LC 41: Artemis III's 90 Days and the Dec 11 CR

MaxOkay, so get this. NASA's Moon schedule now has a cliff on it. Not a metaphorical one, an actual date circled with nothing printed after it.

BlakeMax, a calendar with a cliff is just December.

MaxFair. I'm Max, this is Landing the Moon, and Blake is here to keep me from making jokes about fiscal policy.

BlakeI'll fail. Go ahead, give him the number.

MaxNinety days. Talk of Titusville reported that NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman told employees in a September 20th memo that Artemis 3 is running about three months behind.

BlakeNinety days.

MaxNinety days.

BlakeTwo questions from me then. Which of those days can come back, and after the November midterms, who actually controls the money?

MaxWait, that's it, two?

BlakeTwo. Anything more, and we'll lose the plot.

MaxFine, but is that two questions about rockets or one about rockets and one about Congress?

BlakeOne of each. The first is hardware, and the second is the calendar, and we'll keep them in separate boxes as long as we can. I'll also flag what we're leaning on to recap rather than the memo itself so you know what's solid.

MaxHa, you say that like we've never lost a plot. Okay, first, what does the memo actually say? Okay, so get this. The memo blames valves, plain old valves, and thrust vector control actuators, and then landers, which it still treats as the long pole.

BlakeLong pole meaning the item everything else waits on.

MaxExactly. Everything else can finish early and it doesn't matter. Think of a relay where the last runner is still lacing shoes. The early legs don't count for anything.

BlakeSo for landers, long pole would mean the vehicle sets the pace even if other hardware is ready. Is that how you read it?

MaxThat's how it reads to me, though I only have the recap's framing. The practical upshot is simple. Early work on one piece is worth less if another piece is still late because the whole mission still goes when the last item is done.

BlakeMm. And before we build a whole episode on this, a caveat. This is a leaked memo, and what we're reading is a secondary recap of it. A recap site says NASA Watch published the original.

MaxFair. So we're holding a photocopy of a photocopy.

BlakeWhich is fine for direction, less fine for precision. Who leaked it and why now? Leaks aren't neutral.

MaxBlake, you've been waiting all morning to say that.

BlakeSince breakfast.

MaxSo how much should a leaked secondhand memo move us?

BlakeEnough to ask questions, not enough to rank anything. I trust the broad shape that valves, actuators, and landers are in play and treat every nuance as provisional until the original text is in front of us.

MaxOkay. But the actuators matter, so let me explain them. Thrust vector control actuators are the muscles that swing the engine nozzles. The rocket steers by pointing its thrust, and these are what do the pointing.

BlakeSo if they're late or fail testing-

MaxYou've got an engine that can't aim. And I'm not claiming anything about these specific parts. I'm saying what the category does.

BlakeNoted. What else does the recap say?

MaxIt says Isaacman and his deputies are pressing suppliers on the valves and the actuators. Personally pressing. That's not a delegated email.

BlakeOr it's what a leader wants staff to read he's doing.

MaxSure, that too. Now, the backup list is where it gets spicy because the recap says NASA is keeping options open.

BlakeWhich options?

MaxThe interim cryogenic propulsion stage alongside Centaur V, plus hardware for modifying Mobile Launcher 1, the pad structure.

BlakeWait. Keeping a backup open and having a backup are different things. Hedges cost money.

MaxOh, you're gonna love this part. Nobody in the recap says what any of it costs.

BlakeOf course not.

MaxRight?

BlakeAnd there's the bigger gap. The recap notes the memo doesn't say which items add up to the 90 days.

MaxHuh. No breakdown at all.

BlakeNone. Over to you, Max.

MaxOkay, so get this. Which days can come back? Honestly, anyone who tells you we can claw back 30 days is making it up.

Blake30. Why 30?

MaxThat's my point. I just picked it. No source.

BlakeGood, because I was about to ask for one. Any day count needs a source, and so far there isn't one for the split.

MaxFair. With the recap I'm working from does give us one dated item. An SLS tanking test is planned before the end of the year.

BlakePlanned, not done.

MaxPlanned. Notice I said planned.

BlakeNoted. What about Orion, since that one's the open item?

MaxOh, man. Artemis 2 launched April 1st, and an article published April 23rd said a new helium leak was looming for Artemis 3. It's been described as still open, and I can't tell you more than that today.

BlakeHmm. So we don't know if that's a week of work or a redesign.

MaxExactly. Nobody has said, and I won't invent it.

BlakeAnd if it is a small fix, does it still sit in line behind the valves, or can it run alongside them?

MaxI don't know, and the sources I have don't say. That's the dependency question. Some of these could proceed in parallel, some might queue behind each other, and without an itemized list, I can't tell you which.

BlakeAnd the pad? Blue Origin's pad blew up on May 28th.

MaxWait for it. Blue Origin began rebuilding Launch Complex 36 in SpaceNews reported that mid-June. That's less than three weeks after the explosion.

BlakeThree weeks? Seriously?

MaxSeriously. Bezos and CEO Dave Limp said they'd fly New Glenn by the end of 2026. Limp described a vertical way of installing the rocket that skips replacing the transporter erector.

BlakeWhich is the giant machine that lifts the rocket upright, yes?

MaxYep. So no new one to build.

BlakeThen my question is, who is saying this? It's the company.

MaxCompany-stated 100%, and SpaceNews noted many observers expected a rebuild of at least a year.

BlakeSo the company's promising to beat the skeptics' timeline by months. Skepticism seems warranted.

MaxPlot twist, I agree with you. So here's my ranked list of what has to go right, no numbers attached. First, the memos, valves, and actuators get fixed since those are the named problems.

BlakeSecond.

MaxThe Orion helium leak turns out to be a small fix. Third, the tanking test happens on schedule and passes. Fourth, the Blue Origin's pad claim holds up.

BlakeAnd if the fourth one slips-

MaxThen the lander side can't use whatever days the first three save

BlakeWhich makes the pad claim the one to watch, doesn't it?

MaxIt's the one carrying the most skepticism anyway. The first three are your ordinary engineering risk. The fourth is a company promise against a view that this takes much longer. I'd rather watch all four than crown one.

BlakeHardware is only half of it, though. Next comes the calendar on the money.

MaxOh, you're gonna want a coffee for that one. Okay, Blake, you said calendar on the money, so give me the calendar. When does the cliff start?

BlakeDecember 11th. The Congressional Research Service overview says the President signed HR 6500 on September 2nd, 2026. It's Public Law ,.

MaxCatchy. Does it come with a theme song?

BlakeRiveting, I know. Division A of that law funds all 12 regular appropriation bills, and it does it only through December 11th.

MaxOnly a continuing resolution, a CR.

BlakeRight. And here's the part that surprised me. The same CRS overview says no regular FY27 appropriations bills had been enacted. Zero.

MaxWait, none? We're a month into the fiscal year, and the full year bills are nowhere?

BlakeThe House had passed three. The Senate committee had reported none.

MaxOh, man, so the stopgap isn't a bridge to anything, it's a bridge to a bridge.

BlakeThat's a fair read, and the date moved too. The House wanted December 4th. The Senate version replaced it with December 11th, and the House then approved that Senate passed text on September 1st, per SpacePolicyOnline's coverage.

MaxOne week. Somebody negotiated for a week.

BlakeWhich matters because of where it lands. November 3rd is the midterms. December 11th is five weeks after.

MaxSo the lame duck Congress, the one that just got voted in or out, is the one deciding.

BlakeExactly. And NASA is sitting on a flat $24.4 billion until then.

MaxFlat as in no raise?

BlakeFlat as in last year's number. Space Policy Online's analysis of the budget request explains that a CR normally holds agencies at their existing levels. Nothing grows, nothing gets cut.

MaxHuh. So for a program that's behind and needs to spend more on fixes, flat is kind of a quiet squeeze.

BlakeMaybe. I'd be careful there, Max. I haven't seen anything saying this CR blocks a specific Artemis line. Flat is flat.

MaxFair. I'll hold the squeeze joke until you hand me a spreadsheet.

BlakeIt'll be a long wait.

MaxOkay, but explain the ramp-up worry to me. Why does a flat number bother anyone running a program like this, even in principle?

BlakeThat's general logic, not a finding from these sources. A program that expects to spend more as hardware gets built has a harder time on last year's level. But since no specific Artemis line has been named, I treat it as a question to keep asking, not a conclusion.

MaxBut the date itself is hard. Five weeks after an election with the new House and Senate math on the table.

BlakeYes. Who holds those seats decides how that negotiation starts.

MaxSo what's the practical difference between getting a real bill and getting another CR?

BlakeA bill sets actual numbers for the year. Another CR just extends the old ones, and the argument moves to a new date. Those are the stakes of the next five weeks as I see them, though I won't predict which way it goes.

MaxOkay, so the cliff is real, but is all the money behind Artemis standing on it?

BlakeAh, that's where it gets less scary than the headlines.

MaxOkay, so get this. Part of the Artemis money isn't riding on December 11th at all.

BlakeSay more because I've been staring at the request document, and it has two buckets.

MaxGo.

BlakeNASA's official FY2027 budget justification says the president's request for the agency is $18.8 billion.

MaxInside that, $8.5 billion is for Artemis and Mars-focused capabilities.

Blake18.8 against a flat 24.4 on the CR. That's a big gap. Hold on. That's the ask, not the law, and the same document cites roughly $9.995 billion in special mandatory appropriations from the 2025 reconciliation law, Public Law .

MaxMandatory, as in nobody has to vote on it again this year?

BlakeIt's available through September 30th, 2032. Different clock entirely. And the request frames the whole budget around a first Artemis crew landing in 2028.

MaxWait, so the White House is proposing a cut while leaning on money that's already sitting there?

BlakeBoth things are in the same document, yes. Whether Congress follows the ask is a separate question.

MaxOh, you're gonna love this part then. The cliff I kept joking about only touches the annual slice.

BlakeRight. And on that annual slice, Congress has so far protected SLS and Orion while the White House wants the lower number. That's the reporting so far, and I'd call that the current state of play, not a final ruling.

MaxSure, but follow the hardware. Valves, actuators, a pad, metal, not a spreadsheet.

BlakeWhich is why I'd say the money is settled enough that hardware is the bigger worry. That's the comfort.

MaxComfort? Dude, a multi-year pot doesn't weld an actuator.

BlakeNo, but it means a second CR can't strand the whole program overnight.

MaxFine, but it doesn't buy back one day either. You can fund a late lander forever, and it's still late.

BlakeI'm not claiming it buys days. I'm claiming it removes one way to lose more of them.

MaxOkay, that one I'll give you, partly.

BlakeWhere I'd still push back is that I can't tell you money is irrelevant to those days.

MaxAnd I can't tell you it matters. That's the honest standoff. You see a floor, I see a late lander.

BlakeThere's also the other side of the ledger. The Planetary Society runs an action hub tracking the proposed cuts to NASA science in FY2027.

MaxProposed, not enacted.

BlakeCorrect. And it's an advocacy page, so read it as one, but it shows where the squeeze would land if the Artemis lines stay protected.

MaxHuh, so science is the pressure valve in the fight.

BlakeThat's the worry people on that side are raising.

MaxPressure valve. Look at me, doing hardware puns for the policy half.

BlakePlease stop.

MaxNever. Okay, serious now. If the reconciliation money's the floor, the annual number's the fight. So who holds the purse strings in December? Okay, so the annual money lives or dies in a bill called Commerce, Justice, and Science. NASA's bundled in with the Justice Department and the Commerce Department. Weird roommates.

BlakeRoommates who fight. Space Policy Online's analysis of the FY 2027 request says NASA has strong bipartisan support. It also says the bill includes controversial departments, and that could complicate action.

MaxSo NASA is popular, and the bill it rides in is not.

BlakeRight. And the same analysis says which parties control the House and Senate in the 120th Congress could play a role in the outcome.

MaxWhich is a very polite way of saying nobody knows.

BlakeNobody knows. And I won't predict a vote. I'll say where the work stood. The Congressional Research Service overview put it plainly. The House had passed three regular FY 2027 bills.

MaxThree of 12. That's not much of a stack.

BlakeA quarter of the set in one chamber. And here's the catch.

MaxWhich is?

BlakeAnd the Senate committee had reported none. That's as of that overview, so it may have moved since.

MaxWait, none? Not one bill out of committee?

BlakeNone. So whoever sits down after November starts close to scratch on most of this.

MaxWhy does the roommate situation matter so much if NASA itself has bipartisan support?

BlakeBecause support for the agency and support for the bill are different things. The analysis says the bill includes controversial departments, and that could complicate action. I'd stop there. It doesn't say how, and I won't guess.

MaxOkay, scenarios. I'll play skeptic. Scenario one, a second CR. Everybody shrugs, NASA stays flat, nobody's angry.

BlakeWhat has to be true for that? It assumes nobody wants anything changed badly enough to shut the lights off over it. Flat is only comfortable if the cost of waiting stays low.

MaxAnd a lander contractor with a late actuator doesn't care about the calendar. Flat money, same bills.

BlakeFair, but I'd still call it the default scenario.

MaxDefault doesn't mean good. Scenario two, one big bundle. NASA gets stapled to the controversial agencies and rides through together.

BlakeThat assumes the controversial parts get settled. If they don't, NASA's popularity is held hostage by its roommates.

MaxSo the moon waits on the Justice Department's mood.

BlakePossibly. Both are scenarios, not forecasts. Each one rests on one guess about how much appetite the new Congress has for a fight.

MaxAnd I don't buy that you can read that appetite off a map.

BlakeI don't either. I just want the assumption said out loud.

MaxGive me one more then. What would change your mind on either scenario?

BlakeEvidence that the committees have moved bills since that overview. If the Senate side has reported bills by now, the starting line looks different. I haven't seen that, so I'm not assuming it.

MaxFine. Said out loud. Nobody's calling it.

BlakeWhich is exactly why we should. Time to put some predictions on the record.

MaxOkay, so get this. The budget request frames its whole Artemis plan around a first crew landing in 2028.

BlakeAnd the NASA budget document says that flat out. It's the anchor date.

MaxMeanwhile, a Yahoo piece by Elisha Sauers says the Artemis III delays could threaten that 2028 landing. The headline hedges, and honestly, so should we.

BlakeHedging is the right instinct. So predictions. Mine first?

MaxGo.

BlakeThe CR gets extended past December 11th. I'd say likely, not certain. Check me the week after that date.

MaxWow, bold. Bet on Congress being late.

BlakeIt's the safest bet in Washington.

MaxAnd for the record, likely is carrying a lot of weight there.

BlakeIt is. If the date passes and the extension doesn't happen, I'll say I was wrong on air.

MaxFair. Mine is about the memo. I think the 90 days turns out to be a pile of small items, valves and actuators, and not one big monster slip. But I'm guessing since nobody's itemized. Check back when someone publishes the breakdown.

BlakeWhich could be never.

MaxWhich could be never.

BlakeSecond one, Blue Origin's pad rebuild. The company says New Glenn flies by the end of the year.

MaxOh, here we go. Cue the deep skepticism, everybody.

BlakeI'd put it slipping into next year. Launch dates in this program have a long record of drifting right, so I'll take the drift.

MaxI'm with you on the drift. Pad rebuilds are fast until the first thing doesn't fit. Check back January 1st.

BlakeCalendars marked.

MaxAnd my second, the helium leak gets a fix announced before the SLS tanking test, or the tanking test slips. Pick one.

BlakeProbably both.

MaxProbably both. Okay, that's the show. Time to sign off. Okay, quick landing for the plane. 90 days are gone, nobody has itemized them, and the money is steadier than the cliff date makes it sound.

BlakeAnd we'll be back to grade our own predictions. Watch for any word on what's inside those 90 days, and for that SLS tanking test the recap says is planned before year end.

MaxOh, we will, in public, with receipts.

BlakeMax, you hate receipts when they're yours.

MaxPainfully true.

BlakeBefore we go, one ask. Share this with a friend who still asks why we're going back to the moon at all.

MaxYes, send it to them and subscribe wherever you listen.

BlakeNext time, we find out which of us has to eat a prediction.

MaxPlease be you.