. Isaacman attended much of it, though he stepped out from time to time to handle an ongoing crisis involving an unwell astronaut on orbit. He was flanked by the agency’s associate administrator, Amit Kshatriya; the agency’s chief of staff, Jackie Jester; and Lori Glaze, the acting associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate. The heat shield experts joined virtually from Houston, along with Orion Program Manager Howard Hu.

Isaacman made it clear at the outset that, after reviewing the data and discussing the matter with NASA engineers, he accepted the agency’s decision to fly Artemis II as planned. The team had his full confidence, and he hoped that by making the same experts available to Camarda and Olivas, it would ease some of their concerns.

My readers know that I have been strongly opposed to flying Artemis-2 manned, an opposition I expressed in an op-ed at PJMedia only yesterday. However, after reading this Ars Technica report, my fears are allayed somewhat by this quote:
» Read more

21 comments

Zimmerman Op-Ed at PJ Media

7:50 pm

Orion's damage heat shield
Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”

PJ Media this evening published an op-ed I prepared this week in a last desperate effort to convince both President Trump and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman to rethink the manned nature of the Artemis-2 mission scheduled to launch sometime in the next three months.

President Trump and NASA Administrator Isaacman: Please Take the Crew Off of Artemis II

Nothing I say in this op-ed will be unfamiliar to my readers. I choose to farm it to PJ Media because I wanted it to get as much exposure as possible. As big as my audience is becoming, from 4 to 6 million hits per month, PJ Media has a wider reach.

I also decided in the op-ed to make no general arguments against SLS or Orion. Though my opposition to them is long standing and well known, this is not the time to fight that battle. My goal was simply to get NASA to put engineering ahead of schedule, so as to avoid the possibility of it repeating another Apollo 1 fire or Challenger accident.

I doubt at this point this op-ed will make a difference, but to paraphrase a quote written by Gordon Dickson in his wonderful science fiction book Way of the Pilgrim, there was a hand pushing me from behind, forcing me forward. I had no choice. The image of Orion’s heat shield to the right, after the 2022 return from the Moon, required action.

25 comments

New Trump executive order today guarantees major changes coming to NASA’s Moon program

4:51 pm

Change is coming to Artemis!
Change is coming to Artemis!

The White House today released a new executive order that has the typically grand title these type of orders usually have: “Ensuring American Space Superiority”. That it was released one day after Jared Isaacman was confirmed as NASA administrator by the Senate was no accident, as this executive order demands a lot of action by him, with a clear focus on reshaping and better structuring the entire manned exploration program of the space agency.

The order begins about outlining some basic goals. It demands that the U.S. return to the Moon by 2028, establish the “initial elements” a base there by 2030, and do so by “enhancing sustainability and cost-effectiveness of launch and exploration architectures, including enabling commercial launch services and prioritizing lunar exploration.” It also demands this commercial civilian exploration occur in the context of American security concerns.

Above all, the order demands that these goals focus on “growing a vibrant commercial space economy through the power of American free enterprise,” in order to attract “at least $50 billion of additional investment in American space markets by 2028, and increasing launch and reentry cadence through new and upgraded facilities, improved efficiency, and policy reforms.”

To achieve these goals, the order then outlines a number of actions required by the NASA administrator, the secretaries of Commerce, War, and State, as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP), all coordinated by the assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST).

All of this is unsurprising. Much of it is not much different than the basic general space goals that every administration has touted for decades. Among this generality however was one very specific item, a demand to complete within 90 days the following review:
» Read more

29 comments

House hearing on Artemis yesterday signals strong doubts about the program in Congress

10:54 am

Artemis logo

The space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee yesterday held a hearing on space, one day after the Senate held its own hearing on the nomination of Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator.

The House hearing however was not about Isaacman, but was apparently staged to highlight what appears to be strong reservations within Congress about NASA’s Artemis program, as presently structured. Its timing, just after the Isaacman hearing, was clearly aimed at garnering as much publicity as possible.

Video of the hearing can be seen here.

The focus of the hearing was also on China, and how there is real fear in Congress that its space program is outstripping NASA’s. Both the Republican committee chairman and the ranking Democrat stressed these concerns, and the need to beat China to the Moon and beyond.

More important, all four witnesses pushed the same point.

The rallying cry at this hearing as well as yesterday’s is the “race” with China.

…Foushee asked each of the witnesses for one-word answers to the question: is NASA on track to get back to the Moon before Chinese taikonauts arrive?

Not all succeeded with one word, but their sentiment was similar. Cheng replied “no, I am very pessimistic.” Swope: “worried.” Besha: “maybe.” Griffin: “no possible way…with the present plan.”

Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin was the most blunt in his criticism of NASA.
» Read more

21 comments

“Blemish” on Orion hatch’s “thermal barrier” delays countdown rehearsal

9:24 am

According to a report yesterday, a countdown rehearsal two weeks ago for the Orion/SLS stack that also included the four astronauts to fly on the next mission was delayed because a “blemish” was found on the Orion hatch “thermal barrier.”

“Prior to the countdown demonstration test, the agency had planned to conduct a day of launch closeout demonstration. This demonstration was paused when a blemish was found on the crew module thermal barrier, preventing hatch closure until it could be addressed,” the statement read. “A repair was completed on Nov. 18 allowing the closeout demo to successfully complete on Nov. 19. To allow lessons learned from the closeout demo to be incorporated into the planning for the countdown demonstration test, the decision was made to proceed into water servicing next and place the countdown demonstration test after this servicing completes.”

It was not clear from the NASA statement how a ‘blemish’ prevented the closure of the hatch and NASA would not say exactly when the countdown rehearsal will take place. Declining to provide further details, the space agency spokesperson said: “NASA remains on track to launch Artemis 2 no later than April 2026 with opportunities to potentially launch as soon as February.”

NASA released no additional details, though it claimed this delay will have no impact on the launch schedule for the Artemis-2 mission, planned for launch no later than April 2026.

The lack of detailed information from NASA is disturbing. What was the “blemish?” It appears it was on the rubber gaskets that circle the hatch’s edge. What caused it? Was it some damage? A production flaw? NASA’s general silence forces us to consider more serious possibilities.

I continue to pray that these four astronauts are not going to end up as sacrificial lambs to the political scheduling demands that is forcing NASA to push on blindly, as it did with both the Challenger and Columbia failures, ignoring or minimizing issues that common sense should never be minimized.

2 comments

Yesterday’s Senate nomination hearing for Jared Isaacman was irrelevant; America’s real space “program” is happening elsewhere

10:20 am

Jared Isaacman
Billionaire Jared Isaacman

Nothing that happened at yesterday’s Senate hearing of Jared Isaacman’s nomination to be NASA’s next administrator was a surprise, or very significant, even if most media reports attempted to imply what happened had some importance. Here are just a small sampling:

To be fair, all of these reports focused on simply reporting what happened during the hearing, and the headlines above actually provide a good summary. Isaacman committed to the Artemis program, touted SLS and Orion as the fastest way to get Americans back to the Moon ahead of the Chinese, and dotted all the “i”s and crossed all the “t”s required to convince the senators he will continue the pork projects they so dearly love. He also dodged efforts by several partisan Democrats to imply Isaacman’s past business dealings with Musk and SpaceX posed some sort of conflict of interest.

What none of the news reports did — and I am going to do now — is take a deeper look. Did anything Isaacman promise in connection with NASA and its Artemis program mean anything in the long run? Is the race to get back to the Moon ahead of China of any importance?

I say without fear that all of this is blather, and means nothing in the long run. The American space program is no longer being run by NASA, and all of NASA’s present plans with Artemis, using SLS, Orion, and the Lunar Gateway station, are ephemeral, transitory, and will by history be seen as inconsequential by future space historians.
» Read more

16 comments

Two former NASA administrators express wildly different opinions on NASA’s Artemis lunar program

1:07 pm

At a symposium yesterday in Alabama, former NASA administrators Charles Bolden and Jim Bridenstine expressed strong opinions about the state of NASA’s Artemis lunar program and the chances of it getting humans back to Moon before the end of Trump’s term in office and before China.

What was surprising was how different those opinions were, and who said what. Strangely, the two men took positions that appeared to be fundamentally different than the presidents they represented.

Charles Bolden
Charles Bolden

Charles Bolden was administrator during Barack Obama’s presidency. Though that administration supported the transition to capitalism, it also was generally unenthusiastic about space exploration. Obama tasked Bolden with making NASA a Muslim outreach program, and in proposing a new goal for NASA he picked going to an asteroid, something no one in NASA or the space industry thought sensible. Not surprisingly, it never happened.

Bolden’s comments about Artemis however was surprisingly in line with what I have been proposing since December 2024, de-emphasize any effort to get back to the Moon and instead work to build up a thriving and very robust competitive space industry in low Earth orbit:

Duffy’s current messaging is insisting it’ll be accomplished before Trump’s term ends in January 2029, but Bolden isn’t buying it. “We cannot make it if we say we’ve got to do it by the end of the term or we’re going to do it before the Chinese. That doesn’t help industry.”

Instead the focus needs to be on what we’re trying to accomplish. “We may not make it by 2030, but that’s okay with me as long as we get there in 2031 better than they are with what they have. That’s what’s most important. That we live up to what we said we were going to do and we deliver for the rest of the world. Because the Chinese are not going to bring the rest of the world with them to the Moon. They don’t operate that way.” [emphasis mine]

In other words, the federal government should focus on helping that space industry grow, because a vibrant space industry will make colonizing the Moon and Mars far easier. And forget about fake deadlines. They don’t happen, and only act to distort what you are trying to accomplish.

Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator during Trump’s first term, continued to lambast SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander contract, saying it wasn’t getting the job done on time, and in order to beat the Chinese he demanded instead that the government begin a big government-controlled project to build a lander instead.
» Read more

25 comments

SpaceX: Starship will be going to the Moon, with or without NASA

12:27 pm

Artist's rending of Starships on the Moon
SpaceX’s artist’s rending of Starships on the Moon.
Click for original.

In what appears to be a direct response to the claim by NASA’s interim administrator Sean Duffy that SpaceX is “behind” in developing a manned lunar lander version of Starship, SpaceX today posted a detailed update of the status that project, noting pointedly the following in the update’s conclusion:

NASA selected Starship in 2021 to serve as the lander for the Artemis III mission and return humans to the Moon for the first time since Apollo. That selection was made through fair and open competition which determined that SpaceX’s bid utilizing Starship had the highest technical and management ratings while being the lowest cost by a wide margin. This was followed by a second selection [Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander] to serve as the lander for Artemis IV, moving beyond initial demonstrations to lay the groundwork that will ensure that humanity’s return to the Moon is permanent.

Starship continues to simultaneously be the fastest path to returning humans to the surface of the Moon and a core enabler of the Artemis program’s goal to establish a permanent, sustainable presence on the lunar surface. SpaceX shares the goal of returning to the Moon as expeditiously as possible, approaching the mission with the same alacrity and commitment that returned human spaceflight capability to America under NASA’s Commercial Crew program.

The update then provides a list of the testing and engineering work that SpaceX has been doing on the Starship lunar lander, including full scale drop tests simulating lunar gravity, qualification of the docking ports, and the construction of a full scale mock-up of the Starship cabin to test its systems.

A close list of the work done is actually not that impressive, but at the same time this is not surprising. SpaceX is now mostly focused on getting Starship into orbit, proving it can be refueled there, and proving it can fly for long enough to get to the Moon. This part of the update was most exciting, as it confirms what I have suspected for next year’s flight program:
» Read more

52 comments

What bad news is NASA hiding about the heat shield it will use on the next Orion/SLS manned mission around the Moon?

3:59 pm

Orion's damage heat shield
Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”

Even as our uneducated media goes bonkers over another Musk kerfuffle, this time with interim NASA administration Sean Duffy, it is ignoring what now appears to be a strong effort by NASA to cover up some serious issues with the Orion capsule’s heat shield, issues that might be far more serious than outlined in a May 2024 inspector general (IG) report.

That IG report [pdf] found the following:

Specifically, portions of the char layer wore away differently than NASA engineers predicted, cracking and breaking off the spacecraft in fragments that created a trail of debris rather than melting away as designed (see Figure 3 [shown to the right]). The unexpected behavior of the Avcoat creates a risk that the heat shield may not sufficiently protect the capsule’s systems and crew from the extreme heat of reentry on future missions. Moreover, while there was no evidence of impact with the Crew Module, the quantity and size of the debris could have caused enough structural damage to cause one of Orion’s parachutes to fail. Should the same issue occur on future Artemis missions, it could lead to the loss of the vehicle or crew.

In our judgment, the unexpected behavior of the heat shield poses a significant risk to the safety of
future crewed missions. [emphasis mine]

NASA spent the next few months reviewing the situation, and decided in December 2024 that it did not have the time or funding to redesign and replace the heat shield before the next flight. Instead, it chose to fly the next manned Orion mission — dubbed Artemis-2 and scheduled for the spring of 2026 carrying four astronauts around the Moon — using this same heat shield design but change the flight path during reentry to reduce stress on the shield.

NASA also admitted then that this heat shield design is defective, and that it will replace it beginning with the next mission, Artemis-3, the one that the agency hopes will land people back on the Moon.

The decision to fly humans in a capsule with such a known untrustworthy heat shield design is bad enough. Any rational person would not do this (as the inspector general above concluded). Yet NASA is going ahead, because it has determined that meeting its schedule, getting Americans back to the lunar surface ahead of China and during Trump’s present term of office, is more important than rational engineering and testing.

What now makes this decision even more worrisome is that it appears NASA is covering up the findings of its own engineers, completed in August 2024 but not made public until now.
» Read more

43 comments

Duffy’s shiny object worked

9:21 am

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

As expected, Elon Musk responded yesterday with anger and insults to the announcement by interim NASA administrator Sean Duffy that he will consider other manned lunar landers besides Starship for the first Artemis landing on the Moon.

And as expected, our brainless and generally uneducated propaganda press grabbed the shiny object that Duffy had put out with this announcement to focus entirely on the public spat. Here is just a sampling of the typical reports:

Not one of these articles reported the fact that Duffy’s announcement also included an admission that NASA is now delaying this manned Moon mission until 2028. Not one went into any depth as to why this program is delayed, if they discussed it at all. And any articles that did discuss the program’s overall slow pace, the focus was always entirely on SpaceX, as if its Starship program was the sole cause of all the problems. Essentially, they picked up Duffy’s talking points and ran with them, blindly. In fact, for almost all of these articles, it appeared as if the reporter was writing about NASA’s Artemis program for the first time, and really knew nothing about it.

Only the Ars Technica story attempted some thoughtful analysis, but it focused on the office politics of choosing NASA’s next administrator, missing entirely the fundamentals of this story, that the Artemis program is and has always been a mess, and that Duffy’s decision will do nothing to fix the problem.

Musk of course foolishly played into Duffy’s hands by reacting so violently, with insults, helping Duffy distract from the real issues. At the same time, Musk also spoke truth with this one tweet:
» Read more

25 comments

Duffy touts nuclear power for lunar base

8:53 am

Sean Duffy
Sean Duffy, transportation secretary and interim
NASA administrator

NASA’s interim administrator Sean Duffy yesterday issued a directive touting the need to develop nuclear power for NASA’s planned lunar base. His comments during a press conference yesterday underlined his position.

Listen, this is not a new concept. This has been discussed under Trump One, under Biden, but we are in a race, we’re in a race to the Moon, in a race with China to the Moon. And to have a base on the Moon, we need energy. And some of the key locations on the Moon, we’re going to get solar power. But this fission technology is critically important, and so we’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying can we do it? We are now going to move beyond studying and we are going, we have given direction to go. Let’s start to deploy our technology, to move, to actually make this a reality.

And I think the stat we have is 100 kilowatt output. That’s the same amount of energy a 2,000 square foot home uses every three-and-a-half days. So we’re not talking about massive technology. We’re not launching this live, that’s obviously, if you have any questions about that, no, we’re not launching it live [activated].

This is all blather designed to push Artemis and SLS and Orion. Duffy also once again touted the next Artemis mission, Artemis-2, that will use SLS and Orion to send astronauts around the Moon in April 2026, acting as if he had no idea about the mission’s known technical risks. He also insisted the lunar landing would follow soon thereafter.

More and more it appears to me that Trump dumped Jared Isaacman because it was almost certain Isaacman — with his own personal experience as an astronaut — would have likely refused to permit astronauts to fly on Artemis-2 because of Orion’s heat shield issues as well as its untested environmental systems. Duffy meanwhile is acting as a company man, pushing the program hard while ignoring the real risks. It appears Trump wants that manned lunar landing before he leaves office, and will brook no hesitation from anyone.

Welcome to Challenger and Columbia, all over again. Politics and scheduling has become paramount, while engineering takes a back seat.

4 comments

The word that best describes our present NASA lunar program is “delusional.”

12:16 pm

Artemis, a program based on fantasy
Artemis, a program based on fantasy

Increasingly it appears everyone in Congress, the White House, and NASA, as well as our bankrupt mainstream press, has become utterly divorced from reality in talking about NASA’s Artemis lunar program. The claims are always absurd and never deal with the hard facts on the ground. Instead, it is always “Americans are piorneers! We are great at building things! We are going to beat China to the Moon!”

An interview of interim NASA administration (and Transportation secretary) Sean Duffy yesterday on the Sean Hannity Show made all these delusions very clear. First Hannity introduced Duffy by stating with bald-faced ignorance that “NASA has a brand-new program. It is called Artemis that aims to get astronauts back on the Moon in the next couple of years.”

I emphasize “brand-new” because anyone who has done even two seconds of research on the web will know that Artemis has existed now for more than a decade. Hannity illustrates his incompetence right off the bat.

Duffy then proceeds to insist that the next Artemis mission, dubbed Artemis-2, will fly in April 2026 and send four astronauts around the Moon, followed by the Artemis-3 manned landing one year later.

Being an incompetent member of the propaganda press, Hannity of course accepts these claims without question. He fails to question Duffy about the serious issues with the Orion heat shield, which experienced extensive unexpected damage that is still not understood during its return on the first Artemis mission in 2022.

Nor does either Duffy or Hannity mention the fact that for Artemis to land humans on the Moon SpaceX’s Starship not only has to become operational for human passengers, it needs an in-orbit refueling capability that does not yet exist. I have full confidence that SpaceX will eventually succeed in achieving these benchmarks, but I also doubt it will be able to do it by mid-2027, as claimed by Duffy.

Duffy and Hannity however are not alone in living in this dream world. » Read more

36 comments

It only took $22 billion and 19 years: Lockheed Martin proudly announces the completion of the first Orion capsule capable of manned flight

10:56 am

Orion's damage heat shield
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:
» Read more

22 comments
1 2 3 … 6