Two out of three ain’t bad.

-Now we have a clear path to the next decision, removing crew from Artemis II-

This morning, we awoke to the news, first reported by Eric Berger at Ars Technica, about a major shakeup in the NASA Artemis program – that assortment of NASA’s back-to-the-Moon projects. NASA Administrator Isaacman’s changes include an increased cadence to the SLS/Orion, so launching more often, and that the NASA Orion spacecraft will dock with landers in low Earth orbit for the Moon missions (not in lunar orbit), and that Artemis III would not land on the Moon (that will be Artemis IV).

I’ve written about these specific changes within the context of NASA’s decision to put a crew aboard Artemis II, only the second flight of the SLS/Orion system, after a first flight that, while not a failure, was by no means a success.

About the lack of cadence, and an SLS/Orion system that will never see reliability growth:

“Is there a way to square this circle? Perhaps. And in a way that brings along the near-term benefit of progress now, technical or otherwise, and even more benefit later, to reliability over the life of the SLS/Orion system. The trick is to realize that flying is good, and not flying is…not good.”

Artemis II, a calculated risk, or something else entirely?” Feb. 2, 2026

A system launching infrequently, with major element changes between those sparse launches, would never be a safe system. Now it appears that more than a few people in NASA leadership also finally realized this obvious fact. Or at least Isaacman did, and the timing was right for the shift. This is a good start. As Berger reports, a senior NASA official said, “Launching SLS every three and a half years or so is not a recipe for success.” So much more could be said here about how costs add up when not flying as fast as when flying.

See, “Artemis II will launch without crew, and Artemis IV will be the crewed lunar landing.” Dec. 8, 2025

I’ve also written about the advantage of having a NASA lunar spacecraft rendezvous with its lunar lander in low Earth orbit. (Forget that Gateway in lunar orbit.) One advantage is opening up the architecture to a more affordable spacecraft than Orion.

“Physics, budgets, and Scotty” covers part of this.

Notably, there will be issues for Orion or any other new lunar spacecraft, like an upgraded Dragon. I call one of these issues the kissing-fish problem. An Orion (or other spacecraft) mated to a refueled Starship in low Earth orbit must still leave orbit, meaning firing engines, transmitting forces along an axis that may be “nose-to-nose,” spacecraft to Starship. Not insurmountable. But an issue.

Especially worth pointing out for anyone who thinks the crew could transfer to Starship in Earth orbit and be on their way to the Moon (part of a misled crowd that believes crew could launch on a Starship soon, too) – “The SpaceX Lunar Starship, contrary to popular belief, cannot perform this prior task. The Lunar Starship, under a NASA contract, can travel from Earth to low Earth orbit and, when refueled by tankers from Earth, to Lunar orbit. It can then go from lunar orbit to land on the Moon and take off again, back to lunar orbit. But, it cannot leave lunar orbit back to Earth, for lack of propellant.”

Now, too, Artemis III will not be the Moon landing mission. But this is surprising only if you were not paying attention. Normally, NASA announces these obvious delays 6 months before the scheduled date advertised for years prior. We are ahead of the curve here. Though reality would have announced this particular change soon enough. As I’ve said before, but everyone (wink-wink) in the aerospace community knew this one already, Starship is unlikely to be ready by 2028. There’s boiloff and refueling to figure out, including docking the two ships, a NASA lunar lander version, and the tanker versions of Starship, and transferring propellant and so on. There are lunar uncrewed landings that must go well. Once, twice, successfully? Enough to show repeatability, eliminate risks, and show high confidence by data, understanding, and experience, not just because it worked once. No secrets here. But at least going with an increased SLS/Orion cadence fits – (“Artemis IV, well, that likely awaits a Starship, and if not, a shakedown cruise for the new upper stage, the EUS, launches instead.”)

The sum of it so far is a couple of significant changes. Cadence. Up. Well, SLS/Orion launching possibly “every 10 months”. (Don’t laugh now.) Integration in low Earth orbit, not lunar orbit. So, a system leaving for the Moon, where, should an Apollo 13 scenario present itself again, some “safe haven” exists for the crew, the other ship. Some other changes too, about canceling the Exploration Upper Stage, leaving further news to follow about a new “standardized” upper stage. (Meaning commercial? A Vulcan Centaur? News at 11.) The last matter means redoing the launch tower and facilities that service any upper stage, as Berger says, currently “a clown show.” (He is being kind.)

Much of this, as Berger also summarizes, was “well predicted” for some time or recommended.

Now, if only the last step were taken: removing the crew from Artemis II, launching them on Artemis III (if all goes well with II), and realizing that everything from Artemis I says this is the only defendable next step.

But for today, two out of three ain’t bad.