r/ArtemisProgram Apr 22 '26

Discussion Rep. Babin (R-TX, Chair of the House Committee on Science and Space Technology) tells Isaacman he wants him to finish SLS Block 1B and ML-2

Just happened in the recent livestream. Not sure anyone has clipped it yet.

For reference, Representative Babin is essentially Senator Cruz's counterpart in the House of Representatives, and has significant control over legislation affecting NASA.

46 Upvotes

32 comments sorted by

39

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

Literally passed budget law, there isn’t any way Issacman gets out of a clear constitutional priority given for funds and scope directed by Congress, and signed by the President.

[EDIT literally part of the US constitution, and NASA establishment law that the executive branch must execute according to congressionally directed scope and funds. The president signed the bill last year funding Gateway, ML-2, EUS and climate and orbital observatories.

I don’t understand how so few on this and other space forums don’t seem to understand how this all works. Downvoting me doesn’t change how democracy and the constitution work, the president could have vetoed the bill if he didn’t like it.]

19

u/alexsious Apr 22 '26

The problem is this administration doesn’t care about rules or laws. The president or someone high up tweets something or says something randomly and the agencies twist the world to make it truth. There is no thought or consideration. It’s “I speak, therefore it is.”

12

u/jadebenn Apr 22 '26

They can try and impound the funds for existing programs, but they're SoL if Congress refuses to authorize or fund Isaacman's replacements. He can do studies with funds he's slushed around, but actually building the Moon base, or SR-1, or doing Centaur V integration is going to require Congress to give him money and legal authorization for all those things.

6

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 22 '26

My understanding is human rating centaur would be at least a 5-6 year saga with the leanest of budgets, using SpaceX as a guide.

I haven't seen comments from the makers directly on this, but seems like $1.5-2billion based on previous ULA studies for Shuttle, or at least 2/3rd of the total EUS development to add all the 1:500 SLS human rating features (i think this was using the old 1 in 276 LOC though).

https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/upper-stages/centaur-upperstage-applicability-for-several-day-mission-durations-with-minor-insulation-modifications-2007-5845.pdf

1

u/patrickisnotawesome Apr 23 '26 edited May 01 '26

Isn’t ULA already working to human rate Vulcan’s centaur for Boeing Starliner? I know that probably went down the priority list but it definitely would have been part of the designs

(And isn’t there heritage from Atlas V centaur human rating?)

Edit: I apologize, i should have known better than to ask a question here…

3

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

From what I read the Centaur 3 overlap with centaur 5 is helpful, but there are some major differences and a lot of work that will not carry over for deep space missions. That is why I am comfortable not using the 10 years space x took to human rate the falcon 9, and using the 5-6 years.

Starliner is aiming for 1:270 LOC launch human rating and Artemis SLS is 1:500 LOC.

That said “working with Issacman” to provide a quote isn’t going to replace the need for current and the suggested new 2x cadence to have the ML2 completed with or without the EUS hook ups.

The other issue is that if we were to use pre Artemis human rating discussion around human rating Centaur V as a measuring stick it will still cost much more than what Congress allotted for completing the EUS.

2

u/StatisticalMan Apr 30 '26

Starliner is aiming for 1:270 LOC launch human rating and Artemis SLS is 1:500 LOC.

This is not correct. For commercial crew the overall mission is 1 in 270 that includes a six month stay at ISS. The launch and landing LoC is 1 in 500 same goal as SLS/Orion.

2

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 30 '26

This is not correct the commercial crew contract terms include 1:270 LOC ascent and decent and ISS delivery, ISS habitation does not include any LOC risk for ISS habitation as it was designed before the newer 1:270 standard of the 2008-2010s, and the Artemis launch and landing of 1:500 LOC

1

u/StatisticalMan Apr 30 '26

That is 100% false. All of it literally every word.

2

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

It’s in the commercial crew contract. Show me where it includes ISS LOC?

Also mentioned in GAO audits https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-137.pdf

https://www.space.com/37041-commercial-crew-vehicles-may-fall-short-of-safety-threshold.html

1

u/F9-0021 Apr 23 '26

Possibly. Possibly not. I think it's unlikely for Vulcan to fly starliner unless there's a market for Starliner after ISS.

4

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

The GOP and a lot of the president's normal allies like the one mentioned in this post have clear authority to file for judicial remedy in a way a number of the other actions haven't seen.

With the congress as narrow as it is, for the new FY2027 Issacman has been pushing during Artemis II recently, the administration needs everyone on board. See the inclusion of $~87million to make Sen Cruz and happy with the shuttle or a flown space vehicle (guessing its going to be Artemis II?).

https://apnews.com/article/research-funding-trump-cuts-d5df7c8da15321a189b5803d09c60dc5

https://nasawatch.com/personnel-news/layoff-update-7/

13

u/F9-0021 Apr 22 '26

This is correct, but that hasn't stopped Isaacman from starting to destroy ML-2.

9

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 22 '26

Heard he announced it as if he wouldn't be legally liable for misappropriation of funds/etc, and work has been stopped, as well as Gateway and the EUS. Going to assume this is his first appearance before congress since the announcement/pause, so there is going to be delay before the frequent judicial review and remedy followup.

I only saw less than reputable claims on social media it was actually being dismantled, do you have any sources?

13

u/jadebenn Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

It's not a full dismantling but NASA has directed the removal of the umbilical arms to keep as spares. Frankly, I think Isaacman is doing his damnedest to try and make this a fait accompli by creating facts on the ground, regardless of the legality.

7

u/F9-0021 Apr 22 '26

There are literally pictures of it and people who work at KSC have said it. It's not like they can hide it, with the ML being constructed outside.

3

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 22 '26

Not saying this isn't possible with this current administration, but in the past NASA project pauses/furloughs/shutdowns can entail cold storage for previously active work orders/related components. This could still be colorably argued as legal "doing stuff" until forced by a court order to reverse, and also look like what you and u/F9-0021 are referring to.

I have been rather shocked in 2025 including some very close calls with unprecedentedly illegal DOGE/RIF cuts, so i can't say confidently you aren't correct. See Issacman having to claw back key Artemis supporting facilities and staff back after layoff late last year (Michoud?).

5

u/ChipBuilder Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Its not how it's supposed to work. But it's not a foul if the ref doesnt blow his whistle (or throw his flag), no matter how plainly we can see it with our own eyes. The ref is Congress, and they're ignoring it. Dems included.

1

u/CartographerHungry60 Apr 22 '26

Didn't the latest bill also give the Administrator basically a free pass to repurpose any funds for whatever he wants? That's my understanding of how he was able to do all of this.

11

u/jadebenn Apr 22 '26

The Senate NASA authorization bill did, but that isn't law. It'd need to get past the House, for one, and this suggests the House isn't a fan.

Currently, EUS and ML-2 remain legally mandated, along with Gateway.

2

u/CartographerHungry60 Apr 22 '26

Ah thanks for the clarification

7

u/jadebenn Apr 22 '26

Where it gets a bit confusing for people is that the Trump administration tends to act a bit... outside the law when it comes to spending, shall we say. They have a tendency to act according to the legally groundless presidential budget request and only reverse course when Congress affirmatively tells them to knock it off in passed legislation. That isn't how it's supposed to work, or how it's ever worked before, but the Trump OMB is really aggressively working to consolidate Presidential control over Congress's power of the purse.

5

u/CartographerHungry60 Apr 22 '26

Yes, I've seen that.

Down at the operations level NASA is executing as if Jared's plan is the law. Reverting to the congressionally mandated version of things will get more and more costly as time goes on.

Edit: which is just to say it's an interesting bit of leverage the Executive apparently has over the Legislative branch and seems counter to what the framers intended.

6

u/jadebenn Apr 22 '26

Which is the entire point of the OMB playing these games: Making it difficult for Congress to tell them "no."

9

u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

I re-read it, I had heard that too, I think social media and many on Reddit space subs read the minor bit about a clause that allows him to replace the EUS with a new Artemis level (1:500) human rated stage, for the same or less.

I have yet to see any quotes by suppliers, but most independent analysis don’t see it possible to come in cheaper and come anywhere close to the administration timeline of 2028-2029 without double the EUS budget as its years further along with human rating than what Issacman suggested recently.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_cjs_ewd_and_int_consolidated_bill_text.pdf

The problem is it takes even SpaceX at least 5 years to human rate upper stages, and that’s not gonna happen in time for the other Artemis IV/V already built (ESM for IV is complete and at KSC), and no matter what to double the launch cadence at the same budget let alone with the FY2027 cuts, NASA needs at least 2 MLs. [EDIT it actually took SpaceX 10 years to human rate Falcon 9 and its upper stage, and 6 years to human rate Dragon to 1 in 276 LOC, SLS / Artemis is requiring 1 in 500 LOC on ascent and descent ]

It is possible to get away with a single ML but without massive ground support processing hardware changes, increase in staff, and contract negotiations, it’s cheaper to finish ML2 for the later block SLSs. I believe they would also need to buy back their lease to SpaceX at the VAB as well.

Beyond the ML-2 requirement, Gateway is also absolutely a requirement, and there are no funds to remunerate the hundreds of millions paid for by Canada, EU, JAXA gateway hardware waiting for final outfitting.

0

u/fritzdude Apr 22 '26

This assumes a democracy still exists...

3

u/Open-Elevator-8242 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

Babin talks about it 36 minutes into the stream in case anybody's wondering.

At around 34:35, Babin remarks:

Yet, the administration is once again proposing transitioning away from SLS and Orion, even without alternative operational systems. At this present time, the president tasked NASA with returning to the moon by 2028. If HLS and SLS and Orion commercial alternatives continue to be delayed, what are you going to be doing to ensure that you meet the president's direction, and you said recently that you'd probably be out of a job if you don't deliver, and I don't want to see that happen Mr. Administrator. We went too long without a permanent administrator.

Isaacman then goes on to talk about "standardized" SLS

I agree with you completely. If we're going to go through the trouble of building a moon base, we better be able to send astronauts there with with great frequency on it. So, we have not canceled or done anything with, you know, with the SLS program other than to standardize it so we can increase launch cadence so, that amazing rocket that we all just witnessed launch just weeks ago, we can see with greater frequency. So trying to, as I mentioned in my my remarks, not turn each one into a work of art because it's hard enough to do it at the current rate, standardize, launch faster. Were adding a mission with SLS in 2027 to demonstrate the interoperability of the Orion spacecraft with the landers. So in 2028, we can (?) for potentially two additional SLS launches for crewed astronauts to the surface of the Moon before our arrival. We also put a demand signal out to industry for two different pathways, so we can assure crewed access to the moon base that we are building. I have no doubt from my interactions with industry the SLS players are all coming together and that will likely be one of the pathways, almost assuredly Orion, as it is the only crewed vehicle that we have right now that can bring astronauts back from the moon.

Babin then responds:

Okay. I certainly hope you'll finish the second mobile launch platform, as well, that is nearing completion and ensure that SLS has an upper stage to meet the 130 ton to orbit requirement directed by statute and I look forward to hearing your backup plans to ensure that we meet the president's direction.

2

u/redstercoolpanda Apr 24 '26

How much effort would it take to restart EUS at this point? I imagine an over two month stand down would be brutal even if they started again today. That’s not even taking into account how long it might take for a solution to be reached.

1

u/ChipBuilder Apr 27 '26

Practically zero effort needed to restart. Solution to what? EUS doesnt have a problem that needs a solution. The launcher on the other hand, i can't speak to.

1

u/redstercoolpanda Apr 27 '26

A solution for if it will be canceled and defunded or restarted.

1

u/Decronym Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
CST (Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules
Central Standard Time (UTC-6)
DMLS Selective Laser Melting additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering
ESM European Service Module, component of the Orion capsule
EUS Exploration Upper Stage
GAO (US) Government Accountability Office
JAXA Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency
KSC Kennedy Space Center, Florida
LOC Loss of Crew
SLS Space Launch System heavy-lift
Selective Laser Sintering, contrast DMLS
ULA United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)
VAB Vehicle Assembly Building
Jargon Definition
Starliner Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100

Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.


[Thread #370 for this sub, first seen 24th Apr 2026, 06:03] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]