Planetary Radio: Space Exploration, Astronomy and Science - Artemis update: NASA reshapes the road back to the Moon

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

NASA has announced a major restructuring of the Artemis program, reshaping the roadmap for returning humans to the Moon. At a February 27 press conference, agency leadership addressed the rollback of Artemis II following post–wet–dress–rehearsal testing and unveiled significant changes to upcoming missions, including shifting Artemis III from a planned lunar landing to a low-Earth-orbit rendezvous and integrated systems test. In this episode, you’ll hear remarks from NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and Lori Glaze, Moon to Mars program manager and acting associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate. They explain what happened with Artemis II and why NASA is changing course. Then, host Sarah Al-Ahmed is joined by Jack Kiraly, director of government relations at The Planetary Society, and Ari Koeppel, AAAS science and technology policy fellow, to unpack the political and strategic forces behind this shift and what it means for the future of lunar exploration. In What’s Up, Bruce Betts, our chief scientist, looks back at Apollo 9, the Earth-orbiting mission that proved the Lunar Module could operate independently before NASA attempted a lunar landing. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2026-artemis-updateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NASA updates its plans for Artemis this week on Planetary Radio. I'm Sarah al-Ahmad of the Planetary Society, with more of the human adventure across our solar system and beyond. At a NASA press conference last week, agency leaders addressed the status of Artemis II and announced big changes to the Artemis program. First you'll hear from Moon to Mars program manager Lori Glaze, as she explains what teams discovered following Artemis II's wet dress rehearsal,

including the helium flow issue in the interim cryogenic propulsion stage, and why that rocket had to be rolled back into the vehicle assembly building ahead of its crude lunar flyby mission. Then, from the same press conference, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman outlines a sweeping restructuring of the Artemis program, including shifting Artemis 3 from a planned lunar landing to a lunar Earth orbit rendezvous and integrated systems test. After those remarks from NASA leadership, I'm joined by Jack Corelli,

our Director of Government Relations at the Planetary Society, and Ari Coppell, AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow. Together we unpack what's driving these changes to the Artemis program, and whether this new approach truly moves Artemis forward. And then in What's Up, we look back at Apollo 9, the 1969 Earth orbit mission that proved that the lunar module could operate independently and rendezvous before NASA actually attempted their landing on the moon. If you love planetary radio and want to stay informed by the latest space discoveries,

make sure you hit that subscribe button on your favorite podcasting platform. By subscribing, you'll never miss an episode filled with new and awe-inspiring ways to know the cosmos and our place within it. Before we continue, I have a few quick notes. Our spring membership drive is happening right now. As debates over NASA's future unfold, the Planetary Society is working to protect and strengthen its science programs. Those are the missions that explore other worlds, defend our planet from asteroid impacts, and search for life beyond Earth. That advocacy is powered by our members. Membership starts at just $4 a month.

It helps us fight for the scientific exploration of space and brings you conversations like this one on Planetary Radio. If you believe that space science is worth protecting, you can join us today at planetary.org. I also want to acknowledge that as we record this, the world, The world is facing a new wave of conflict and instability. In times like these, it can feel really strange to be talking about rockets and lunar missions, but I always like to think that space exploration can offer us some perspective. It's one of the few endeavors that crosses borders, politics, and generations, and reminds us of what we can build together.

To everyone listening, we're grateful that you're here with us, and we're thinking of you. On Friday, February 27th, NASA held a press conference addressing the status of Artemis 2 and outlining changes to the broader Artemis program. Artemis 2 is NASA's first crewed mission in the effort to return humans to the moon. The mission is designed to send four astronauts on a 10-day journey around the moon and back. It's the first time humans will travel beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. The press briefing featured NASA administrator Jared Isaac. Associate Administrator Amit Shathria, and Moon to Mars program manager, Lori Glaze, who's also the Acting Associate Administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate.

Just days earlier, Artemis II had rolled back into the vehicle assembly building following a post-wet dress rehearsal testing. Here's Dr. Lori Glaze with the update. I'd like to start by thanking the administrator for taking this incredibly bold step and moving quickly quickly to assure that we have support and resources that are needed in order to launch Artemis astronauts to the moon every year. I want to thank our team as well within the Moon to Mars program on Artemis and all of our Artemis mission planning. Our teams continue to work tirelessly to enable mission success.

I know to people outside of NASA, sometimes we make it look easy. What we are doing is anything but easy. And we've seen that with the challenges that we've encountered. I've said time and time again that our team rises to challenges and they meet any bar that is set. This will be a challenge and I know that we will continue to relentlessly pursue excellence at every step. And that includes not just our NASA team, but it includes again our contractor workforce and all of the suppliers that contribute to at every level to the success of the Artemis Space Program. So first things first, I'm going to talk about Artemis 2. We were here just a week ago.

We were all very excited last Friday after the successful wet dress rehearsal. We were in a great place at that time and looking at a launch in early March. Things changed pretty quickly last Friday evening where we discovered the issue with the flow of helium to the ICPS, the upper stage of the SLS. That occurred as we were doing the reconfiguration of the SLS as we transitioned from the wet dress into the launch configuration. So that was, it was disappointing, but that's where we were. And the response of our team was exactly what we should be doing.

We allowed the data to talk to us and tell us what we needed to do. And allowed those findings, the operational findings, to guide us in what decisions that we needed to make. And the data were pretty clear that we were no-go. We were in a no-go situation without the ability to flow the helium to the RL-10 engines of the upper stage. So while we have the ability to access the boost, and the core stage out at the pad. We were in preparations already for being able to do the work that needed to be done out at the pad.

We do not have the ability to access the interior of the upper stage at the pad. So that's what's the requirement to roll back to the vehicle assembly building. Our team has been working very quickly to transition from preparations for launch to preparations for rollback. And they did that extremely quickly.

We were able to roll back within a couple of days. At the same time, the team has worked to streamline a plan for the work inside the VAB to give us the very best possible chance at a launch in the early April launch period. We got back to the VAB about 8 p.m. Wednesday night. The platforms within the VAB have already been extended. You can see them there in the live graphic. And the work has already begun, an incredible amount of work already going on. The suspected system components for the helium flow will be removed, and they're going to go undergo detailed inspections and assess the cause of the issue. We hope to get down to the root cause of that and make changes not just to the hardware, but to our operational procedures so that we don't encounter the same issue again when we roll back out to the pad.

In addition, determining the cause of the helium flow issue, the teams are also going to do a number of other things while we're in the VAB. We will replace the batteries in the flight termination system and conduct another end to end test to meet the eastern range safety requirements. We'll give the closeout crew another shot, another chance at closing out the Orion County. capsule get them a little bit more practice in closing out the Orion crew module and then also the seal on the tail service mast umbilical that supplies the liquid oxygen to the rocket before liftoff that is also going to be replaced to ensure a tight configuration. As you recall, of course, the twin seal that supplies that goes to the liquid hydrogen was replaced out at the pad.

So we've already replaced that one. So now we're going to replace the oxygen seal as well. And at the same time, we're also going to be reviewing the IEGYLGELE as well. items that are already stowed in the Orion crew module. There's some of those time out and we need to replace them. So we'll be doing a little bit of that as well. We will continue to provide updates, regular updates of how we're progressing within the VAB and our plans, once they solidify on when we roll back out, we will definitely let

everybody know. And just again, to return to Administrator Isaacman's statements beyond Artemis II, I know that our team is up for this challenge and we are ready to get started on that. Thank you. Lori Glaze's update explains what happened with the rocket, but the press conference wasn't just a launch timing briefing. It marked the first major architectural decision announced by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman. He was confirmed last year after a turbulent nomination process that included a withdrawal

of his nomination and a subsequent renomination before confirmation. Before leading NASA, Isaacman was a tech entrepreneur who funded and commanded SpaceX's inspiration for mission in 2021. It was the first all-civilian orbital spaceflight. He later led Polaris Don, a mission that conducted the first commercial spacewalk and tested next-generation spacesuits and high-altitude operations in Earth orbit. And now as NASA administrator, he's overseeing one of the most consequential human exploration programs since Apollo. At the press conference, Isaacman announced that Artemis 3, which was originally planned, as the mission that was going to return humans to the lunar surface,

is instead going to become a low Earth orbit rendezvous and integrated systems test. It's the kind of course correction that NASA has made before. During Apollo, the agency adopted lunar orbit rendezvous in 1962. It was a decision that fundamentally reshaped how astronauts would land on the moon, and later used Earth orbit missions like Apollo 9 to test critical systems before attempting a landing. Here's NASA administrator, Jared I'm. Isaacman. Good morning, everyone. Appreciate everyone coming out. First, I just want to give a lot of credit to the NASA workforce and our partners that have been working really tirelessly through the Artemis

campaign. It's really especially impressive work, and I know they're all feeling it after we had what was a near-falless Wetress 2 performance that Artemis 2 is now back in the vehicle assembly building, which is imperfect. So we want to give you two sets of updates. So Lori is going to speak with you about what we're learning about Artemis II now that it is back in the VAB and what our path is back out to the pad and to launch this historic mission. But before that, I'd like to talk a little bit about the overall Artemis program, how we're going to achieve the president's objective to return American astronauts to the moon, to build an enduring presence and ideally not wind up in some of the situations that we've seen recently. So let's talk about the situation. Artemis 1 launched more than three years ago.

We had hydrogen leaks with Artemis 1. We had helium flow issues with Artemis 1. Artemis 2 went out to the pad. Wetrous 1. We had hydrogen leaks. And then after a second wetrus 2, where we made a lot of great progress, we wound up with helium flow issues,

a lot of similarities between the two. And why is that essentially the case? Look, three plus year launch cadence. I mean, Artemis 3 right now, as it's currently designed, won't fly for approximately another three years. So launching a rocket is important and as complex as SLS every three years is not a path to success. A component of that is when you are launching every three years, your skills atrophy. You lose muscle memory. We've got a lot of really talented folks that have been working hard on the Artemis 2 campaign.

And, you know, whether they're going to want to stick around for three more years after this mission is complete is a question mark. This is just not the right pathway forward. And I'd say also when you are experiencing some of the same issues between launches, you're probably got to take a close look at your process for remediation. Are you truly getting the technical root cause? Or are you getting close to it? So we've got issues with low flight rate. And I would say a great way to exasperate that problem further

is to start making changes to vehicle configuration. SLS is a very impressive vehicle. We don't want to turn every one of them into a work of art. And then I would also say that having very big objectives, a wide objective gap between missions is also not a pathway to success. So we didn't go right to Apollo 11, right? We had a whole Mercury program, Gemini, Apollo, lots of Apollo missions before we ultimately landed. Right now our program is essentially set up with an Apollo 8 and then going right to the moon. And that is, again, not a pathway to success.

So what is the right way forward here? So first, today we're announcing a standardization of the, SLS fleet to what we'll call essentially a near block one configuration. So the idea is we want to reduce complexity of grace extent possible. We want to accelerate manufacturing, pull in the hardware, and increase launch rate, which obviously has a direct safety consideration to it as well. You get into a good rhythm launching great frequency, you get that muscle memory. In order to do that, we need to rebuild and strengthen the workforce here at NASA. Now this is directly in line with a workforce directive that I released several weeks ago. We have to rebuild core competencies.

The ability to turn around our launch pads and launch with frequency greater than every three years is imperative. Some people ask me questions on that already as we've talked about this. And it's like, how are we going to do that? How we can go from three years to something significantly less to what I think should actually be inside of one year? And I'll point you out, I'll point you to our history. We have a nice infographic that's coming out from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, through the shuttle program. I don't think it would surprise many of the folks in the room that our average launch cadence was closer to three months throughout all those programs, not three years. In fact, if you want a history tidbit, you look at the time when Apollo 7 splash down to when

Apollo 8 launched, you're approximately two months apart. We need to start getting back to basics and moving this direction. So rebuilding the civil servant workforce and restoring core capabilities. Again, that will directly contribute to NASA's launch cadence, where we're going to endeavor to get our launches inside of a year. specifically down to potentially 10 months. And then we are going to add missions. In fact, we're essentially going to pull in Artemis 3 to launch in 2027 with a revised mission profile.

So instead of going directly to a lunar landing, we will endeavor to rendezvous in lower Earth orbit with one or both of our lunar landers, test out integrated operations between Orion and the landers, eclis systems, even to the extent possible. If we can get up development components of our XEVA suits to test out vehicle interfaces, even just getting an astronaut in a suit and microgravity, we can learn a lot with the idea that we should be learning and take this information back to inform hardware development, whether it's in the landers or in the suits before Artemis 4, where we will attempt to land on the moon.

We are also, as a component of the strategy, endeavoring to preserve up to two landing attempts in 2028. So if we get inside of the 10-month turnaround time that we would like to see, Artemis 2 will launch on its historic mission in the weeks ahead. Artemis 3 will have its opportunity if we can by mid-2020, which sets us up for an early 28 and a late-28 opportunity. So that is the approach that we are taking at a very high level. I will tell you we're not surprising our industry or our stakeholders at this press conference right now. We've been having these discussions for a long time.

fact, I give a lot of credit to NASA and its team. No one at NASA forgot their history books. They knew how to do this. They've had plans like this for a long time. Now we're putting it in action. We had a chance to have these discussions across all of our industry partners, all of the prime contractors on the SLS vehicle, both of our HLS landing providers, everybody agrees. This is the only way forward. And I'll say, had similar conversations with all our stakeholders in Congress and they're fully behind NASA in this approach. They know this is how NASA changed the world and this is how NASA is going to do it again. Beyond the technical details and the new mission sequencing, there's a bigger question.

What's actually driving this change? Is this purely about engineering risk and launch cadence? Or is it shaped by political momentum and congressional pressure in the United States? To help us unpack with this shift means for NASA's long-term strategy and the future of lunar exploration, I'm joined by Jack Corelli, Director of Government Relations at the Planetary. Society and Dr. Ari Kopel, our AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow. Hey, Ari and Jack, thanks for joining me again. Hey, Sarah, good to be here.

Hey, Sarah, also good for me to be here. Well, this has been kind of a whirlwind with Artemis, right? Like, we're all waiting for Artemis II to launch. We keep having these wet dress rehearsals, and then there's hydrogen leaks and helium leaks, and then in the midst of all of that, as Artemis II is being rolled back into the vehicle building, we have this big news. dump. NASA is calling this kind of a getting back to basics situation, something to help increase launch cadence. But from a political perspective, what do you think is actually motivating these

changes to the Artemis program? So the big thing driving this is on the same day that Administrator Isaacman was sworn into office in late December, the White House released an executive order called Ensuring American Space Superiority. Since the new administration took office last January, there has been almost no stance on space policy from the White House. Obviously, we've dealt with budget cuts. We've dealt with workforce changes. We've dealt with these things that are affecting other parts of the federal government and just have implications on space. But finally, as of last December, actually have a at least framework for a set of policies that the administration wants to put forward.

And a lot of it is centered around the future exploration of the moon with humans. Obviously, there's also tie-ins with Department of Defense and national security and economic issues. But the main crux of this is it introduces the idea that we're going to have a lunar base, a physical installation on the lunar surface that the astronauts will go to, and that we want to increase the launch cadence of the space launch system, which is the primary crew delivery vehicle to SISL lunar space, although the lander is being provided by commercial partners. It does a bunch of other things, and I think we've probably talked ad nauseum about those

ones in other episodes and probably in the future as well. But this was a huge moment for the administration, which had, was, I think, marked in the first iteration from 2017 to 2021 as making a lot of big space policy decisions through these executive actions, and then for a whole year didn't do any in the second term, until the very end when Administrator Isaacman came in, and part of this is that there was renewed interest from the White House and with that political momentum to take the Artemis program, what it had been, and reformulate it into this more higher launch cadence,

quicker return on the taxpayer's investment in the form of, you know, not one, but two lunar landings in 2028. How are you guys feeling about these changes? I mean, I'm honestly, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm not an engineer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I'm encouraged by this idea that we're at least going to be testing this commercially built human landing system in low Earth orbit before we ever send it to the moon. So there's been a lot of uncertainty over the Artemis program. In October, NASA put out a re-compete for the human landing system, something that kind of started.

sent the commercial industry and the human spaceflight community into a little bit of a frenzy wondering what exactly is going on here. Is this a good thing or does it mean that things aren't actually going to happen? That things aren't working. NASA doesn't have a trust in this program. I should say that was acting administrator Duffy at the time. We now have a confirmed NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman. And I believe this action that he's taking is him coming in and saying there has been uncertainty at NASA. We need to reconfigure a new plan. And here's how we're going to go about doing it

and starting to very clearly lay out the framework for that plan. And I think just the mere act of having some certainty in what's going to happen over the next few years in the Moon Exploration Program in Artemis and in human spaceflight is a reassurance that it is in fact a priority. it's not going to slip by the wayside. It's giving assurances both to space enthusiasts and the commercial sector. And so for me, even though that plan is still formulating to some extent,

it is a reassurance and a bit of a sigh of relief that we're not going to just descend into human space like chaos that's never actually going to get off the launch pad. And I'll add to that. That's a really good point, Ari, that on top of that, you have, a Congress, right, that not only is interested in the Artemis program, but enthusiastic. So much so they gave an additional $10 billion in the HR1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, whatever you're going to call it, includes $10 billion, most of it earmarked for the Artemis program. And so this is, I think, the confluence of a lot of things.

And I think I share in some of Administrator Isaacman's first. frustrations about the Artemis program, specifically since Artemis 1 launched during the first part of the Biden administration in 2021. You know, there hadn't been a second launch, and really it was only until just a few months ago, right, that they, you know, I mean, they had selected the crew and had done like a little bit of media outreach, but there was basically nothing coming out of the administration when it came to the lunar program for all of last year. And obviously with the budget request, there was this massive pivot towards this, like, crap. Humans to Mars program that, you know, that was also very ill-defined. And so it's been this program that has had this very strong political support, but, you know, didn't necessarily have the push behind it to make maybe a major restructuring decision like this. Because maybe it felt like because it had been put together over so many years and over multiple

administrations and involved so many stakeholders, it felt maybe rightfully so a little untouchable that you couldn't change it. But from talking to people in the space community, and I include myself in this, I think this has like renewed some excitement about the program, that we're going to get this onto a higher launch cadence. They're going to standardize the vehicle. And I think one of the key parts of it is having accountability and a clear roadmap for the commercial providers.

Because, you know, you look at SpaceX and Starship and then Blue Origin and the Blue Moon lander. because the date for Artemis 3 has slipped more times, they haven't had a clear target to which to, you know, build up to that they need their vehicle ready. There was always the chance that it would get pushed further along. And so to actually have like a set date or not set date, but a set time frame, you know, late 2027 or mid-2020-7 to do the low-earth orbit rendezvous test, that puts a fire under the commercial providers who up to this point, I mean, Starship hasn't made it to orbit. Blue Moon hasn't flown yet. And so like these two providers that are supposed to be the things safely landing humans back on the surface of the moon and returning them haven't hit major milestones, but yet have been a huge focus of the space community. And so it puts a fire under the civil servants, right, who are working on the government side of things. It puts a fire under the commercial providers who, in addition to HLS are also providing the space suits that the astronauts, that the astronauts,

are going to wear. And so it really has kind of reignited this enthusiasm within the agency and in the broader space community for what Artemis is meant to achieve. It does mean, though, that so much of this new cadence is predicated on our commercial partners getting it right. And so I do worry, I'm really glad we're going to be having more tests and we're doing them earlier. But I do worry if one of those things, just even one part of this plan is delayed or doesn't go well, it might derail the end. entire track. Well, that's the nice thing about the moon versus Mars is you have a launch window every month. Imagine if this were, you know, if this were a Mars mission and Artemis II, the equivalent of

a flyby of Mars, you know, you only have a very limited window to make the home and transfer to Mars. And so here we get a launch case basically every month, or a launch opportunity basically every month. And so, like, even if schedule slip, like, we can make that up. You can wait a month to go back to the moon, right? But when you're waiting two, three, four, five years between launches of, you know, your prime crew vehicle, however long it's taking between launches of Starship and Blue Moon, which, again, Blue Moon hasn't even attempted one, when launch, Starship has only ever made it to suborbital trajectories, you're running into this problem where, like, nobody's, there's no goal line. And so you're just constantly in this sort of, you're developing, you're making,

you know, they're making improvements on the, you know, I think what V3, the Starship V3 just rolled out for their test later this month. But there's no end of the decade moment. And I think that's maybe what we're seeing here. It's very similar to, you know, President Kennedy saying, by the end of this decade, we're going to do this, that, and the other thing, this is administrator Isaacman saying, by the end of this current administration, we're going to not have landed on the moon once, but twice. And it's an extraordinary feat. Maybe it only happens once. But then you got Artemis back on track, and that'll be Artemis fours. So that means another one will have been somewhere in the mix. And so it's really, you know, exciting to see this new fervor behind

the lunar campaign. And that's not the only analogy to the next. 1960s and the Apollo program, Jack. There's been a bunch of news sources out there that have compared this change to the Apollo 8 and 9 launches. And the Apollo 8 launch was a trip to the moon, but not landing on the moon, testing out tech, but doing, I think they did 10 orbits around the moon. And then Apollo 9 kind of counterintuitively actually didn't go to the moon. It went to low Earth orbit to test out the rendezvous system, just as you. you were discussing. And so in this way, where we kind of think of these lunar missions

as like needing to adhere to some sort of progression, low Earth orbit, lunar orbit, lunar landing. Actually, what the progression here really is is a technology demonstration safety experiment, trying to figure out how we can do all of the processes that go into safely landing on the moon with exquisite refinement. And we can do that in some cases in low Earth orbit without actually having to go all the way to the moon.

And so this replan is actually kind of taking from that Apollo playbook. You know, you have to give it to them. It was proven. It worked. And so I kind of understand it in that sense. I keep wondering what this means for the entire SLS program. And maybe it's because up until just a few months ago, we were looking at the potential cancellation of SLS and Orion. Now we're in a situation where they're standardizing SLS.

There are some changes going on here with basically they were going to make this SLS 1B that had a whole other thing attached to it that was going to give it more capability to take things to space. Now we're looking at standardizing it to the rocket that we're using right now. So it's the same one that we've got for Artemis 1, Artemis 2. But that means that we're limited in how much we're going to be able to actually launch to the moon. So if we're talking about building a permanent lunar base, there are all other considerations. How are we going to get that stuff there? And I wonder if they're thinking that perhaps Starship and New Glenn even might be able to help us send some of that stuff to the moon if we're not going to be making these upgrades

to the SLS rocket. Oh, they're banking on it, right? And this is across the NASA portfolio, not just within the crude lunar program, is that people see the value in these super heavy lift vehicles. like Nuclan and like Starship. And this is in part kind of the clips program in a way is developing smaller capabilities. You're landing something on the order of hundreds of kilograms, not thousands or tens of thousands of kilograms is probably what you'd need for a permanent installation.

But they're banking that, you know, after Artemis 5, which again is now notionally supposed to take place in late 2028, that we're going to have developed so many more in-house capabilities within the agency and whether that's continuing to use the SLS and that industry is going to have refined their processes to launch more and more cargo to the moon that in a very short period of time we're going to have built out basically this lunar infrastructure or at least launch infrastructure from Earth that we can then deploy at the moon and start to build the infrastructure there for a sustained presence. And that's where that moon-based idea comes in, right? And that's something that's been discussed many times before, right?

And that was maybe at the crux of the conversation about the Gateway Lunar Space Station, which was still less than, I think less than 10 years, 10 years old as an idea. But like now these things are supposed to be interlocked. And so you have the Gateway Lunar Space Station, which will be the rendezvous point in Sys Lunar Space. HLS will bring you down to the surface. Whatever this moon base, whatever, I think technically it's supposed. to be called, if you look in Title 51 of the U.S. Code, as I know we all do, you can actually find that it's supposed to be called the Neil Armstrong Lunar Station. And so, you know, when they go to Armstrong Station, they're, you know, they're going to have infrastructure there, and then

they'll be able to come back to Earth. And so you're supposed to have this, now this ecosystem at the end of a very short period of time, whether or not that happens, right? I mean, that it now makes the challenge more focused on the technical aspect of it than the architecture, because I think everyone's been talking about, well, like, what happens after Artemis 5? And this at least sets you on a path of like, well, there's going to be needs. And industry might be able to meet some of those. I guess the hope is that industry is able to meet some of those needs. Plus you also, you have SLS, you have those capabilities and what's being developed in-house at NASA.

And I will say an interesting element of all of this is that that supplemental $10 billion I mentioned before runs out after Artemis 5. And so those Orion capsules and space launch system vehicles are more or less funded through that supplemental money. NASA has not released yet a spend plan for how they intend to spend that $10 billion, though there are statutory requirements about specific amounts in specific years. But there's a big chunk of that money that is kind of in this kind of discretionary supplemental area where NASA can draw from that when it needs those additional resources. So whatever, Artemis 6, and I think what Administrator Isaacman said, Artemis 50 or Artemis 100, right, like what those architectures look like, what vehicle they write on, it's too far out to see,

but the point is to develop that infrastructure and ecosystem now so that you can lay that roadmap for the future for a sustained lunar presence, not just the flags and footprints, as people want to say. We'll be right back after the short break. Hi, I'm Jack Corelli, Director of Government Relations at the Planetary Society.

Last year, NASA's science program faced the largest proposed budget cut in its history, mission were at risk and decades of scientific progress hung in the balance. But space advocates like you stood up for the scientific exploration of space and won. In the United States, that advocacy reached the halls of Congress. Hundreds of people from across the United States came together for our day of action to save NASA science. They held nearly 250 meetings with congressional offices, urging lawmakers to protect NASA's science programs, and it is to protect NASA's science programs,

programs, and it made a difference. Congress ultimately rejected nearly all of those devastating cuts. But the movement to save NASA science isn't over. Our work continues. On April 19th and 20th, 2026, the Planetary Society will host our next annual Day of Action in Washington, D.C., and we invite you to join us. Our team of space policy experts will equip you with everything you need to confidently speak up for the scientific exploration of space. We give you the training, schedule of meetings,

and materials. You just need to bring your passion for space. Research shows that in-person meetings with your elected representatives are the most effective way to influence policy. If you're a U.S. resident and can join us in Washington, D.C., we'd love to have you with us. Your voice truly matters. Learn more and register today at planetary.org slash day of action. Yeah, the timing on the end of that funding is really interesting because we could see this as a, you know, they can only budget so far out. But I can't help but notice that 2028 is not only right around the time of the presidential election, but also around the same time as China plans to put boots on the moon, right? So there could be several reasons why that is the precise timing of the end of the funding there. Well, there's clearly a lot of interest in the U.S. Congress in, you know, air quotes on beating China back to the moon.

The United States already did, right? They went the first time. Actually, went six times. But deciding on this is the path forward is very pivotal for the agency. And I think that geopolitical question is part of that, part of the point on which they're pivoting. I think they know that there is a lot of interest in Congress in the broader national security and geopolitical space. And we've built up this repertoire of international partners who have signed onto the Artemis Accords, which I would be remiss to say connected in name only, really.

I mean, the Artemis Accords is a State Department initiative meant to set rules of the road and norms in space. Artemis, the lunar exploration campaign, is a NASA program, so kind of distinct. But they share a name and share a general ethos. And I mean, I think they're at 61 or 62 signatories at this point, which is a pretty significant international community, if you ask me. The geopolitical question is certainly a driver here. But I'd argue maybe less so for the administration than for Congress. In his confirmation hearing, both of them, actually,

in both the first one and the second one, which funny that he gets two of them. But Administrator Isaacman doesn't mention the name China once. talks about strategic competition, talks about geopolitical forces, but doesn't ever mention China. And so it's not necessarily the biggest driver for someone like Isaacman, but certainly is for Congress. I kind of like that take. I mean, yeah, seemingly the United States and China

are in maybe unfriendly race to get to the moon. But honestly, as a species, we're all just trying to get there. And whatever motivates us to get there, hopefully, in a peaceful fashion, especially with the Artemis Accords as a backing framework for how we can ethically deal with each other as we're all going to the moon, that makes me feel comfortable. You can say it without saying it. But this is a huge upscaling of what we were going to try to accomplish with going to the moon at a time when we have just recently lost one quarter plus of all of the workers at NASA. So even if we're looking at a

situation where thankfully through our efforts over the last year and the efforts of all of our space advocates and all of the partner organizations, we've managed to pull now. has the science back from the brink and add more money and make sure that the budget is retained. But even with that money, without the people to actually do this work, it seems a little dicey. I mean, Jared Eisenstein actually brings up kind of this workforce issue more as a like, we need to increase the cadence so we can keep that operational excellence among the workforce. But there's this extra piece, which is that you actually have to have people there to do it. So how are we going to upscale the workforce fast enough to get all this done?

Well, that's a great question. It actually speaks to a broader initiative more than just the Artemis program that Administrator Isaacman's taking a lead role in, and that's this workforce directive. So I think late last month or maybe the month, but at the end of January, I think, Administrator Isaacman sent out a note to all NASA employees that they were going to start taking a long, hard look at all of the centers and the technical capabilities of the workforce. look ahead over the next few years and determine what those technical needs are going to be. And what unique things is only NASA capable of doing? Because there's things like launch, things that are routine that have been done before and can be done more efficiently that the commercial sector takes the role of. But then there are these things on the cutting edge of science and technology that only the civil servant workforce is capable of doing. That only they have the funding stability that you're

not waiting for some investor to dump money into the account to make sure that you can fund the research. That's what the federal government is for, right? Is for these long-term, long-time horizon research initiatives that yield tremendous benefits for life on Earth as well as technical capabilities for the space program. So this whole workforce directive. The administrator Isaacman, I think it's maybe his way of saying it without saying it that the people that we lost last year is a huge loss for the agency because it was there was no strategy to it. It was just whoever was willing to leave. And that's why we lost about 4,000, a little bit more than 4,000 people with an average seniority of 20.5 years or something

like that. So it's like, that's a huge, you know, that's thousands of years of combined experience. that we lost over the course of just a few months. And so I think the administrator recognizes that that is a huge loss and that this workforce directive is in part a way to get NASA back on track, back to an equilibrium, and keeps it focused on a really ambitious plan for the moon, a really ambitious science program,

advancing technology and demonstration missions throughout the portfolio. And the reconciliation bill that you mentioned earlier, Jack, that passed last year, HR1, It actually gives NASA an opportunity that it maybe wouldn't have in another year without that additional budget to bolster its workforce in this way that supports the Artemis program. As you said, there's $10 billion in that bill for NASA, I believe $4 billion for SLS. And it seems like Isaacman wants to use some of that to hire talent in-house and kind of redirect some of the efforts that were. maybe sort of being thought that they could be sent out to contractors for contracted out work,

but now, now as you said, have the resources to strategically put towards in-house talent that can support the Artemis program and the construction of the vehicles that will help get astronauts back to the moon. I'm hoping that all of this excitement about human exploration of the moon helps us in some way, advocate more effectively for not only that, but also scientific exploration of space. It's been just an absolutely wild year watching this fight over the budget. And now that we're seeing this kind of commitment to going back to the moon, how can we leverage that with our upcoming advocacy efforts to hopefully make sure that the rest of NASA stays whole? Well, I mean, I think part of it is remaining a united front, right? I mean, standing in community

with folks in the human space flight world and the space technology and STEM education world. All of this is part of one big space program. And so I think the first part is that not letting any of these changes drive. These ones are good changes, right, that we're talking about here, but there have been bad changes proposed and things that have happened again over the past year that have caused a lot of damage. And just making sure that those moments don't drive a wedge between the, different communities because when we all succeed we all get something right we

we're all succeeding we've been calling this our our rising tide strategy right rising tide lifts all spaceships has been our moniker because this is something that benefits the whole community and yeah you have contractors on the big human spaceflight projects that are also contractors and subcontractors on the science projects it's I mean United States is 330 something million people. It's still pretty small in terms of like the space ecosystem, right? I mean, the whole space economy has roughly 300,000 people at least that are involved in the civil space program. So that's not a huge ecosystem, right? There's not that many different

suppliers. So being able to find and develop the skill sets of the private sector and commercial side, also bolstering the public sector and also not to not to mention the supporting the pathways to longer-term careers in the space sciences or space technology with supporting the STEM pipeline. All of it is a big giant feedback loop. We all swim in the same pond. And so, yeah, it's very important to stand together. And that's not to mention how astronauts do actually conduct science themselves. And science facilitates safe human exploration.

you know, one of the motivations for these Clips missions has been to help facilitate safe landings of human astronauts. Everything's tied together in outer space. It's a hard place to work. There's a lot of complexity, a lot of moving pieces. And the more we know about human spaceflight, the better we can conduct science. And the more we know from scientific missions, the better we can conduct human spaceflight. Oh, and throw in Viper, right? I mean, like, come on.

There's all these missions in the pipeline that are connected to the crude exploration program that are essential, right? Vipar looking for water ice. I wonder what that could be used for, right, on the lunar surface. As we're building a moon base, I wonder if we need water. Yeah, of course we're going to need water. There's these little connections throughout all of them. And actually, this is something that has been a big focus of the U.S. Congress in the past few months is ensuring that there is, there is strong collaboration between the different mission areas at NASA so that exploration is

talking to science, is talking to technology, is talking to operations so that they're all getting what they need. And so that they're not being siloed off into their own little fiefdoms, as is, I think, human nature to, you know, you circle your community and you want to protect that. But, you know, science relies on technology. Technology relies on exploration. Exploration relies on science. And it's an ecosystem.

And so supporting the whole thing. And so pushing for more funding, not just for the human space flight side, but for all of the elements of NASA. We're doing all of this with less than a third of the budget that NASA had, adjusting for inflation, as it had at the height of the Apollo era. And we're doing so many more robotic missions, so many more, you know, a much more ambitious human space flight program, not just going to the moon, but going to the moon to stay. And so all of these things factor into, are driven by the fiscal side of the house.

So making sure NASA has those resources where advocates like us come in. And this is one more reason to fire up all the people that are excited about space exploration. It's in those moments of either crisis or excitement that people really rally to a cause. And I mean, it might just be me, but I'm excited to have more missions going to the moon. I've been waiting for something like Artemis since I was a little kid.

I cannot wait to see humans bouncing around on the moon again. And if I have to, uh-oh, have an extra mission where people are doing cool stuff in low Earth orbit as they're learning at a dock, like, woe is me. That's just more cool space stuff. So I'm genuinely excited to see how all of this pans out. And I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what we would need to see over the next, maybe year to gauge whether or not this restructuring is actually working. So I think a big thing's going to be the human landing system. So Ari mentioned the Recompete for at the time it was Artemis 3, but for the human landing system and it opened

it up to other providers. And I think that along with this restructuring, I think, has initiated, you know, it's time to get to work within the commercial space sector. So seeing how Starship develops, Obviously, I think the next test we're expecting is later this month, seeing how the Blue Moon Mark 1 lander that Blue Origin is launching, I believe later this year as well, and I'm sure they're going to be trying to move up that timeline to deliver cargo to the lunar surface, that's going to be a big piece. We're going to need to see sort of the direction that the president's budget request goes and the way that Congress responds to that. There is also an open question right now about whether or not there will be a second reconciliation, budget reconciliation package. And so if that pans out, that's more financial support for the agency. And then, of course, this workforce directive, like how does NASA go on a hiring spree? Do we add 4,000 or more people back to the workforce?

And so all of those are the things I'm paying close attention to. I'll just throw one more piece into the mix, which is we still. don't have a lightweight, flexible space suit for humans to use on the moon. The Apollo astronauts were using something like 300-pound spacesuits that they obviously couldn't have worn on Earth, but only were able to use on the moon because of its reduced gravity. There's been a push to drive down the weight and flexibility of spacesuits. So we no longer have videos of astronauts like falling on their faces like they did in the Apollo program. That's been an ongoing effort and it's been a question whether companies like Axiom are going to be able to have a spacesuit ready in time.

So many moving parts. But if it all comes together, we're just at the beginning of this new lunar age. Who knows what it's going to be like in five, ten years, especially if we can actually pull off a lunar gateway and base on the moon and even more renewed exploration up there with more than one country trying to attempt it. So this could be the beginning of something really cool. And I'm excited to see this is one of Jared Isaacman's first big moves as NASA administrator. You can really see his personal passion for space exploration being someone who's gone to space twice himself reflected in this change. Thanks for joining me to talk about this and doing it on such a short time span. I know we just got this news just a few days ago.

And I really appreciate your time because I know you guys are gearing up for the next day of action. There's so much going on with the space policy team. So I really appreciate your time. Yeah, of course. Thank you, sir. This is, yeah, it's never a dull moment. Just when you think that maybe we'll have a down week or something, it's, you know, they throw everything at you.

So we're just, we're happy to be able to be here and talk to you about this and to be excited, you know. And so, you know, obviously our day job right now is worrying about the budget. And that's coming down the pike can be really any day now. at this point. And so we're getting everything prepared for what that ends up looking like. And of course, as you mentioned, the day of action coming up on April 19th and 20th, planetary.org slash day of action. If you're interested in coming to DC, it's already outpacing. The only other year that is doing better than this was last year's October day of action in terms of registrations. We're already outpacing all the other years,

too. Now we're able to build on that success and start talking about an ambitious and sustainable and forward-looking future for space science and for exploration program. So thank you, Sarah. I always find it a pleasure chatting with you, Sarah. It's fun to really think about our wildest dreams in space and not get bogged down in the numbers, as Jack and I often do. Likewise, Ari. I mean, we're in this because we love the technical bits, but it's that starry-eyed dreamer

part of space exploration, you know, the joy of watching someone float around and the joy of discovery, all these things together that I think brought us all here. So let's take a moment to just imagine a future where this all pans out. I'm excited for that. All right. Thanks so much, you guys. Thanks, Sarah. Thanks. Artemis 3's new role as an Earth orbit systems test has a clear historical parallel. From March 3rd to March 13th, 1969, Apollo 9 flew in low Earth orbit to prove that the lunar module could separate, fly independently, and rendezvous again before NASA ever attempted to land humans on the moon. We look back at that mission now and what's up with Dr. Bruce Betz, our chief

scientist. Hey, Bruce. Hi, Sarah. Good to talk with you today. Man, more lunar upheaval. I've just been waiting for Artemis 2 to lunch. And now in the middle of all this, here we are with a completely new Artemis plan. Well, sure. It's the only, you know. consistent thing is inconsistency. It seems like these are good changes, honestly. I'm glad to see that they're doing more testing. Having another set, any testing, testing, good, testing in the lower Earth orbit, you know, they decided 50 years ago that was a good idea, and they're back 60, whatever.

Yeah, so because they're basically, have added Apollo 9 back into the program of testing the stuff in Earth orbit. the rendezvous and I assume and the docking with the lander and what lander we'll see because two companies are building landers, but it's the same concept as Apollo 9 test that stuff in Earth orbit. And then if you have, you don't have all the problems of getting to the moon while you're testing those critical pieces of what will become Apollo 11 or, I guess, Artemis 4 at this point. Yeah. It's interesting too, because.

because when I was learning about each of the Apollo missions, which happened in rapid succession, so I'm glad that we're speeding up the Artemis missions. But I remember thinking when I first read through it, like, really? Like, you didn't actually test that docking maneuver until Apollo 9? Like, you'd already gone around the moon. But actually, seeing the way that Artemis is falling out, that timeline actually makes a lot more sense to me. The Apollo? Yeah.

Certainly having that, inserting those tests in there is. is a good plan. Test, test, test, test. That's so important in the space business because everything's so dang complicated. And Apollo was dicey and exciting, but they pulled it off. I mean, after, obviously, after the Apollo 1 disaster. But that was quite the timeline they pushed. But they also dumped a big pile of money on speeding things up,

as Casey has documented extensively on our website. Yeah, I was interesting hearing that too, that effectively we're trying to pull this off in a time when we have one third of the budget that they did at NASA. And they were just mostly dedicated to the lunar program back then. So I'm intrigued to see how this falls out, given that we have less resources. And, you know, we lost a quarter of all NASA workers last year. So between those things and the commercial factor, there's a lot of balls in the air. But it's going to be interesting to see how the whole thing pans out. But also nice to see that they're developing a more robust plan because we want people to be safe as they go to the moon.

And the more moon missions, the better. So I'm just going to call it a win. Okay. Yeah. Cool. You know what I'm going to call it. A random spaceback rewind. To help you understand, you know, how hard it is to get to the moon.

I'm sure you have an inherent feeling for exactly how wide the Earth is. Well, maybe not, but, you know, it seems big to me. About 30 Earths would fit between the Earth and the Moon. That is a long way. It's a lot of Earths. That's a lot of Earths. Man, I was thinking too earlier today about, like, how fast you've got to be moving to get to the moon, given that distance, like, in a reasonable time.

And then how fast everything must be moving as they're trying to do these docking maneuvers around the Moon. And that's just an intense level of physics. It is, but harkening back to the horrid concept of reference frames, you know, you're moving relative to each other. So you subtract out most of the thousands of kilometers per hour that you measure relative to the moon. And you're both doing that. So you're really dealing with pretty hopefully small numbers when you're doing docking. But that's the weird thing because the lander like has to launch. off the moon super fast in order to achieve the same kind of like speeds that the orbiter is going at.

Yeah. Like that's just an impressive bit of technology. Yeah. Well, it's not like it's not rocket science. Wait. All right, everybody, go out there, look up the night sky and think about your favorite episode of the $6 million man. Thank you and good night. We've reached the end of this week's episode of Planetary Radio.

But we'll be back next week with more space science and exploration. If you love the show, you can get Planetary Radio t-shirts at planetary.org slash shop, along with lots of other cool spacey merchandise. Help others discover the passion, beauty, and joy of space science and exploration by leaving a review and a rating on platforms like Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Your feedback not only brightens our day, but helps other curious minds find their place in space through Planetary Radio. You can also send us your space thoughts, questions, and poetry at our email.

planetary radio at planetary.org. Or if you're a Planetary Society member, you can leave a comment in the planetary radio space in our member community app. Planetary Radio is produced by the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California, and is made possible by our members. You can join us,

as we all look to the moon together at planetary.org slash join. Mark Hilverta and Ray Paletta are our associate producers. Casey Dreyer is the host of our mother. Space Policy Edition, and Matt Kaplan hosts our monthly book club edition. Andrew Lucas is our audio editor. Josh Doyle composed our theme, which is arranged and performed by Peter Schlosser. I'm Sarah al-Ahmad, the host and producer of Planetary Radio.

And until next week, Ad Astra.