You were looking live at the Artemis II Space
Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft in the Vehicle Assembly Building.
Today, we are joined by agency leadership to discuss the Artemis
II mission and the next steps for the entire Artemis campaign.
Good morning, and welcome to NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
I'm George Alderman, NASA's deputy press secretary,
and I'll be moderating today's news conference.
I'm joined by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, associate administrator
Amit Kshatriya, and Moon to Mars program manager Lori Glaze.
Today, we'll be taking questions both in person and through our phone bridge.
So media interested in asking a question?
Please press star One to enter the queue.
And now we'll begin with opening remarks for Administrator Isaacman.
Thank you very much George.
Good morning everyone. Appreciate it.
Good morning. Appreciate everyone coming out.
We're seeing each other a lot lately.
Lots of updates.
Expect more of it.
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, and I know they're all feeling it after we had what was a near-flawless
wet dress to performance.
That Artemis two is now back, in the
in the vehicle assembly building, which is, 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 two now that it is back in the VAB
and what our path is, back out to the pad 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 let's talk about the situation.
Artemis one launched, more than three years ago.
We had helium leaks with Artemis one.
I'm sorry. We had hydrogen leaks with Artemis one.
We had helium flow issues with Artemis one.
Artemis two went out to the pad Watrous.
One, we had helium or we had hydrogen leaks.
And then
after a second wet dress where we we made a lot of, great progress,
we wound up with helium flow issues, a lot of similarities
between the two.
And why, and why is that essentially the case?
Look, three plus year launch cadence.
I mean, Artemis three right now
is it's currently designed, won't fly for approximately another three years.
So launching, a rocket is important.
And this complex is 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
two campaign, and, you know, whether they're going to want to stick around
for three more years after this mission is complete is, 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, 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 eight and then going right to the moon.
And that is 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 a great extent possible.
We want to,
accelerate manufacturing,
pull in the hardware,
and increase launch rate, which of which
obviously has a direct safety, you know, 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.
Now, some people ask me questions on that already, as,
as we've talked about this and so, 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, 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 seven splashed down
to when Apollo eight launched is approximately two months apart,
we need to start getting back to basics and moving in 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 ten months.
And then,
we are going to add missions, in fact, are we are essentially going to,
pull in Artemis three to launch in 2027 with a revised mission profile.
So instead of going directly to a lunar landing, we will endeavor
to rendezvous in low-Earth orbit with one or both of our lunar landers.
Test out integrated operations between Orion
and the landers ecosystems.
You know, even to to the if even to the extent possible,
if we can get up development components of our Eva suits to test out
vehicle interfaces, even just getting an astronaut in a suit, 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 the landers
or in the suits before Artemis four, 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 ten month turnaround time that we would like to see,
Artemis two will launch on its historic mission in the weeks ahead, Artemis
three will have its opportunity, if we can by by mid 2027,
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 didn't, we're not surprising,
our, industry or our stakeholders, at this at this press conference right now.
We've been having these discussions for a long time.
In fact, I give a lot of credit to NASA and its team.
You know, they and 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, in this approach.
They know this is how NASA changed the world
and this is how NASA is going to do it again.
With that, I'll hand over to Amit.
Thank you sir.
Let's see the the path forward that the administrator laid out,
I think is pretty clear.
It reduces risk.
It strengthens our ability to execute these missions.
And and a campaign ahead of us.
It it reflects
the adjustments that we need to keep our schedule credible.
And, and our teams focus on what matters most, which is safe and achievable.
Missions.
And also, I think it's important that we talk a little bit
about the Artemis two crew.
This is for them
also when, when,
when they get on top of that rocket, they need to know that they're doing it
as part of a step and a part, as part of a plan that's going to work
that they have said many times, they're doing this mission
so that their teammates can walk on the moon.
They need to know that they're going to get on top of that rocket
so that we and we're going to give them a plan for the rest of their team.
That's going to be a sign that's going to go do this work
to actually get to the moon.
So our update today reinforces that commitment to them
when we asked them to take that risk.
When we take that risk together, that they're doing it for a reason.
So we're going to build that program grounded in safety, incremental
learnings, technical excellence and long term sustainability.
So I think it's, you know, our commitment to flight readiness.
This is not about slowing down momentum.
This is about increasing it about making sure that we are focused
on the right things in terms of how we execute the program.
We need to get back to doing the workforce initiative that the administrator
has directed us to, to, to, to implement is the absolute key ingredient to this.
We need to get our teams working side by side
with our partners outside and get this work done.
So it's challenging.
It's ambitious.
But with this course correction, we are in a more stable foundation,
a more realistic path to the milestones we have ahead.
And we're so grateful
to the teams across the NASA centers, across all of industry that's helping us.
We have
the entire force of American industry now helping us with the Artemis campaign.
We are grateful to them for their support.
They have been relentless in driving progress,
and we need them to be even more relentless to achieve these missions.
And this plan that we're laying out today makes that possible.
So with that, I'll hand it over to a Doctor Glaze,
talk about Artemis II thank you Amit.
I'd like to start by thanking the administrator
for taking this incredibly bold step and moving 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 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 two.
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 ICP, the upper stage of the SLS.
That occurred as we were doing the reconfiguration of the, 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 ten engines of the upper stage.
So while,
we have the ability to access the boosters 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 or 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 to 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 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 of the pad.
So we've probably 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 items that are already stowed in the Orion crew module there.
Some of those, came out and we need to replace them.
So we'll 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
and when we roll back out, we will definitely let everybody know,
and, just again, to return to,
Administrator Isaacman statements, beyond Artemis two.
I know that our team is up for this challenge.
We are ready, and we are ready to get started on that.
Thank you.
Will now take your questions.
Please ask one question at a time so we can get it to as many of you
as possible. We'll circle back.
If we have time.
We'll start with a question here in the room,
but if you're joining us via the phone bridge, please
press Star One to enter the queue and I'll take our first question.
Well.
Hi. Thanks.
Will Robinson Smith with Spaceflight Now.
Thank you all for taking the time this morning.
To the administrator, associate administrator.
The plan for the revamped
Artemis is three to rendezvous with one or both of the HLS providers.
Can you speak to the importance of that?
Components of, doing Artemis three in low-Earth
orbit? And,
I guess how soon,
given where both of those HLS vehicles are,
you know,
how feasible that might be to to dock with them
as opposed to just sort of rendezvous
and getting in proximity with them in low-Earth orbit?
Thank you.
So I'll begin and, welcome.
It's an additional inputs on this.
I think one of the,
you know, one of the challenges, but also one of the greatest opportunities
that comes from both our, HLS providers is the ability to return
America to the moon, not just again for the flag, in the rocks,
but to be able to actually build out that enduring presence.
So what they're taking on is technically very challenging,
but a lot of that involves whether it's on orbit prop transfer for
prop transfer or rapid reusability because it necessitates lots of launches.
We we don't find ourselves in that situation for a low-Earth orbit
rendezvous.
So this is an opportunity to test out the vehicle
we know they're capable of doing is not as much of the technical process.
The most demanding process is how to get that vehicle to to the moon.
So it's it's a perfect opportunity for us to, you know, test the interface out
between Orion and that vehicle to actually get,
you know, humans in the vehicle, start looking at the systems.
This is all going to help take down risks for subsequent landing.
Know, I
think, you know, for Adams, who we're doing, on orbit,
handling of the vehicle to test out rendezvous techniques.
A low-Earth orbit rendezvous is a bit more challenging than a Leo rendezvous,
just because the external environment and external networks are different.
But as the administrator said, I mean, this was in the plan.
We have to be able to to mate with with these vehicles.
We have to talk, we have to ingress, we have to do those things anyway.
But the point of the sequence is to is to really recognize the production
risk in the enterprise and the development risk, and production
risk is the flight rate on the Earth ascent systems.
That's also Orion. The development risk is prop transfer.
So if we the way to to burn a common target there if you will, is to
is to conduct a mission that accepts those risks as real
and then but still make as much progress as we can
to challenge both the production side and the development side at the same time.
Take our next question. Yes.
Thanks.
Irene Klotz with Aviation Week.
For anyone who wants to take this, what does the revised
Artemis three architecture require?
Or, would you like to, for any of the HLS is to demonstrate the on orbit
refueling component, or does that fall off for Artemis
four and, for Artemis for,
if you're looking to fly in early as 2028 and you need a new upper stage,
presumably it's still LOX and LH, what's available
on that short notice?
Yeah, I think,
you know, first, we're not going to get into any specific,
manufacturers name or the associate contracting process beyond that.
As I mentioned,
we've been discussing with industry the strategy for several weeks right now.
Everyone acknowledges it's the right path forward.
So we obviously have confidence in our ability to, source and integrate,
you know, a more standardized second stage to fulfill missions beyond Artemis,
Artemis three in terms of,
you know, our HLS providers, they have both,
I think very publicly, submitted proposals for their acceleration strategy.
That does take down
some of the, you know, the technical risk associated with the proposal.
And we've said publicly that we support both in this regard.
I don't think that,
what you're referring to, like, on orbit prop transfer, is necessarily
going to be required for the demonstration that we are imagining for Artemis three.
But we haven't fully you know, we are very early in mission design here.
We all have arrived at the point that this is the really the only pathway
in order to, to achieve success with a lunar
landing within the timeframes that we are targeting.
But I wouldn't I think part of the reason to do this in low Earth
orbit is it does not necessarily require what what what both,
what both HLS providers will eventually, necessitate, which is either
lots of launches or on orbit prop transfer to get their vehicles to the moon.
To the next question from here.
Thank you. Ken Kramer, SpaceX up close.
I think this is fantastic what you've proposed here.
It's exactly what's needed. So
can you talk about these landers a little bit?
They're gonna I would, I guess, have to be vastly simplified
from what
was proposed with those prop transfers in order to accomplish this so quickly.
I know they're working on updates.
Can you can can you let us know at all?
And where does the gateway fit in all this?
Thanks.
To to be clear, both HLS providers,
have offered solutions to accelerate their plans without compromising on,
the grander objective, which is we need to build out an enduring presence.
So when we return to the moon, we have the capability to stay.
So while they're there, proposals again,
do take down some of the technical risks that would have existed before.
We are not foregoing the capabilities that I think are absolutely necessary
for America's future in space.
So, to be to be clear on that, on
that point specifically in the gateway,
I think I mean, at this at this point, we really want to focus the meeting
to the greatest extent,
because to be honest, this can be, you know, somewhat of the problem.
You know, the hardest thing right now is returning American astronauts
to the surface of the moon.
We obviously haven't done that more than 53 years, I think, by,
you know, focusing a lot of time, energy and resources across
lots of grand endeavors is why you wind up in a situation where you're launching
an incredibly important but complex vehicle every, every three plus years.
So I say that not in in to make a statement towards,
gateway, because we are doing this to get back to the moon and have the capability
to stay, certainly to build, a moon base, which is going to be ideal,
which can be an ideal learning environment for us,
to test out
the operations, in situ resource manufacturing, refining,
all the capabilities are going to be necessary
for the next giant leap to to Mars and beyond.
But I say with with focus for this, this conference specifically, we got to
we got to keep the the attention on standardization
and flight rate as our path to get back to the moon.
Our next question will come from Marcia
Dunn with the Associated Press.
Marcia Dunn.
Isaacman hum.
How much did the recent, problems with Artemis two,
especially mimicking Artemis one?
How much did that play into your decision to,
shake up the Artemis mission profile?
And how disappointing are you to have to,
wait perhaps even longer to to land astronauts on the moon?
Thanks.
Well, first, I'm not disappointed at all.
I'm excited because I think we have a path here
to actually get the job done within the timeframes,
that we have, we have we have targeted right now.
I also,
I just want to point out this is something that NASA has known,
as I mentioned before, no one here at NASA forgot their history books.
The plans to do this the right way have existed for a long time.
We are in a fortunate position right now where you have a presidential national
space policy, which aligns whole of government on what's necessary.
You have congressional support through appropriation,
and you have President Trump's, one big, beautiful bill, the work now
working Family Tax Cut Act that gave us the plus up and resources
within our exploration budget to undertake this endeavor right now.
So, I would I would tell you that we would have been delivering
this exact same message to you today had, this been free.
That was the that was the plan.
But I think we have to put even
more urgency around it, because this is not the F.R that we we initially intended.
You know, the American
public deserves the update on Artemis two and the historic mission that's, ahead.
But you also have to know how we're going to achieve the vision
that presidents have called for, for more than 35 years.
Our next question will come from Josh, dinner
with Space.com.
Hi. Thanks so much for doing this.
Josh, our Space.com, for Administrator Isaacman, you're standardizing SLS,
pushing toward a ten month launch cadence and revising Artemis
three to an honorable rendezvous next year.
With up to two 2028 landings, which all sounds kind
of fairly accelerated for a deceleration of the program.
What specific risk are you buying down with that Leo rendezvous?
And are you anticipating demonstrations with multiple HLS vehicles on that
mission?
And how are you ensuring that schedule itself doesn't erode margins?
The safety advisory panel has already warned are thin for Artemis three.
Yeah.
So actually, I think what we're doing
is directly in line with what ASAP, asked us to do.
I mean, look, just zooming out here, I think it should be incredibly obvious.
You don't go from one uncrewed launch, of Orion and SLS.
Wait three years, go around the moon, wait three years and land on it.
That's what, our, our ASAP committee took, took issue with.
That's what we've acknowledged inside the leadership of NASA.
NASA's been working on these plans.
Knowing this is not the right approach.
There has to be a better way in line with our our history on.
And again, we did not just jump right to Apollo 11.
We did it through Mercury, Gemini, and lots of Apollo
missions with a launch cadence every three months.
We shouldn't be comfortable with the current cadence.
We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know work.
So how are we going to buy down risk on it?
I would certainly much rather have the astronauts
testing out the systems in the integrated systems of the lander.
And, Orion in low-Earth orbit than on the moon.
Like them to get in the suits for the first time,
even inside the vehicles doesn't necessarily
have to be an Eva before they actually walk on the moon in them.
So everything about this mission, and even though it's, it's it's
it's beyond conceptual.
We've obviously coordinated with our partners on this,
but the full mission design objectives are will be revealed shortly.
I'll just say it's certainly in the direction of buying down
risk before we put our astronauts on the surface.
And our next question will come
from Richard Tribble with the Orlando Sentinel.
Hi. Thanks.
Hi. For the Carson.
Hopefully you can hear me.
Well,
about the, increase in workforce, the civilian workforce.
What does that mean for, like, personnel at, Exploration
Ground Systems or specifically Kennedy Space
Center for the agency overall.
And is the,
is there a concern about the flow
of hardware from Orion or SLS?
Potentially.
Are you going to have an Orion capsule for a potential Artemis S5,
in 2028 at this pace?
Thank you.
Yeah. So I'll kind of work backwards from there.
As I mentioned before,
we're not here today to surprise industry and our stakeholders.
We've been having these conversations for weeks now.
I've spoken to the leadership
at every one of the prime contractors that contributed to the SLS program.
Everyone's behind us and they've all said the exact same thing.
This is the only way to get the job done.
So, there's a lot, a lot of work we have to do here at NASA to prepare.
Part of that goes to the second, second component of your of your question,
which is we've got to we've got to rebuild our core competencies.
Now, is this, you know, I mean, the the overall, workforce count increases at KSC.
I don't know, the answer to that.
Specifically, I would say that there is, a lot of contractors
which do fantastic work that should be civil servants.
That's kind of the heart of the workforce
directive right now, 75% of our workforce right now is contractors.
I think a lot of them should be civil servants.
I think we should have those capabilities in-house.
You know, we should have the ability
to make changes and adjustments as we see fit because we are NASA.
We did all this the first time.
We know an awful lot.
And this is going to be our kind of pathway back to the moon.
So, lots of collaboration with industry.
They understand what the ask is.
They know we're going to need to pull in hardware.
That's why we're standardizing the configuration.
You're not going to be able to do that if every rocket is a work of art,
you're going to inevitably learn the same lessons and over again.
So standardize, increase production, pull everything
in, which allows you then to increase your your launch rate.
And yes, we need to rebuild a lot of our workforce here to,
bring them in as civil servants and, and get back that muscle memory
to turn the page.
And in less than a year, because we've done it before and we can do it again.
And our
next question will come from Eben Brown with Fox News.
Please do something
that. Hi.
Good morning. Thanks for doing this.
I think this question is probably best for the administrator.
When President Trump first announced the Artemis, project,
a project back in 2017, he wanted to see a lunar landing by 2024.
That was obviously not missed.
This, despite perhaps being an integration of better practices,
does once again push that that goal
a little further into the future.
The president hasn't said much about this really at all, I don't think.
But, you know, what's the overall attitude coming out of the administration here?
I mean, are they happy with this?
Not happy with this or or, you know, what's the, you know,
how does the the agency itself, react to that pressure
that or that may or may not be there coming from the administration to,
to keep this on track as much as possible and, and,
you know, make sure that there aren't unnecessary slips and timelines.
So be clear.
President Trump love SpaceX.
President Trump created the Artemis program.
We obviously resumed operational, flight,
for our astronauts to and from space during, during the president's first,
during the president's first term, he created the Space Force.
He, he signed a national space
policy on my first day on the job in the Oval Office.
That not only recommitted American astronauts to the moon,
but to build out a lunar base.
And not only that, start making investments in the next giant leap
capabilities like nuclear power and propulsion so we can, you know,
eventually have American astronauts put the stars and Stripes on Mars.
I've spoken with him numerous times leading up to my second,
you know, nomination for this position.
About our strategy, the importance of the lunar base.
He checks in, with great frequency.
The Artemis two astronauts were at the state of the Union.
I was, as well.
This is a priority for the administration.
I think that, you know, there are there are certainly questions of why
we didn't make some of these decisions like we are today,
in terms of standardization and increasing flight rate in the
in the years past, I think President Trump wants to correct that now.
And he's given us all the ingredients to do it.
And national space policy, congressional funding,
and the the plus up from the one big beautiful bill is what enables us
to undertake this course right now of standardization and acceleration
for an achievable path to get American astronauts
back on the moon before the end of his term. I know he's fully supportive.
We'll take the next question now
in the back, in the beige, please.
Do you think that some of the budget cuts
that we've had recently have contributed to that low flight rate, and
would you say that we have the resources and funding to increase that flight rate?
And sorry, I just have a logistics question.
So can you just clarify the Artemis three timeline here?
You mentioned mid 2027 and 2028.
And I just want to clarify are those two landing attempts.
And then would you be,
launching in 2028?
I'm just trying to wrap my head around that. Sure.
I mean, let me just address the the there were no budget cuts to to NASA.
We actually had historic funding last year between,
you know, the consistent
funding through the continuing resolution plus the, the, the plus up from the,
the one big beautiful bill or the working family, tax Cut Act.
NASA had historic funding last year, which is the only reason why
we are capable of, undertaking this right now.
So, so I'll just pause on
that point in terms of, again, to be very clear, because I know
we're we're moving around here a little bit.
Artemis two is going to launch in the weeks ahead.
Ten day mission, historic mission to go around the moon.
It's going to allow us to to test out, the Orion spacecraft.
Artemis three will launch ideally by mid 2027.
So this is now getting us back in the rhythm here of increasing,
launch cadence with with SLS and Orion spacecraft.
Our objective there.
And we've spoken with both our, our landing providers on
this is to rendezvous with one or both landers.
That's an opportunity for us to test out integrated operations between Orion
and the lander, which is important.
That will be a crew rated vehicle someday.
There's ecosystems we're going to want to test out.
It's another opportunity for us, maybe to get our suits up there before
the astronauts actually have to wear them on the surface of the moon.
If we can't make that timeline with suits, we have other opportunities
to get them up to International Space Station.
But we do consider that a priority, which then sets up for Artemis
four and five, potentially in 2028.
We're not necessarily committing to launching two missions in 2028.
We want to have the opportunity be able to do that.
Next question
in the second row in the gray.
Thanks. Bill Harwood with CBS news.
I have about ten questions. I'm kidding.
I've got two questions.
For Jarrett, you mentioned the NSF earlier.
The report came out this week, and,
could you hear anything about what input they had in your decision making?
Because it seems like you've
you're addressing most of their primary concerns at least.
And then for Lori, I guess, I know you guys are focused on
these near-term flights.
We're not talking gateway today or whatever, but
will you continue work on Mobile Launcher two or does the work stop now?
And what about the Lunar Terrain Vehicle, which originally was part of, I guess,
Artemis five?
I mean, is it the same philosophy that's covering that we're going to stop
worrying about that stuff right now and focus on the near-term.
Yeah.
Sorry.
So with respect to the ASAP committee, I would say that,
it's it is interesting that a lot of the things that we are
addressing directly go to the points they raised in their report.
I can't say we actually collaborate on it because I generally think
these were all pretty, you know, obvious observations.
So yes, ASAP was rightful to call out some of the,
you know, some of our shortcomings and we should be addressing them.
It just happened to be in parallel.
So in any of my recent conversations with the committee, I said, look,
we are completely aligned.
I agree with every one of the points that you raised and we have to address it.
It just so happen to be, I mean, even our Starliner report
came out in advance of theirs. They didn't know that was happening.
It was just the right thing to do.
Just as our revised architecture and approach to achieving a lunar
landing is, is the right thing to do.
And I'll just say,
I mean to I know you addressed it to Lori, but maybe make it easier on her
a little bit in some of these questions about specific procurement strategies.
We are we are building a moon base.
You're going to build a moon base. You're going to need rovers.
You're gonna need lots of rovers. On the surface you need comms.
You're going to need navigation.
You're going to need power.
This is not lost on this is a high priority.
This is what's so important in the national space
policy is don't just go back.
Go back to stay. Right.
I would just say, you know, let's keep this conversation to a great extent,
focused on the hardest part where we haven't been able to do
in the last 53 years,
which is getting getting a good launch cadence
and sending American astronauts to and from the moon.
But I can assure you, all those things you, you asked about, you know,
are are going to be a component to the how we stay conversation.
Our next question will
come from Phillip Sloss.
Thanks.
The question is, does this mean
that NASA is canceling the exploration upper stage?
And if you're going to fly Artemis 3 in 2027, when is a crew
going to be named for that mission?
Thanks.
I feel like I'm taking all the air time here.
Right.
Yeah.
We're going to talk about contractual issues.
I mean, I think I understand
the intent of what we're discussing, which is, you know, making sure we, we,
we head towards reliability and standardization of it.
We're going to work with our partners and make sure we handle that
in the right way.
The the second part was for the crew.
Yeah.
Again, same way we're not here to do mission design, right?
We're not here to talk about that.
I think what's important is what we what we said at the end, the whole plan is
we need to chunk it into achievable objectives.
We with the whole plan, we've we've we've attempted it's been augmented by the,
the vision in the, in the, in the space policy that was released.
That whole plan needs to be discretized and chunked into the right way.
So we're taking incremental risk in the right ways as we continue to fly,
as we increase production, that increases reliability and increases safety.
And we're going to do all that together while we increase,
you know, our training rates and everything else.
So that that's all part of the integrated plan.
We're not going to do a whiteboard session on mission design here,
but I can assure you
that we we've thought through the top level
objectives, how they devolve into lower level objectives
and how we're going to put them into these missions.
Our next question will come from Leonard
David with Inside Outer Space.
Yeah. Hi.
Thanks for, pulling this all together.
And it's very exciting.
I think, for the administrator, when you had your back to back,
confirmation hearings, there was a lot of pressure,
of trying to beat China,
to get back to the moon to to what extent
does that play a role here?
Are we accelerating our plans?
What's your thinking about China today?
Because they're they probably are going to go,
maybe in the same kind of time frame.
Well, as I said during my hearing, I think competition is good.
I think it's a great way to, you know, motivate our,
our, our workforce and our partners again, to achieve the near impossible.
This worked.
Competition worked very well for us.
The 1960s turned out, in hindsight, we had near endless schedule margin there.
No. And no humans have been back since, since Apollo 17.
That is certainly not the case today.
I'd say this is a very, very close from a timeline perspective.
All that said, again, I think competition is good.
We're here talking to you about what is a common sense
approach to achieve the objective,
whether we had a great rival in the running or not.
If we're committed to going back to the moon, we have the resources to do it.
We again, we have a presidential mandate to get the job done.
What is an achievable strategy regardless of the competition?
And I can tell you, launching every three plus years is not the right approach.
You asked about the crew for Artemis three.
It is it totally correctly?
We got Artemis two ahead of ourselves right now.
We still have to get through mission design.
You assign a crew that gives you the best chance of success. But.
But I'll tell you, you've all had an opportunity
to really get to know our Artemis two astronauts over the last couple years.
It's actually not the desired approach.
We'd like to.
We'd like to announce a mission, tell you the objectives here, the crew,
and then fly it inside of a year, and then you start getting to know the next crew.
It's kind of how it worked in the 1960s.
We're going to try and get back to that now.
And our next question will
come from Eric Berger with Ars Technica.
Hi. Thanks very much for doing this.
So my earlier mentioned the speech, or the original first Trump administration.
And back in 2018, Vice President
Mike pence talked about, you know, going to the moon in 2024.
At the time, he said something
that really struck with me and said, you know,
if our current contractors can't do this, we'll find new contractors.
And I think that was this is kind of the most sweeping vision changed since then.
And obviously, the contractors, you know, both traditional
and commercial space have had challenges since then.
So I'm just wondering kind of what NASA can do to ensure its
commercial partners can can success.
Excuse me?
Can successfully deliver on these really aggressive timelines?
Thanks.
I would just say that similar to,
a, a recent conversation we,
we had with all of you, this is about this is largely about NASA.
When we talk about why we've why we've struggled our shortcomings.
I look internal first.
What could we have done differently?
That's why we're having this conversation right now.
I didn't, I didn't have a conversation with any of the prime contractors,
any of the partners
as it relates to this acceleration plan where they said it couldn't be done.
It just didn't have the conversation really up until now on this.
And I'm sure there's a lot of reasons for it.
And I've said some of it before, you know, we had a pretty
I won't say, you know, singular focus in the 1960s of getting to the moon,
because we did a lot of great, science and exploration at that time.
But we generally we're focusing on a couple key
needle moving objectives, which I talked a lot about during during my hearing.
You know, over the years since, you know, President
Trump during his first term, you know, started the Artemis program.
We've taken on a lot of interesting projects.
Some people have asked questions about them here in this room.
Tell you, the more multibillion dollar projects
you have, the more resources and attention it,
it captures, the less you launch lunar missions.
Right?
So, we're we're taking ownership of this.
We're taking responsibility of the objective,
the critical national objective that's been entrusted to NASA.
And how do you do it?
Well, you talk to your partners and you tell them,
we're going to have to start making some decisions. We're going to standardize.
We're not going to turn every rocket into a work of art.
We're going to increase launch rate.
We're going to do it in a logical, evolutionary way.
We're not going right to Apollo 11. That makes no sense.
What can we build up to gain confidence
so that when
we do embark on the true landing, we have the highest probability of success?
And that's what we're that's what we're doing right now.
So I'll tell you, today, this is, this is a NASA story.
Not saying we don't come back to you in a year and say that we have to make
some adjustments here or the vendor, but right now,
this is something that we need to own.
And that's what we're that's what we're sharing with you.
Next question will come
from Ken Chang with The New York Times.
All right.
Thank you.
So with this revision, you're using up
to five, you're using up the SLA surveillance as mandated
in the big corporate size going up premise.
Are you thinking about the follow on architecture
that you talked about after that?
Well, I think I've been,
Well, I'd say certainly our number one focus, is, is
what Lori spoke to you about previously, which is which is Artemis two.
That's our near-term, I mean,
most important human spaceflight mission in more than a half century.
We owe you an update on how we're going to get to the moon.
So we don't wind up in, in a situation where our our,
our vehicles are going back and forth to the, to the Assembly building.
And we've got enough in front of us on that.
But that said, I mean, I said it,
at the initial rollout conference, I've said it many times since President
Trump created a program program to return to the moon,
to build out a moon base that's going to require
lots of missions to and from the moon crew and cargo.
And, again, in a very affordable, repeatable way,
this architecture will naturally evolve just as it is today.
I can't tell you exactly what Artemis ten looks like.
I bet it's going to look very different than what Artemis
five is going to look like, as I'm sure it will be for Artemis 50.
That's the idea.
When you say you're going to go back to the moon and be able to stay,
take our next question from the room
up front.
The other gene. Right space up close.
I'd like to know what the altitude will be.
The lunar landing. Rendezvous. What would that be?
Low Earth orbit or distance from the Earth.
Just curious. Thank you.
Don't know.
Let's figure it out.
Yes. Ideally, you know, we want to put as much every time we take
the risk with the crew, right?
We want to make sure we get as much done right.
And so we're going to we'll get into an orbit
that's achievable for as many docking and mating operations as possible.
As meant as much, you know, environmental similarity,
to what we would experience, you know, in during the landing mission.
So we're going to,
we're going to take all those objectives and put it into the design.
But I can't tell you that the orbit yet.
Our next question will come from Kristen
Fisher with the endless void.
Hi there.
So, I think my question is for the administrator.
You know, we've talked
a lot about the Artemis two crew, but how about the rest of NASA's astronauts?
I mean, they've now got this
kind of exciting bonus mission that they could be assigned to.
How did you all inform them about these changes?
And how soon after Artemis two returns,
do you all anticipate naming the Artemis three crew?
Thanks.
So I've obviously I've, I've shared this,
you know, this program change this direction change
for achieving the lunar landing, with the Artemis two crew.
I've also had a chance to speak with leadership from, the astronaut, office.
I don't think anyone was surprised.
Like I said, there's no one who comes to work at NASA
that forgot their history book. They know how we got there before.
I'd also say, generally, astronauts prefer to be in space as often as possible.
So this is probably welcome news.
You know, so, yeah, I think everybody is pretty,
pretty supportive in this direction in terms of Artemis three astronauts.
Like I said, we're not going to get ahead of ourselves on this.
Artemis two is coming up. First.
We're going to use this time, to kind of,
go through mission design with our, our HLS, providers.
What do we think is conceivable?
What are the the most pressing objectives?
I think obviously high level.
We know what will help.
By down risk for the landing.
And then you assign a crew that gives you
the best chance of success based on, on those objectives.
I hope you, get to know them well, cheer them on, support them,
and then meet the next crew shortly thereafter.
Our next question will come from Joey Roulette with with Reuters News.
Hey, thanks.
Question for Ahmed and Jared.
Whoever wants to answer,
just real quick, is the exploration upper stage canceled?
And if so, do you expect to compete or sole source its replacement?
And then kind of more broadly,
you know, this new test mission
and a new USS upper stage and doing on orbit refueling and all that,
it seems like a lot of work to do in the next two years before a moon landing.
And so I think that
begs a lot of questions, but mainly, what is the acceleration plans
from SpaceX and Blue Origin, and when will that be baked into this architecture?
Thanks. So,
I'll go back to we're not talking about contractual issues.
We're not going to talk about that.
We have the full support of our industry partners to make sure we
we standardize the configuration and do the right thing.
So that that's just that we'll just leave it that the
how we're going to do this, you know, in terms of the hardware
we have available, I think it's also important to recognize,
I mean, this is we didn't just,
decide to do this today without making sure we assess the inventory.
The hardware that we have available and in the program we've been talking about.
This is the best in the program for a while.
Just to make sure, because we understand the risks,
the risk profile, we have a unique confluence of of support and vision
and leadership that enables us to do it now, which is why we're doing it now.
But to be clear, we're rolled out a V3 Starship just yesterday.
CSM three is in the factory already.
It's about to be made it together. The heat shield is ready to go.
We're going to meet both of them together.
CSM four is also being populated with hardware.
ESM four has been delivered from Bremen.
The core stage setup for fits the core stage number three.
Is that Masood ready to be shipped here in a couple of months?
With the end of the section for Artemis three is already here.
You know, the barrels for our items, for their items,
for core stage are being rolled. We have all the tools available there.
ML two is 90, 90% complete.
It can be configured however we need to.
All of that hardware is flowing towards the Cape.
We just need to get on with it.
We we have to get our workforce side by side with the teams out in the field,
put this out there
and start working on the hardware, start focusing on the right things and do it.
We can do it. We just need we need it.
We need the energy.
We need the vision and we need the plan to make sure we go do it.
And that's what we're going to work on.
Next question will come
from Jeff Foust with news.
Good morning.
Question for the administrator.
Over the next few years, do you think these changes,
will result in sort of a net cost savings
by standardizing SLAs and not developing the block one B version,
or additional costs by accelerating the pace of missions,
and then maybe just a quick question for Lori on Artemis two.
When do you need to roll back out to the pad,
to be able to support a launch in that early April launch window?
Thank you.
Yeah.
So I'm not going to get into the the PNL here.
As you mentioned, there's obviously some some puts and takes if you standardize,
if you standardize the vehicle, not every one of them again, is a is a work of art.
You're going to save costs.
This is what all of our, manufacturers have been asking for.
It's why everyone got around this program.
So, so quickly. No one likes to do lots of one offs.
Same is applicable for how we want to approach our our lunar landing.
Like let's do let's let's define some criteria and template this
I'm sorry this respect to the moon base.
And then you can forecast lots of demand to industry
so they can get good at what you need them to do.
To everyone I'd say is pretty aligned on that.
Now, at the same time, we're also you're asking people to work faster.
We're talking about hiring and bringing in workforce.
So there are areas there where we expect savings as a result of this approach.
There are areas we expect to spend more.
We do believe that we have the resources available to achieve this.
I guess I'll leave it at that.
And as far as the the roll out
question, you know, we are working diligently,
to make the changes that I mentioned at the beginning.
The work that needs to be done within the VAB,
we will need, you know, at least, you know, week and a half or so ish,
out of the pad, to prepare for launch.
Certainly provide an estimated rollout date when we have that available.
Next question will come from Micah
Madan Berg with the Wall Street Journal.
Hey. Good morning.
Maybe for the administrator.
Can you explain a little bit how the new Artemis plan was put together?
Was this something that was on the shelf when you started
or brought in with you, or came up after starting?
Is there a person who's, like, kind of the brainchild for this plan?
Thanks.
Yeah, I'd say that this was we we gravitated towards this very quickly.
And, you know, when, look, obviously, again, it's a huge team effort,
but when, and, and I started discussing this subject,
he said, we have a plan.
So again, there's a lot of people here at NASA
that didn't lose their history books, understand the right way,
to go about achieving,
you know, an incredibly challenging objective like this.
Now, you know, if there is, as Ahmed is also pointed out,
we are in a situation now, where between,
a national space policy that aligns whole of government
congressional appropriations, and the plus ups from the one big, beautiful bill
we can, act on a plan, that gives us the highest probability of success.
We'll take our next question
up here in the front row.
Hi, Cameron Schwartz for the Launchpad Network.
Thank you for your time and all the updates today.
I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I did want to ask about the increased
cadence and what sort of mission, profiles that unlocks for you guys.
And do you expect SLS to kind of be a big part of building the moon base?
Yeah.
So I think, you know, like, like the boss said, we have to we're going to use the
all the hardware.
We have to achieve these missions or put the objectives together as we've decided.
You know, it's pretty clear, you know,
we have to be able to demonstrate in space activity,
the launch cadence,
you know, reliable Earth ascent, reliable lunar descent and reliable lunar ascent
surface operations, all that has to be demonstrated. Right.
So we're going to
we're going to put those objectives
into the plan. We have we have scope that out already
because that was the kind of end state here.
But what we're trying to do is,
you know, put them into manageable chunks that we can actually fly
quick more quickly because that that pace, that cadence is what really will lead
to reliability and safety. And that's what we need to do now.
We have the hardware we have. We're going to work.
We're going to do everything we can to to utilize it to the maximum extent.
And then as we said, we have all of industry supporting this.
And so whatever hardware we have going forward,
we're going to we're going to take advantage of to,
to provide that regular cadence.
Next question will come from
Marcia Smith with Space Policy Online.
Thanks so much.
I'm assuming that you have reached this to the relevant people in Congress.
I'm learning what the reaction is, especially to your decision to eliminate,
the block one B and the, block two of SLS,
which was part of the 2010 Mass Authorization Act.
So is Congress behind this as well?
We've, as I mentioned, we're we we try not to have a,
we try to maintain a no surprises policy here, at NASA to do the near impossible.
Takes the contributions from everyone.
We want to be very aligned before we go public on a matter like this.
So we've spoken to industry.
Can you can you meet the demand?
The answer is yes.
Go. We've certainly spoken to all of our our our, stakeholders on the Hill.
They all understand, that this is the path forward.
And I would say I,
I don't think I heard a single, objection on these subjects.
Like, everyone understands what's at stake here.
I mentioned before, we don't have a lot of schedule margin here.
You know, the implications of coming up short go well beyond,
space.
I mean, this does, you know, this is, you know, America in 1960s.
You get to the moon, you do what no one thought was possible.
It sends a message. I wonder what else they're capable of doing.
You come up short,
it sends the opposite message of where else could, something be broken?
I think everyone understands that fact that industry got behind this,
I think, makes it very easy for our very supportive partners
in Congress to get behind it.
And and honestly, they helped enable us, in this regard
through the Working Family Tax Cut Act, through the one big, beautiful bill
that is giving us the resources to be able to,
to undertake this not and I will just say again, you know,
all the national security implications of actually meeting an objective is
important is getting to the moon and building a base to side
in the competition associated with it.
There is simply a right and wrong way to go about doing this,
launching every three years and changing the massive changes
in the configuration of the vehicle is not a recipe for success.
And again, I think all our stakeholders and all our partners understand that.
Next question
in the back in the green.
Yeah.
Good morning, Melanie Holt WFTV and really I'm looking for a clarification.
You've made a lot of major announcements in terms of these Artemis updates.
Artemis three specifically,
is the goal still a lunar landing or has that
mission profile somehow changed?
Artemis three will be a, rendezvous
with one or both landers in low-Earth orbit in 2027.
So we're basically, pulling in Artemis three and recognizing
just the reality that going right from a, a free return
around the moon to landing on it is too big of a gap.
And we cannot accept the flight rate of a vehicle this important and complicated
every three years.
So we're going to launch, in a year from now, in 2027,
then start taking down risks for the eventual landing.
So Artemis three will be a rendezvous and low orbit with one or both landers.
And then Artemis four and Artemis five.
We'll we will we will endeavor to have two opportunities in 2028
to attempt a landing
just to
maybe help, because I know folks are trying to process,
the Artemis campaign is a test program, okay?
And we we do.
We talk a lot about these all up tests of SLS, Orion
and the missions where we put the crew on it.
We are doing tests at the component level,
at the assembly level all over the country all the time.
And I want you guys to start thinking about that aspect of it,
that that's what we're doing.
So these, these these are very important tests, these flights.
But every single one of these tests is important.
We're going to do an uncrewed demonstration.
With the landing missions we're going to do right now
we have a mach one, Blue Origin lander in the chamber, a Johnson.
We're doing,
you know, human in the loop testing with the axiom suits right now
that is also contributing to this end state, right.
So when you guys think about this, how we're doing,
if you want, if you want to, we we're not going to over specify
at each junction what goes in each particular flight.
What we're trying to tell you is
we are thinking about this now as an integrated test plan.
Those test objectives
has to be achieved as incrementally and as successfully as possible at every step.
Build on that learning at each subsequent step
to eventually lead to the ultimate objectives
which are set out in the in the policy and the direction we've been given.
We'll just say we
we do have a couple infographics that are gonna come out and help,
because we do recognize this is a little bit of a change.
So you can at least visualize what and what we imagine in Artemis
three and four and five, mission will look like.
We have time for one more question.
It'll be from you in the white. There.
Yes. Burt Dict from the National Space Society.
This is all very exciting.
As the administrator mentioned,
about the loss of muscle memory after a launch every three years,
I see the same impact on public perception
because a lot of the public didn't even wasn't even aware of what's going on here.
Do you see this as a byproduct, a good opportunity to enhance, the public
awareness and public engagement and public enthusiasm
about the Artemis program?
Well, for sure, I mean, we have no doubt, you know, it's mentioned
many times that it's, you know, it's a different environment than the 1960s.
There's more than three channels on a TV. So,
you know, capturing people's attention at times can be challenging.
I have no doubt.
When Artemis two, takes flight, the world will take notice to that.
And, and it's it is it's
going to be an exciting to me, the most historic mission,
human spaceflight mission more than a half century.
But, yes.
How do you how do you maintain, that momentum?
How do you keep the public engaged on it?
Well, certainly, flying every three years isn't the right approach to that. So.
Nor is it, as I mentioned before, even technically the right strategy
to achieve something as extraordinary as a lunar landing.
So, I am certainly hopeful
for all the operational technical benefits that come, with this new approach.
But I do believe it.
It helps keep the public engaged, which again, it
that's fundamental to what we do.
We want we want to see a lot more kids dressing up as astronauts on Halloween,
inspiring the next generation to take us a lot farther than the moon is
part of the plan
that will conclude today's news conference.
Thank you to all of the media who joined us,
and for your continued coverage of America's return to the moon.
As a reminder, you can follow along with the mission at nasa.gov/artemis.
Thank you, and we'll see you next time.