According to NASA’s inspector general’s report today [pdf] on the state of NASA’s effort to create new spacesuits for use by its astronauts on future space stations as well as in its Artemis lunar program, the planned schedules for the lunar landing and those stations are threatened because the agency presently has only one contractor, Axiom, building new suits, and has not established any spacesuit standardization rules should it want to issue contracts to others. From the report’s conclusion:

While NASA is taking steps to mitigate schedule risk, it must also contend with the unique risks inherent to a single-provider environment until future competition is introduced. … If Axiom cannot satisfy its contractual requirements in a timely or cost-effective manner, then NASA could be forced to continue using the problematic EMUs throughout the life of the ISS and significantly adjust its lunar plans. [EMUs are the complex suits presently used on ISS, and would not work well for any lunar landing mission.]

While xEVAS [the new suit concept] is flexible enough to allow for additional providers, doing so may not help the Agency meet its more immediate Artemis goals. Critically, NASA must address existing design and safety risks resulting from the lack of standard requirements for spacesuits to be compatible with various lunar spacecraft and assets.

As shown by the photo above, the development of Axiom’s spacesuit has been proceeding, and seems likely to be available for next year’s Artemis-3 Earth orbit test mission. At the same time, it is still behind schedule, a fact that has been mitigated because NASA’s entire Artemis program is equally behind schedule.

The report lists three commercial companies that might be able to provide alternative suits, and thus some redundancy, as shown by the image below.


SpaceX’s suits, while already tested during a spacewalk (by NASA’s own administrator Jared Isaacman), would need major upgrades, as they get their power and oxygen through an umbilical cable. They are not capable yet of operating independently.

ILC Dover’s suit is based on extensive past work, so it is possible it could be developed quickly.

The most interesting of these three options is the design being proposed by Genesis. Rather than a spacesuit, it is a pod similar to the pod seen in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Designed as a less complex, more efficient, and safer alternative to traditional spacesuits, this spacecraft would not require an airlock, could be piloted by crew in the vehicle or teleoperated from the ISS, and would utilize the same pressure as the Station—avoiding the need for lengthy prebreathe processes astronauts must perform prior to using EMUs.

Whether such a single-person spacecraft would work either on the Moon or to do delicate repair or installation work on future space stations remains unclear. I suspect its usefullness will be limited, but who knows?

Only seven months after NASA awarded the satellite repair startup Katalyst the contract to save the Gehrels-Swift space telescope, the company has delivered the completed LINK spacecraft to the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland for final ground testing.

Katalyst will move forward with LINK’s vibration and thermal tests using NASA Goddard’s in-house facilities in the coming weeks before installation into Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus rocket at the agency’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.

Gehrels-Swift has been one of NASA’s most productive space telescopes. Unfortunately its orbit is decaying and if nothing is done to raise that orbit it will burn up in the atmosphere in 2029 or so. To extend this timeline engineers have stopped almost all science work in February.

Katalyst hopes to launch LINK as soon as later this year. It was able to get it built so quickly because it was already under construction as the company’s first demo of its repair technology. When NASA put out a bid for boosting Swift, the company shifted gears and reconfigured LINK for this mission.

If successfully, the achievement will be a major coup for this startup.

At a conference event this week officials from three of the five American space station startups expressed strong disagreement with NASA’s new space station plan.

The new plan would have NASA build and launch its own new core module, dock it with ISS, and have the new stations attach their first modules to it prior to flying freely. NASA proposed this plan because it does not believe there is enough market to sustain the stations independently and NASA doesn’t have the budget to fully fund them.

The officials repeatedly disagreed about the market issue.

“We believe not only we can be ready by 2030” when the International Space Station is slated to be retired, “but we also believe that we can be profitable on the current market, not waiting for the future market we all will develop and will be successful at,” said Max Haot, CEO of Vast [building the Haven-1 and Haven-2 stations].

…Haot and executives from Axiom Space and Starlab Space said their responses to NASA’s request for information — which were due April 8 — show otherwise. “We put in 390 pages of independent analysis, research studies, datas, contracts, those types of things,” said Marshall Smith, CEO of Starlab Space, which is targeting 2029 for its station to be on orbit. “We’re being very clear and what we can do and how that works.”

One prominent revenue stream the panelists pointed to is other space agencies and nations eager to send their astronauts and payloads to space. “We’ve flown 12 people to space that paid us money to do that,” said Jonathan Cirtain, CEO of Axiom Space, referring to the four private astronaut missions it’s conducted to ISS. “We’ve flown 166 payloads today. All of those are paying payloads that generate revenue for the company.” The Texas company plans to begin operating in 2028 when its first two station modules are slated to be in orbit, then gradually grow the station to five modules.

The officials also said the core module idea would actually slow things down. NASA would have to first build and launch it, and would be starting from scratch to do so. It takes years to build such a thing, and it will certainly not be ready by 2030, when ISS is presently supposed to be retired. Moreover, forcing them to dock to this module would force them all to completely change their own plans, something they all find counter-productive.

In announcing NASA’s core module plan, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman also stated that he was open to industry feedback. I suspect that his core module proposal is going to die, and be replaced with the more direct transition from ISS to these private stations, the approach these companies favor.

I should add that the three startups that spoke up at this conference are also the three that are in the lead to build their stations, according to my rankings below. As far as I can tell, they are all tied for first place, with their station development very robust and well financed.

• Haven-1 and Haven-2, being built by Vast, with no NASA funds. The company plans to launch its single module Haven-1 demo station in 2027 for a three-year period during which it will be occupied by at least four 2-week-long manned missions. It also plans a manned mission to ISS in ’28. The company is already testing an unmanned small demo module in orbit. It has also made preliminary deals with Colombia, Uzbekistan, Japan, and the Maldives for possible astronaut flights to Haven-1. It has also raised more than a billion in cash for this work.
• Axiom, being built by Axiom, has launched four tourist flights to ISS, with the fourth carrying government passengers from India, Hungary, and Poland. A fifth mission is now planned for ’27. The company has now raised $450 million in private investment capital. The development of its first two modules has been proceeding, though the first module launch is now delayed until 2028. It has also signed Redwire to build that module’s solar panels.
• Starlab, being built by a consortium led by Voyager Space, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman, with extensive partnership agreements with the European Space Agency, Mitsubishi, and others. Though no construction has yet begun on its NASA-approved design, it has raised $383 million in a public stock offering, the $217.5 million provided by NASA, and an unstated amount from private capital. It has also begun signing up station customers, as well as a number of companies to build the station’s hardware. It also plans a mission to ISS in ’28.
• Thunderbird, proposed by the startup Max Space. It is building a smaller demo test station to launch in ’27 on a Falcon 9 rocket, and has begun work on its manufacturing facility at Kennedy in Florida. Its management includes one former NASA astronaut and one former member of the Bigelow space station team that built the first private orbiting inflatable modules, Genesis-1, Genesis-2, and BEAM (still operating on ISS).
• Orbital Reef, being built by a consortium led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space. This station looks increasingly dead in the water. Blue Origin has built almost nothing, as seems normal for this company. And while Sierra Space has successfully tested its inflatable modules, including a full scale version, its reputation is soured by its failure in getting its Dream Chaser cargo mini-shuttle launched to ISS.

NASA today announced that it has awarded Voyager Technologies a slot to fly a tourist mission to ISS in 2028.

The mission, named VOYG-1, is expected to spend as many as 14 days aboard the space station. A specific launch date will depend on overall spacecraft traffic at the orbital outpost and other planning considerations.

Voyager will submit four proposed crew members to NASA and its international partners for review. Once approved and confirmed, they will train with NASA, international partners, and the launch provider for their flight.

Voyager is the lead company in the consortium that is building the Starlab station, a single very large module to be launched on SpaceX’s Starship.

At this moment three of the five commercial stations that are developing private space stations — Axiom, Vast, and Voyager — now have deals to fly such missions to ISS. The two remaining likely didn’t pass muster with NASA, for different reasons. Max Space is a late comer to this competition, only declaring that it is building its own station this year. Orbital Reef, led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space, is apparently a dead project, with neither company doing anything to sell its project for the past year or so.

In my rankings below of the five American commercial space stations presently in development, the first three are essentially tied at this point.

• Haven-1 and Haven-2, being built by Vast, with no NASA funds. The company plans to launch its single module Haven-1 demo station in 2027 for a three-year period during which it will be occupied by at least four 2-week-long manned missions. It also plans a manned mission to ISS in ’28. The company is already testing an unmanned small demo module in orbit. It has also made preliminary deals with Colombia, Uzbekistan, Japan, and the Maldives for possible astronaut flights to Haven-1. It has also raised more than a billion in cash for this work.
• Axiom, being built by Axiom, has launched four tourist flights to ISS, with the fourth carrying government passengers from India, Hungary, and Poland. A fifth mission is now planned for ’27. The company has now raised $450 million in private investment capital. The development of its first two modules has been proceeding, though the first module launch is now delayed until 2028. It has also signed Redwire to build that module’s solar panels.
• Starlab, being built by a consortium led by Voyager Space, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman, with extensive partnership agreements with the European Space Agency, Mitsubishi, and others. Though no construction has yet begun on its NASA-approved design, it has raised $383 million in a public stock offering, the $217.5 million provided by NASA, and an unstated amount from private capital. It has also begun signing up station customers, as well as a number of companies to build the station’s hardware. It also plans a mission to ISS in ’28.
• Thunderbird, proposed by the startup Max Space. It is building a smaller demo test station to launch in ’27 on a Falcon 9 rocket, and has begun work on its manufacturing facility at Kennedy in Florida. Its management includes one former NASA astronaut and one former member of the Bigelow space station team that built the first private orbiting inflatable modules, Genesis-1, Genesis-2, and BEAM (still operating on ISS).
• Orbital Reef, being built by a consortium led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space. This station looks increasingly dead in the water. Blue Origin has built almost nothing, as seems normal for this company. And while Sierra Space has successfully tested its inflatable modules, including a full scale version, its reputation is soured by its failure in getting its Dream Chaser cargo mini-shuttle launched to ISS.

Link here. I found this interview with NASA administrator Jared Issacman to be very informative and worth reading, especially in regards to his comments on the proposed cuts to NASA’s budget.

First, he admits right off the bat that the heat shield was his biggest concern during the Artemis-2 mission. He also took a swipe at past NASA management over this issue. After noting that the initial inspection of the Artemis-2 shield after recovery showed it experienced little serious damage, he added this: “All that aside, if you’re going to wait three and a half years between missions, just replace the heat shield.” In other words, after Artemis-1 NASA management dithered when it saw the damaged heat shield. It should have immediately moved to replace it.

As for the proposed Trump budget cuts and the opposition to those cuts by many in Congress, Issacman said this:

There’s a lot of passionate people out here [referring I think to the space industry and its advocates]. They can do incredible things, from a scientific perspective. I don’t know how many of them have ever pulled together a financial model, and driven execution on some of these things to say what should or shouldn’t be the right budget.

Now, all that said, of course, we will maximize every dollar that Congress affords to the agency. But it is not healthy, for the agency, to get in this mindset that we have to spend our way out of every problem. And I don’t think it’s good for the country to think we have to print our way out of every problem. [emphasis mine]

This is not the first time Isaacman has indicated he thinks NASA can survive these cuts, and in fact can do as well if not better by using what it gets more wisely. It is however the first time he has put NASA’s budget in the context of the entire federal budget, which is badly out of control. Isaacman does not want more money from Congress because he thinks it is bad for the nation to spend itself into debt. He thinks he has enough to do the job.

The entire interview is worth reading. It indicates a very practical and honest mindset. Everyone might not agree with every proposal Isaacman has put forth, but he is clearly approaching things from a very good place.

After spending ten days in space, including a swing around the back of the Moon, the four-person Artemis-2 crew is now preparing for its return-to-Earth this evening, splashing down off the Pacific coast near San Diego.

At 10:53 p.m. EDT [last night], the Orion spacecraft ignited its thrusters for 9 seconds, producing an acceleration in velocity of 5.3 feet-per-second and pushing the Artemis II crew toward Earth. The crew is now more than halfway home.

About two hours before the burn, there was an unexpected return link loss of signal during a data rate change affecting the transmission of communications and telemetry from the spacecraft to the ground. Two-way communications were reestablished, and flight controllers resumed preparing for the upcoming burn with the crew shortly after.

…The third return trajectory correction burn is scheduled for April 10 at about 1:53 p.m. ahead of re-entry procedures.

This is I think the second time Orion has had a short loss of communications with ground control. In addition, the crew had to cancel a planned manual piloting demonstration of Orion while it flew past the Moon because of a leak in an internal helium tank, used to maintain pressure in the oxygen tank as the propellant is used. The leak was inside the European-built service module, which will be jettisoned before re-entry and burn up in the atmosphere.

Mission managers say this leak has not impacted any engine burns, but it will require attention before the next flight.

The return to Earth however carries the biggest risk of the entire mission. Orion’s heat shield is questionable. During its first use in the 2022 unmanned Artemis-1 flight around the Moon, it did not behave as expected, with large chunks breaking off instead of thin layers ablating away. Though mission engineers have adjusted the flight path through the atmosphere to mitigate stress, there is great uncertainty about that solution.

I have embedded NASA’s live stream of the return-to-Earth below. It begins at 6:30 pm (Eastern), though the first return event, jettison the service module, doesn’t occur until 7:33 pm (Eastern).

The Orion capsule today completed a 15-second engine burn in order to fine-tune its return path for splashdown in the Pacific Ocean on April 10th.

At 8:03 p.m. EDT, the Orion spacecraft, named Integrity, ignited its thrusters for 15 seconds, producing a change in velocity of 1.6 feet-per-second and guiding the Artemis II crew toward Earth. NASA astronaut Christina Koch and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen reviewed procedures and monitored the spacecraft’s configuration and navigation data.

During today’s mission status briefing, NASA officials shared the first images received from the crew during the lunar flyby and confirmed that the USS John P. Murtha has left port and is headed to the midway point toward the recovery site in the Pacific Ocean.

This was Orion’s second small engine burn since it left Earth orbit on April 2, 2026. Unlike the Apollo missions to the Moon in the 1960s-1970s, which involved entering and leaving lunar orbit and doing complex maneuvers while there, the Artemis-2 mission around the Moon has largely been a passive one. The capsule was sent on this course at the start, and has been coasting since. Today’s burn was merely a small adjustment, not a major burn.

The re-entry on April 10, 2026 remains the key moment of the flight, as it has always been. Will that questionable heat shield do as NASA’s engineers predict and work to protect the four astronauts during re-entry? Or will it do things unexpected, because those engineers really don’t understand the engineering issues involved?

I am hopeful and optimistic. I also know that even if everything turns out fine, this flight will simply be a demonstration that NASA has learned nothing from the Challenger and Columbia accidents, and is still willing to risk human lives in order to win some political kudos and get some good PR. And for that reason I am not confident of the agency’s ability to truly do what it says, safely and competently.

One more note: Though the images being sent back are quite beautiful, they are hardly ground-breaking. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has mapped the entire surface of the Moon at much great resolution, far better than anything seen on this mission. NASA might claim the astronauts are doing science, but most of it is minor and not very significant. When you get down to it, this is simply a very expensive tourist trip for four government employees, paid for at an ungodly cost by the American taxpayer.

NASA’s manned Orion capsule last night completed small mid-course-correction engine burn to refine the spacecraft’s trajectory around the Moon and back to Earth.

Mission control teams in Houston and the Artemis II crew completed an outbound correction burn to refine the Orion spacecraft’s trajectory to the Moon. The burn began at 11:03 p.m. EDT and lasted 17.5 seconds. NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, along with CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen, continue on a precise path to flyby the Moon on Monday, April 6.

The lunar fly-by is scheduled for this evening. As the capsule swings around behind the Moon, there will be a communications black-out from 6:44 pm (Eastern) to 7:25 pm (Eastern). NASA is making a concerted PR effort to compare this to the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon, but the differences are gigantic. Apollo 8 went into orbit around the Moon. There was considerable risk it could get stuck there if its engine failed to fire properly when behind the Moon on its last orbit. Thus, that Apollo 8 blackout was quite tension-filled.

Orion’s fly-around is instead completely benign. They aren’t going into orbit, and they are already on their path back to Earth. There will be no extra element of risk as they fly behind the Moon. All they will be doing is coast along, as they have been doing since leaving Earth orbit. They will simply be out of touch for about 40 minutes.

I sadly remain personally bored by this mission. It is is testing relatively little new engineering for future use, and is mostly designed as a PR stunt to convince everyone that “NASA is back!” Hardly. The capabilities of SLS and Orion are extremely limited, and both are ungodly expensive. Neither will make possible any colonization of the solar system. All they do is act as a jobs program for government employees.

And there still remains this mission’s biggest moment of danger, re-entry and splashdown, using Orion’s questionable heat shield that did not behave properly on its only previous unmanned mission in 2022.

Today we conclude our tour of the Voyager-2 fly-bys of Uranus in 1986 and Neptune in 1989 with what is the most detailed look at the alien surface of Neptune’s moon Triton, taken on August 25, 1989 and shown to the right, cropped, rotated, reduced, and sharpened to post here.

Taken from a distance of only 25,000 miles, the frame is about 140 miles across and shows details as small as [a half mile in width]. Most of the area is covered by a peculiar landscape of roughly circular depressions separated by rugged ridges. This type of terrain, which covers large tracts of Triton’s northern hemisphere, is unlike anything seen elsewhere in the solar system. The depressions are probably not impact craters: They are too similar in size and too regularly spaced. Their origin is still unknown, but may involve local melting and collapse of the icy surface.

A conspicuous set of grooves and ridges cuts across the landscape, indicating fracturing and deformation of Triton’s surface. The rarity of impact craters suggests a young surface by solar system standards, probably less than a few billion years old.

What this photograph as well as the handful of other Voyager-2 images of Triton tell us is that we only have gotten a tiny taste of what’s there, only enough to tell us we don’t understand what we are seeing in the slightest. This is a truly alien world, cold, dark, and composed of materials far different then that found in the inner solar system. Its formation is a mystery, and its subsequent geological history a cypher. Scientists have made some guesses, but to get a real understanding we need to go back, and be there for a long time.

In fact, this is the final conclusion of all of the Voyager-2 images from both Uranus and Neptune. That probe gave humanity its first good close look at these distant worlds, but the look was still a quick and very superficial one. The images and data left us with far more questions than answers.

Unfortunately, there is at present no mission approved and under development to go to either Uranus or Neptune, though several have been proposed. Thus, it will likely be at least two decades before any mission gets there, if that soon.

NASA’s SLS rocket today successfully launched the Orion capsule, carrying three Americans and Canadian on a planned ten-day mission swinging around the Moon and back to Earth.

During the countdown there were two minor issues, the second of which causes a slight ten-minute delay in the launch. Both were resolved very quickly, though one wonders if NASA can ever do a launch with this rocket without such issues during countdown.

The crew will remain in Earth orbit until tomorrow, checking out the capsule and its systems. Once they have confirmed these are working as expected, they will then fire their engines to head to the Moon.

The live stream can be viewed here.

As this was the first U.S. government launch this year (and the first since 2022), the leader board for the 2026 launch race remains unchanged:

40 SpaceX
16 China
5 Rocket Lab
3 Russia

SpaceX continues to lead the entire world combined in total launches, as it did in both ’24 and ’25.

The onsite countdown clock started ticking down at 4:44 p.m. EDT to a targeted launch time of 6:24 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1. Artemis II is the first crewed launch of NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft.

…NASA and weather officers with the U.S. Space Force’s Space Launch Delta 45 continue to pay close attention to weather conditions ahead of tanking operations. The weather forecast for launch day shows an 80% chance of favorable weather conditions with primary concerns being cloud coverage and the potential for high winds in the area. Teams will continue to monitor the weather in the coming days.

The ten-day mission will use the SLS rocket, which has only flown once previously, and has had repeated fueling issues prior to that 2022 launch as well as during dress rehearsal countdowns last month. It will also use an Orion capsule with a questionable heat shield and an untested life support system.

At a hearing yesterday before the space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, both the trade organization representing the five commercial space station projects as well as some members of Congress expressed strong reservations about NASA’s new plan to build a core module as a basis for helping these companies develop their space stations.

Dave Cavossa, President of the Commercial Space Federation (CSF) that represents these companies, outlined in his statement [pdf] to the committee the industry’s dissatisfaction, not so much because of the specifics of NASA’s plan but because it follows other sudden changes last year by the previous NASA administrator Sean Duffy, and is still uncertain in its outline.

Given the delays and possible shifts in strategy, industry has been left to continue spending resources to develop private space stations without a full understanding of what NASA will require from a private station, how the agency will structure the rest of the procurement and program, and when industry may see a return on investment. This uncertainty challenges the public-private partnership business model and puts the agency at risk of deorbiting ISS before private stations are operational.

The trade group proposed that NASA stick with its previous plan to fund two or more station projects, dropping Isaacman’s core module proposal. It also wanted Congress give the agency the funds to do so.

Cavossa also strongly disputed NASA’s claim that the market at present doesn’t support these commercial stations.

Cavassa said today that “industry has raised over a billion dollars in private capital” in the last six months and “several billions of dollars over the last several years.” Some of his member companies have said they’ve already sold out the available rack space on their space stations. NASA’s rationales are “flawed” and the repeated changes are “sowing confusion” in the industry reminiscent of Lucy and the Football.

Nor is Cavassa’s claim about private capital wrong. Of the five space stations under development, most have obtained investment capital exceeding several hundred million dollars, with two raising more than half a billion dollars. NASA might think the market isn’t there, but Wall Street sure seems enthused.

Of those five projects, Vast has expressed support for NASA’s new approach, while the Starlab consortium issued a press release that wholly supported NASA’s new Moon program but seemed to be less enthused about its station proposals. Another news report yesterday further suggests Axiom and Starlab are skeptical.

Two of the station builders, Axiom Space of Texas and Colorado-based Starlab Space, told me by email they are still reviewing NASA’s request for input about the alternative strategy, which was released Wednesday morning.

During the hearing at least one congressman, George Whitesides (D-California) expressed doubt about NASA’s new space station plan.

My experience with new pieces of the ISS is that it takes 10 years to build. I don’t get how, where, we’re going to get this new thing. And doesn’t that [timeframe] go beyond the lifetime of the ISS? … I just don’t see how it’s fiscally possible for NASA to afford the development and launch of a custom-built government core module, while maintaining ISS, while claiming at the same time it can’t afford to be a customer on a commercial station that is being privately financed. I just don’t understand it.

When NASA announced its new proposals last week, agency officials made it clear their core module proposal was preliminary, and that they welcomed input from the space station companies. It now appears the political winds might be moving against that core module proposal.

The lunar lander startup Intuitive Machines announced yesterday that it has won its fifth contract from NASA, a $180.4 million deal to place its larger upgraded Nova-D lander near the Moon’s south pole.

The IM-5 mission will target Mons Malapert, a ridge near the Lunar South Pole that offers continuous Earth visibility, stable illumination conditions, and access to permanently shadowed regions. These characteristics make the site a compelling location for future communications, navigation, and surface infrastructure.

The artist’s rendering to the right shows this Nova-D lander. What stands out immediately is its low-slung appearance. Intuitive Machines’ smaller Nova-C lander was tall (see this image), with a high center of gravity. In its only two landing attempts on the Moon it tipped over both times after touchdown. It appears the company has finally recognized the issue and reworked this new lander to make it more stable after touchdown.

This contract award appears to be part of the accelerated program by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman to land 30 unmanned rovers on the moon in three years, beginning in 2027. Mons Malapert is a plateau that Intuitive Machines second lander tipped over on. It is also the landing site for Astrobotics’ Griffin lander, as well as a candidate landing site for the first Artemis manned missions.

Note the small rover on the right in the graphic. While the mission will carry seven NASA science instrument payloads, it will also carry this commercial rover, built by Honeybee Robotics, a subsidiary of Blue Origin. As the company states above, the lander on this mission also has additional available payload capacity for more commercial customers.

The Moon

NASA will now focus all work in its lunar program on getting to the surface of the Moon. Lunar Gateway is “paused,” though the language of NASA’s press release suggests more strongly that it is dead, with the agency already trying to figure out ways to “repurpose” its already built components. NASA will instead ask for proposals from private industry and its international Artemis partners to ramp up as soon as possible a phased program to establish the infrastructure on the Moon needed for the lunar base. This new focus begins with “up to 30 robotic landings in three years, starting in 2027,” and at least two manned landings per year beginning in 2028.

The graph below, presented during today’s announcement, shows the basic plan for the next few Artemis missions, which will act as the manned foundation for this entire surface-focused program. The overall program will build out the lunar base in three phases, first to test some basic infrastructure using these smaller lunar landers, second to begin establishing the base’s foundational components with intermittent manned missions, and third to begin long-term human occupancy.

The manned missions above are scheduled through ’28. For the three-phase program to build that lunar base the agency hopes to reach its third phase by 2033. And while it states it wants to work with its international partners in doing this work, it will mostly depend on the American private sector to come up with ways to achieve it.

In many ways the timeline for this program resembles an Elon Musk timeline. The overall plan makes great sense, but it will likely take longer than anticipated to achieve. Its greatest virtue however is that it is properly focused on the Moon. Gone is NASA’s ridiculous Lunar Gateway, that only served to slow development on the Moon as well as making it harder to get there. It also appears the plan is designed to phase out SLS as soon as possible, shifting to relying on privately-owned rockets instead.

Most important, the program is structured logically, building upward from small first efforts to increasingly greater challenges, something that NASA management before Isaacman did not do.

Building a replacement for ISS

The program to replace ISS is being restructured for two reasons. 1. NASA doesn’t have the funds to fund two private stations in a manner the agency considers sufficient or safe. It says its present budget is about $250 million per year. The agency also does not think there is enough commercial market to make up the difference.

To overcome this shortfall as well as fuel a private space station industry, the agency is considering a different approach. Rather than award a single insufficient contract to a private company to build a new station, it is proposing launching what it calls a new government-owned “core module” to attach initially to ISS, and later become the hub for multiple private modules. It would have six docking ports to allow more commercial tourist missions to the station as well as the later attachment of new commercial modules. Once this core module has grown enough, it would later separate from ISS when the station is retired, and serve as a core to help generate the development of one or multiple commercial separate stations.

The graphic below, from today’s presentation, shows this step-by-step process.

In many ways, it appears NASA is copying Axiom’s plan for its space station. Whether this supplants or supplements Axiom remains unknown. It is also very likely Axiom could quickly revise its station design to grab the contract for this core stage, as proposed.

The basic concept, however, is to provide a more cost effective way for NASA to build a foundational hub to help multiple private space station companies develop and build their own stations, with NASA as a major customer to all. And once again, this approach is aimed at encouraging a private sector, not building a giant NASA project. In this more than anything else the plan appears to be good news for the future of the American space industry.

Mars

NASA is proposing a new Mars mission, dubbed Space Reactor-1 Freedom, using nuclear propulsion to carry a fleet of Ingenuity-class helicopters to the Red Planet, with the goal of launching this mission by the end of 2028.

Of all the proposals announced today, this one project appears the least connected to the private sector. The nuclear engine is being built by a partnership of NASA and the Energy Department. The helicopter fleet appears to be basically Ingenuity multiplied, something that NASA can do on its own.

Only the ship itself, carrying the engine and the helicopters, could come from the private sector, with SpaceX’s Starship the prime candidate.

Thus, as a mostly government run project, I believe it will be the least likely to happen, as promised. That Isaacman seems personally committed to it, however, says my pessimistic prediction will be wrong.

Final thoughts

Overall, these program changes appear sensible and more realistic than any major NASA manned program in decades. Though it does appear to want to elevate NASA’s status across the entire landscape of American space exploration, it also does so by relying mostly on the private sector to get the job done. And it lays out a rational manned program for both low Earth orbit as well as the Moon.

There is one dangerous caveat to this logical program. NASA is still going to send four astronauts on a ten-day around the Moon in just a few weeks, using a Orion capsule with a questionable heat shield and a untested life support system. That mission remains irrational and out of place, an apparently leftover from NASA’s previous management that planned nothing in a sensible way.

If it fails and those astronauts die, it is very unclear what impact that will have Isaascman’s entire program as announced today.

NASA engineers today began the long and slow 12-hour trip of the SLS rocket from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to the launchpad in preparation for a targeted April 1, 2026 launch date of this Artemis-2 mission around the Moon.

NASA’s Artemis II SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft slated to send four astronauts around the Moon began rolling to Launch Pad 39B at 12:20 a.m. EDT on Friday, March 20. Rollout operations at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida were delayed earlier in the day due to high winds in the area.

The trek to the pad is expected to take up to 12 hours, as NASA’s crawler-transporter 2 carefully carries the rocket on top of the mobile launcher approximately 4 miles along the crawlerway.

The launch will send four astronauts on a ten-day mission swinging around the Moon and back to Earth, using a questionable heat shield and a life support system not yet been tested in space. On the first unmanned Artemis-1 mission around the Moon in 2022, the shield experienced far more damage than predicted, with large chunks breaking off. NASA engineers think they understand why this happened, and have decided that they can mitigate the problem by using a less stressful flight path upon return into Earth’s atmosphere.

They don’t really know if this is so, but they hope so. As for the life support system, the plan is to remain in a high Earth orbit for the mission’s first day to test it. If it has problems then, the crew will be able to return to Earth somewhat quickly. If it has problems after heading to the Moon, however, that won’t be possible.

If a private company tried to convince NASA to do this mission with these issues, the agency would say “Hell no!” It is proceeding because, like the Challenger and Columbia failures, it is a NASA-built project and politics and schedule have superseded safety and good engineering procedures

Click for source.

Today’s cool image continues our tour of the five largest moons of Uranus, as seen by Voyager-2 in 1986 during its close-up visit. The family portrait above, taken from more than three million miles away during Voyager-2’s approach, shows the relative sizes of those five moons as well as their location relative to Uranus, with Miranda in the closest orbit and Oberon the farthest. I have already posted close-ups from Miranda and Ariel. Today’s image moves us outward to Umbriel.

The image to the right is Voyager-2’s best picture. In fact, it is really Voyager-2’s only close-up image, and as you can see, it is not that close or sharp. I have not reduced it at all. This is how NASA released it. From the NASA press release:

The southern hemisphere of Umbriel displays heavy cratering in this Voyager 2 image, taken Jan. 24, 1986, from a distance of 346,000 miles. This frame, taken through the clear-filter of Voyager’s narrow-angle camera, is the most detailed image of Umbriel, with a resolution of about 6 miles.

Umbriel is the darkest of Uranus’ larger moons and the one that appears to have experienced the lowest level of geological activity. It has a diameter of about 750 miles and reflects only 16 percent of the light striking its surface; in the latter respect, Umbriel is similar to lunar highland areas. Umbriel is heavily cratered but lacks the numerous bright-ray craters seen on the other large Uranian satellites; this results in a relatively uniform surface albedo (reflectivity). The prominent crater on the terminator (upper right) is about 70 miles across and has a bright central peak.

The strangest feature in this image (at top) is a curious bright ring, the most reflective area seen on Umbriel. The ring is about 90 miles in diameter and lies near the satellite’s equator. The nature of the ring is not known, although it might be a frost deposit, perhaps associated with an impact crater. Spots against the black background are due to ‘noise’ in the data.

This lone picture of Umbriel by Voyager-2 illustrates even more starkly the very sparse data we have of Uranus and its moons. Voyager-2 is the only spacecraft to ever visit this planet, and it only did a quick fly-by, just long enough to give us this one dim snapshot view. It is forty years later, and no other missions have flown there, nor is any planned in the near future. There are proposals, but none are yet approved.

Amit Kshatriya, NASA Associate Administrator was very vague in his statement, but nonetheless this was what it appears he was saying:

We have opened up the, I would say, the performance specification for the early landing missions in as many ways as we can, in terms of different lunar orbits we want to take, or different other constraints … to make it as agile as possible, to recognize performance limitations in some of the machines we have and let our providers tell us, hey, if you took these constraints out of the way, how could we go faster? So we’re going to do that.

The agency’s administrator, Jared Isaacman, is also pushing to quickly begin sending a lot of unmanned landers to the south pole by next year. Thus, under this plan, we might actually find out first whether there really is water in those permanently shadowed craters, before committing our manned lunar base to this location.

This new approach makes a great deal of sense, especially since the data that has looked into those craters has been very inconclusive, some positive and some negative.

The launch is now targeting April 1, 2026.

The description of their closest approach to the Moon is both interesting and underwhelming.

The Artemis II crew will come their closest to the Moon on flight day 6, while traveling the farthest from Earth. Artemis II could set a record for the farthest anyone has traveled from Earth depending on launch day, breaking the current record – 248,655 miles away – set in 1970 by the Apollo 13 crew. The distance the Artemis II crew will travel depends on their exact launch day and time.

Over the course of the day, the crew will come within 4,000 to 6,000 miles of the lunar surface as they swing around the far side of the Moon – it should look to them about the size of a basketball held at arm’s length. [emphasis mine]

In other words, Orion is not going to get very close, and in fact, the Moon will only be 2 to 3 times bigger than what we see here on Earth. I suspect the best photographs taken will be those showing both the Earth and Moon, both of which will be relatively small.

Overall, I remain highly concerned about this mission. The life support system has never been tested in space before, and they will spend the first day checking it out in Earth orbit. And the return to Earth will involve using a heat shield that did not perform well on the Artemis-1 mission in 2022, losing chunks during re-entry.

They hope a less stressful flight path will mitigate this issue, but then, they need to hit that flight path perfectly on their way back from the Moon. During yesterday’s briefing it was obvious this was a concern to NASA officials.

A new low-cost cubesat-sized NASA ultraviolet space telescope, dubbed Sparcs, has achieved first light, successfully taking both near- and far-ultraviolet false-color images of a nearby star.

Those images are to the right, with the top the far-ultraviolet image and the bottom in the near ultraviolet. From the press release:

Roughly the size of a large cereal box, SPARCS will monitor flares and sunspot activity on low-mass stars — objects only 30% to 70% the mass of the Sun. These stars are among the most common in the Milky Way and host the majority of the galaxy’s roughly 50 billion habitable-zone terrestrial planets, which are rocky worlds close enough to their stars for temperatures that could allow liquid water and potentially support life.

The question astronomers will try to answer with this telescope is whether the solar activity on these stars is high enough to prevent life from forming in the star’s habitable zone. Because these stars are dim and small, the habitable zone is quite close to the star, which means solar activity has a higher impact on the planet. We don’t yet have sufficient data to determine the normal activity of such stars. Sparcs will provide a good first survey.

It will also demonstrate the viability of such small low-cost cubesats for this kind of research. If successful expect more such telescopes, some of which are likely to be private, like Blue Skies Space’s Mauve optical telescope already in orbit.

NASA completed the agency’s Artemis II Flight Readiness Review on Thursday, March 12, and polled “go” to proceed toward launch. NASA is targeting Thursday, March 19, to roll the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion spacecraft to launch pad 39B in advance of a launch attempt Wednesday, April 1, pending close out of remaining open work.

The repair work involved replacing a helium seal that was preventing flow to and from the tanks and testing it to confirm the new seal worked. It also involved replacing batteries as well as some oxygen seals.

NASA officials also stated that they do not plan to do another wet dress rehearsal, that they are satisfied by the testing they did in the assembly building. Instead, they are go for full launch countdown, with the hope they can lift-off with no more fueling issues. They have also determined that if there is a scrub, they will also have several launch opportunities through April 6th.

To underline the risks of this mission, the Orion capsule in which they are sending four astronauts around the Moon has an uncertain heat shield and an untested life support system. To mitigate the shield uncertainties, they must hit a specific flight path through the atmosphere upon return.

Both Van Allen probes have been defunct since around 2019, when they ran out of fuel. Van Allen Probe B weighed about 1,300 pounds, so some pieces probably reached the ocean. Had it returned over land it did carry the small risk of doing harm.

The orbit of the other probe, Van Allen Probe B, is expected to decay sometime around 2030. Like its twin, it is heavy enough that some parts will survive re-entry. It is therefore a prime target for a demonstration mission proving the technology for removing space junk safely and under control. NASA should put out a request for bids to the many orbital tug companies that now exist to do exactly that, as it is NASA’s responsibility to make sure this spacecraft re-enters the atmosphere safely.

In an expansion of a partnership announced last month, Voyager Technologies — the lead company in the consortium building the Starlab space station — today announced it is now making “a multi-million-dollar strategic investment” in Max Space’s inflatable habitats, aiming at winning contracts both for NASA’s proposed Moon base as well as any other “future deep space missions.”

The actual dollar amount has not yet been released, but my sources say it is in “the low eight figures,” or more than $10 million but probably less than $25 million.

This partnership appears aimed not at NASA’s space station program nor enhancing Starlab. Instead, it is focused on providing NASA (and other commercial operations) inflatable habitats that can be launched and quickly established on the Moon and elsewhere, as shown by the artist’s rendering to the right. It appears Voyager will build the foundation, base, and airlock, while Max will provide the inflatable module above. From the press release:

This initiative directly supports NASA’s historical Artemis Program and aligns precisely with Administrator Isaacman’s announcement to be on the Moon to stay by 2028. Max Space delivers critical enabling infrastructure, maximizing livable volume, enhancing crew safety, and reducing the cost and complexity of surface deployment. It complements Voyager’s broader lunar roadmap, including cislunar mission management, surface logistics, propulsion, power systems, and future surface infrastructure, reinforcing a shared vision of the Moon as an operational domain, not a temporary destination.

In other words, the two companies are aiming to become major suppliers for NASA’s Artemis lunar base, and to do that by offering a way to get it quickly built and operational, at a reasonable cost.

I suspect it will be a few years before NASA issues any such contracts. It will first want to see both companies demonstrate success, both with Voyager’s Starlab and Max Space’s own demo station module scheduled for launch in ’27. Nonetheless, this announcement puts them on the map in the race to get those contracts, and begins to put some commercial reality to the American colonization of the solar system.

I pay even less attention to authorization bills that have only been approved by a committee, and have not yet been voted on by either house. Such bills are ephemeral and the stuff of fantasy. It is nice to know what’s in them, but until such bills are actually approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, their language is even more unworthy of serious attention.

Have the pigs in the Senate learned to stop gorging themselves?

Nonetheless, the NASA authorization bill that was just approved by the Senate Commerce committee is worth reviewing, but not for the reasons that has interested the rest of the mainstream and even the aerospace press.

True, the bill extends ISS until 2032. True, it fully supports the commercial private space stations being built to replace it. True, it endorses NASA administrator Jared Isaacman’s restructuring of the Artemis program. True, it rejects all of Trump’s proposed cuts to NASA’s science programs. And true, it strongly endorses a Moon base as a first step to colonizing Mars.

All of these facts are significant, but to focus on each specifically — as it appears the entire press has done — is to miss the forest for the trees.

You see, what this authorization bill really tells us is that the Senate has finally cried “Uncle!” on SLS, Orion, and all of the NASA-designed, -owned, and -built projects that the Senate for years has supported blindly, funneling endless gobs of cash to these programs no matter how poorly they were built, how incapable they were of getting anything done, and how much money they wasted. All that mattered was to keep the pork flowing. To our lovely but corrupt Senators, that money had to be spent, regardless of how badly NASA managed and spent it.

The most recent example of this was last fall’s budget bill. In it Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) inserted language requiring NASA to fly SLS for two more missions, through Artemis-5. The amendments also funded Lunar Gateway, and ISS for five more years. It didn’t matter that SLS is too expensive, too cumbersome, and too slow to launch, making it useless for developing any viable American space program anywhere. The money had to be spent.

Something clearly has changed in this new authorization bill, which you can read here [pdf]. Its language suggests the Senate, and Cruz, are now taking a different tack. Instead of expanding these and additional government projects, the bill very clearly focuses on encouraging NASA to rely on the private sector. For example, in outlining its demand that a continuous human presence be maintained after ISS, it states right at the beginning that:

Capabilities in low-Earth orbit should include a mix of crewed and uncrewed commercial platforms [and that these] platforms in low-Earth orbit should transition from government-only enterprises to commercially led enterprises.

No more government space stations. NASA can help fund the construction of privately-owned stations, but once built it will simply buy space on them rather than own and operate them.

Even more significant is what this bill says and does not say about SLS. It says nothing about extending the rocket beyond the first five Artemis missions, as presently required by Cruz amendments in the budget bill. Instead, it expressly notes that SLS “has not met the flight rate” as required by the 2022 NASA authorization act, and that the planned more powerful upper stage is “behind schedule and over budget.” It then basically endorses Isaacman’s plan, already begun, to abandon that upper stage and replace it with ULA’s Centaur-5 upper stage, used on its Vulcan rocket.

The bill then requests a briefing in 60 days from Isaacman, reassessing SLS, its budget, and its components, including “a balancing of government and industry workforce components, roles, and responsibilities.” The bill also says this quite unequivocally:

The Administrator may enter into agreements with United States commercial providers or engage in public-private partnerships to procure capabilities and services to support the human exploration of the Moon and cislunar space.

SpaceX’s Superheavy after the October 2024 test flight,
safely captured during the very first attempt

In other words, Isaacman is almost given carte blanche to use commercial resources for NASA’s lunar program. Thus, this language quite literally lays the groundwork for replacing SLS after that fifth Artemis mission, with that replacement process beginning now.

Nor is this all. Throughout the bill the language repeatedly encourages NASA to obtain what it needs from the private sector, in low-Earth orbit, in building a lunar base, a manned spacesuit, in developing missions to Mars, etc. Rather than fund another big NASA project — as the Senate has demanded for decades — it now wants NASA to use its funds to buy such things from outside the agency.

Hallelujah and amen! We might finally have seen a miracle occur: Senators actually writing a bill to support the American people, rather than take their money to build empires and bureaucracies in DC.

I am not so naive to think this new outlook doesn’t carry hidden mines that could blow it up in an instant. The bill for one demands many reports from NASA and Isaacman, and thus reserves the right of Congress to change everything if it so desires.

The bill also very carefully makes sure some pork is distributed to NASA and other agencies. It designates the Johnson Space Center in Texas as responsible for all NASA activities on the commercial space stations, while also making clear that it wants Johnson to have that same responsibility with the future Moon base, without saying so directly. The Glenn Research Center in Ohio is also given the lead in developing communications and GPS capabilities for the lunar base.

Nor is this the only pork in the bill, though refreshingly there is far less compared to previous NASA authorization bills.

Based on this bill, it does really appear that the Senate has finally recognized that SLS — and the government itself — is not the way the United States is going to colonize the solar system. They appear to have finally realized, after almost a half century of resistance, that for the American government to conquer the heavens, the government must rely on the American people to do it.

What a concept! It is almost as if these senators have suddenly realized what country they live in. It ain’t the Soviet Union, ruled from above by government commissars, but the United States, where we have a government for, by, and of the people.

You would think they’d know this, but then they are politicians, and for them, knowledge is generally considered an unnecessary component of their work.

Meanwhile nothing is set in stone. The bill still has to be approved by the Senate, and it must match the bill the House writes up. Though no one knows where those negotiations will lead, the House has tended over the years to favor commercial space and private enterprise, so I don’t think it will change things much for the worse.

Stay tuned. While the future remains decidedly uncertain, there are hopeful glimmers, and it does appear they are growing brighter.

In its procurement statement, NASA said its intention is to issue a sole source contract to ULA, meaning it’s the only upper stage being considered for this new iteration of the SLS rocket. An eight-page supporting document from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, was published to document the reasoning for its decision.

Among the stated reasons are the decades-long heritage of the RL10 engine, which has matured over time; the ability of the Centaur 5 to use the interfaces available on the Mobile Launcher 1 (ML1) along with the propulsion commodities of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen; and the experience of ULA’s teams working with NASA’s Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) at the Kennedy Space Center and elsewhere in the country.

They also noted that with the Centaur 3 upper stage achieving certification to launch humans as part of the Commercial Crew Program, there are a lot of common features with the Centaur 5.

The decision relieves NASA from wasting more money on the Mobile Launcher-2, which has been a disaster. The contractor Bechtel has gone over budget — from $383 million to $2.7 billion — and is so behind schedule it is still unclear now whether it will be ready by 2029, a decade after the contract was awarded.

It also relieves NASA of spending more money on its own upper stage, which has been as much a disaster, from Boeing.

Instead, this deal is an example of Isaacman doing the right thing. Rather than have NASA design and build its own upper stage, he is buying the product — almost literally off-the-shelf — from a commercial rocket company. He should expand this effort, and consider other private rockets, such as Falcon Heavy, to replace SLS itself.

Now Isaacman should consider suing Bechtel for fraud and incompetence, to try to get back some of the money it wasted.

Click for interactive map.

Cool image time! Since May 2025 Curiosity has been exploring in great detail the boxwork formations located on the lower slopes of Mount Sharp. It is now about to complete those investigations, with the Curiosity science team beginning their planning for moving onward and upward.

The panorama above, enhanced to post here, was taken on March 2, 2026 by the rover’s right navigation camera. It looks uphill along the valley that Curiosity is in toward the mountainous region the rover is targeting. Note that the peak of Mount Sharp is not visible, being more than 25 miles away beyond the horizon and about 15,000 feet higher up.

The blue dot on the overview map to the right mark Curiosity’s present position. The yellow lines indicate roughly the area this panorama covers. The red dotted line marks the rover’s approximate planned route, while the white dotted line indicates Curiosity’s actual travels.

Right now Curiosity is traveling through a geological layer the scientists have dubbed the sulfate unit. The lighter colored hills seen on the horizon have also been identified as sulfate, but believed to be much more pure. The geology there should be very different. Instead of rough and rocky it could be like traveling over soft porous sand. This however is merely a guess on my part, based on imagery of those light-colored hills.

The actual route through those hills however remains unknown. Either the science team has not yet released it, or is still trying to figure out the best way through.

As part of NASA administrator’s effort to remake NASA into a cutting edge agency, “the global leader in space,” the agency in partnership with the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has initiated a new program, dubbed NASA Force, to recruit talent from the private sector for two-year terms, after which they can then try to get a full time job either with NASA or a private aerospace company.

NASA Force will identify and place high-impact technical talent into mission-critical roles supporting NASA’s exploration, research, and advanced technology priorities, ensuring the agency has the cutting-edge expertise needed to maintain U.S. leadership in space.

Tech Force, led by OPM, was established to recruit elite technical professionals into federal service, embed them at partner agencies to modernize systems, accelerate innovation, and strengthen mission delivery. NASA Force represents a focused expansion of that effort, tailored to the unique technical demands of space exploration and aerospace research.

“America’s leadership in space depends on extraordinary talent,” said NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. “NASA Force will help us attract the next generation of innovators and technical experts who are ready to solve the toughest challenges in exploration, science, and aerospace technology. This partnership strengthens our workforce and helps ensure the United States remains the global leader in space.”

This program however has things entirely backwards. The last thing any engineer who has just graduated college should do is get a short two-year job at NASA. He or she will learn all the wrong lessons, working for a government agency not interested in efficiency or profit.

Instead, it is essential the first job new engineers get is in the private sector, to learn how to do things fast and efficiently. It Isaacman had the right priorities, he would use this money to fund these jobs in the private sector, so that new graduates will get the right training. Unfortunately, that is not Isaacman’s priority. He wants the government to lead.

Moreover, NASA’s job was never intended to be “the global leader in space.” Its job was to formulate the federal government’s needs in space, and then ask the private sector — the American people — to get the job done. Isaacman instead wants to have NASA do the job, as it did for a half century after Apollo, quite poorly. Only after the agency began relying on private enterprise beginning in 2008, the capitalism model, did things finally start happening again.

The worst aspect of this program is that it will take talent away from the private sector. A lot of good and talented young engineers will gravitate to these NASA positions for the high pay, relatively easy good hours, and prestige. They won’t accomplish much there, and their training will be wrong-headed. Meanwhile, the private sector will lose that talent and have to find it elsewhere, assuming it is available at all.

Engineers determined a seal in the quick disconnect, through which helium flows from the ground systems to the rocket, was obstructing the pathway. The team removed the quick disconnect, reassembled the system, and began validating the repairs to the upper stage by running a reduced flow rate of helium through the mechanism to ensure the issue was resolved. Engineers are assessing what allowed the seal to become dislodged to prevent the issue from recurring.

Though this information is somewhat vague, it strongly suggests the seal with the problem was in the upper stage, not the umbilical line that is part of the ground systems.

Before they can return the rocket to the launchpad, they need to make sure they identified the exact issue that caused the seal to not work properly. They also are replacing the batteries in the rocket’s self-destruct system as well as flight batteries in the upper stage, core stage, and two strap-on solid-fueled boosters. It also appears they are replacing another seal the oxygen feed line for the core stage.

Once this work is finished and confirmed, they will still need to roll SLS back to the launchpad and likely do another wet dress rehearsal countdown, though that rehearsal might be condensed to focus on these issues specifically.

The present launch window closes on April 6th, so the timeline is very tight. NASA management is reviewing later windows in late April as well as May and June.

Despite the major reshaping of the later missions in the Artemis program that NASA administrator Jared Isaacman announced last week, this upcoming Artemis-2 mission remains the same, a ten-mission carrying four astronauts around the Moon using an Orion capsule with a questionable heat shield and an untested life support system.

With both spacecraft now fully commissioned and successfully operating at the Earth–Sun Lagrange Point 2 (L2), Rocket Lab is preparing to hand over operational control to [UC-Berkeley], who will lead science operations at L2 and prepare the mission for its cruise to Mars.

Under contract from [UC-Berkeley], Rocket Lab was selected to design, build, and provide commissioning operations of the two high delta-V Explorer-class interplanetary spacecraft for ESCAPADE. Rocket Lab moved from concept to launch readiness in just over three years, proving commercial collaboration can deliver important science key to supporting future human and robotic exploration of Mars on ambitious schedules and for significantly smaller budgets than typical interplanetary missions. This speed was made possible through Rocket Lab’s vertically integrated spacecraft production, with key components including solar arrays, reaction wheels, propellant tanks, star trackers, radios, avionics, and flight software designed and built in-house.

Launched from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in November 2025, the twin ESCAPADE spacecraft, known as Blue and Gold, completed spacecraft commissioning and executed two precise trajectory correction maneuvers, placing both spacecraft into their loiter trajectory near L2, approximately 1.5 million kilometers from Earth.

Both spacecraft will be sent on their way to Mars in December 2026 when orbital mechanics between the Red Planet and Earth are right for the journey. Once in Mars orbit the two orbiters will allow for a three-dimensional study of the interaction between the solar wind and Mars’ atmosphere.

Though this is a NASA-funded mission, note that it was built a commercial company and operated not by NASA but by a university. For this reason, it was not only built fast and at a low cost, it uses an innovative flight path that allowed it to be launched anytime and wait in orbit for the right moment to go to Mars. This last innovation provides for a lot more flexibility.

During a update press conference today on the status of SLS, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman announced some major changes to the next three Artemis missions.

Isaacman began his remarks by blasting the slow launch cadence of the SLS rocket, noting that all previous NASA launch vehicles averaged about three months between launches, not three years. In order to shorten the SLS cadence to as short as ten months, he has eliminated the upgraded upper stage for SLS, required for the Artemis-3 lunar landing mission. They will standardize the equipment now being used for all further missions. It also suggests the upgraded mobile launcher — needed for that upgraded upper stage — is being canceled, though the officials refused to confirm this. It is far behind schedule and over budget.

Second, Artemis-3 will no longer be a lunar landing. It will instead fly in ’27 as a manned low-Earth-orbit mission to test rendezvous and docking with one or both of the lunar landers being built by SpaceX and Blue Origin. The flight will also test the spacesuits the astronauts will use on the later lunar mission, including possibly a spacewalk.

This change also appears to eliminate the need for Lunar Gateway, though this decision was not stated. Without that upgraded first stage, SLS cannot reach lunar orbit as intended. It appears the plan is to launch crew in Orion and transfer them to the lander in Earth orbit, and transport them to the Moon in those vehicles.

Third, the goal will then be to do two lunar landings in ’28 on Artemis-4 and Artemis-5. It was also clear that this is merely a target, and things could change after the ’27 mission.

These changes all make great sense and face basic reality. It never made sense to attempt the lunar landing after only one manned Artemis mission. The changes also shift focus from SLS and Orion to the rockets and spacecraft being made by the private sector. It attempts to meet Trump’s goal of landing on the Moon by ’28, but also gives the last three budgeted SLS missions a better and more realistic program. Whether SLS as designed can do this remains unclear, but no matter what, this clearly lays the groundwork for that shift from SLS to the private sector.

The officials also made it clear that this plan is still in flux, and will change depending on what happens in the next year or so.

NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) today released its annual report, and once again it demonstrated why I have been calling it corrupt and a waste of money for years.

The report can be read here [pdf], but let me warn you that its findings have nothing to do with ASAP’s original purpose (created after the 1967 Apollo 1 launchpad fire that killed three astronauts), to look at NASA projects to make sure the agency is not ignoring specific safety issues.

Instead, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, the panel focused on management goals and larger strategic issues, and as usual concluded that the best way to do things is to make NASA bigger with more control over the entire space industry.

NASA needs to better govern its contractors with respect to effective risk and safety management through appropriate contract mechanisms and consistent application of insight and oversight.

To come to this conclusion the report focused on the failures of Boeing in developing its Starliner manned capsule. To ASAP, those failures now justify taking control from the private sector. That SpaceX delivered as promised, under the same open contract terms, is barely mentioned. A normal American businessman would compare the two companies and simply continue to use SpaceX while searching for someone else besides Boeing.

ASAP instead wants to blame the entire private sector so that the government can once again rule.

Meanwhile, this corrupt panel sees nothing wrong or dangerous about the upcoming Artemis-2 mission, which will take four astronauts on a ten-day mission around the Moon using an untested life support system and returning with a questionable heat shield.

Throughout 2025, the Agency continued progress towards flight readiness. Safety and technical risks have been identified and, as appropriate, effectively addressed.

When it comes to Artemis-3, the mission to land humans on the Moon, the panel does finally note the many technical and safety risks, and questions whether NASA is ready to fly it as scheduled. It also admits that while SpaceX’s Starship is not yet ready to land humans on the Moon, “at this time it is difficult to imagine another NASA contractor capable of meeting a challenge of this scale and pace as SpaceX.”

Thank you for small blessings!

Overall, ASAP continues to be a paper-pushing waste of money. Not once in the past two decades has its recommendations on safety correctly identified the real dangers and risks. During the development of Dragon and Starliner, it consistently poo-pooed Boeing’s problems, while lambasting SpaceX repeatedly. For years it has ignored the problems with Orion and SLS, making believe — as it does now with Artemis-2 — that NASA has everything under control.

The money NASA wastes on this panel would be far better used elsewhere. Unfortunately, there is no one in Washington willing to face these facts. If anything, all signs suggest that Jared Isaacman agrees with ASAP’s findings, and intends to do exactly what it proposes, increase NASA power and control while squelching the independence and freedom of the newly reborn American private aerospace industry.