NASA

6–8 minutes

WASHINGTON — NASA has disqualified one of the two proposals for a large astrophysics mission, a decision the project’s leader blames on upheaval within the agency last year.

In a March 9 email, Christopher Reynolds, principal investigator for the proposed Advanced X-Ray Imaging Satellite, or AXIS, told members of the project team that NASA Headquarters had informed him the mission was “not eligible for selection.”

The decision came before NASA reviewed a concept study recently completed by the AXIS team and is instead based on the project’s own assessment that it missed its budget and schedule requirements, he said in the email, seen by SpaceNews.

“I am, quite frankly, livid that AXIS ultimately fell victim to the programmatic chaos of 2025. The astronomical community deserves better,” he wrote.

NASA, in a March 10 statement to SpaceNews, confirmed that it was no longer considering AXIS for its Astrophysics Probe Explorer program.

“Throughout NASA’s standard selection process for science missions, there are multiple points at which the agency evaluates mission concepts against established selection criteria and compliance requirements and makes decisions about how to proceed,” the agency said. “NASA has confirmed the AXIS (Advanced X-ray Imaging Satellite) Probe concept was not compliant with the 2023 Astrophysics Probe Explorer Announcement of Opportunity.”

In October 2024, NASA selected AXIS, an X-ray telescope with high spatial resolution, along with the Probe far-Infrared Mission for Astrophysics, or PRIMA, a far-infrared telescope, as the two finalists for the first Probe mission. This would be a new line of missions in the astrophysics division that, like other Explorer missions, would be competitively selected but have a higher cost cap of $1 billion.

AXIS and PRIMA each received $5 million contracts to perform one-year concept studies to refine their proposed missions. NASA then planned to select one of the missions for development, with a launch in 2032.

Reynolds said the work on the concept study was affected by disruptions at the Goddard Space Flight Center, which provided project management for AXIS.

“In short, with NASA-GSFC as the AXIS managing center, the mission formulation process was critically compromised by the seismic shifts occurring in NASA and the federal government,” he wrote.

One issue was NASA’s Deferred Resignation Program, a buyout program that resulted in about 20% of the agency’s civil servant workforce leaving in 2025. Reynolds said that included more than 20 key people at Goddard working on AXIS, such as its project manager and lead for the spacecraft’s X-ray mirrors, a key technology for the mission.

A second issue was Goddard’s response to the administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal for NASA, which sought steep cuts to science programs, including termination of the Probe program. While that funding was largely restored in a final appropriations bill by Congress in January, he said there was reduced access to engineering and mission formulation personnel at Goddard during the summer and fall.

AXIS was also affected by the government shutdown that lasted a month and a half in October and November. While NASA extended the deadline for the concept studies by six weeks, from Dec. 18 to Jan. 29, that was “inadequate compensation,” he wrote.

Those three factors affected the AXIS team’s ability to fit the mission into NASA’s cost and schedule requirements. An initial “grassroots” cost estimate, completed only in September, put AXIS about 10% over budget. NASA’s deadlines, exacerbated by the government shutdown, kept the team from implementing cost and schedule savings it had identified.

Reynolds said that left the team with two options: submit a study that did not meet NASA’s cost and schedule requirements or not submit the study at all.

“We of course proceeded with the submission,” he wrote, planning to discuss how AXIS would meet those cost and schedule requirements during the review process. “NASA HQ has ruled this stance to be unacceptable.”

Reynolds, a professor of astronomy at the University of Maryland, said NASA’s decision not to consider AXIS was not a judgment of its technology and science. He said members of the AXIS team demonstrated advances in key technologies, such as X-ray mirrors and sensors, needed for the mission, and that the science case for the spacecraft “only became stronger during our Phase A study.”

NASA’s decision to disqualify AXIS leaves PRIMA as the only candidate for the next Probe mission. NASA has not disclosed how that might affect the selection process. Shawn Domagal-Goldman, director of NASA’s astrophysics division, said at an American Astronomical Society (AAS) conference in early January that the agency expected to make a Probe mission selection by the end of the fiscal year.

The dismissal of AXIS has concerned many in the X-ray astrophysics community, who worry about the field’s future. The Chandra X-ray Observatory, itself threatened with budget cuts and termination in recent budget proposals, is more than 25 years old. There are few options for large missions like it in the foreseeable future beyond NASA’s collaboration with the European Space Agency on its NewAthena X-ray observatory, slated for launch in the late 2030s.

Domagal-Goldman said at the AAS meeting that he expected NASA to focus technology development funding for future large astrophysics missions on the field not selected for the Probe mission, which in this case would be X-ray astronomy.

“I want the community to know that, no matter what happens with the probe, both the X-ray and the far-infrared communities have something to look forward to in the future,” he said.

“NASA will share details about future additional opportunities for the X-ray astrophysics community in the coming weeks,” the agency said in its statement to SpaceNews.

Reynolds wrote that he sees opportunities for X-ray astronomy to pursue “focused, high-impact” missions with smaller Explorer-class spacecraft, leveraging the science cases and technologies developed for AXIS.

He also expressed support for PRIMA. “There is still one excellent mission under consideration for the Probe program, PRIMA,” he wrote, “and we wish them a smooth and speedy path to selection and flight.”

8–10 minutes

WASHINGTON — The Senate Commerce Committee advanced a revised NASA authorization bill that implements some of the changes to the Artemis lunar exploration effort sought by the agency while also extending the life of the International Space Station.

The committee passed on a voice vote March 4 an amended version of S. 933, a NASA authorization act originally introduced nearly a year ago. The committee also approved nearly 20 additional amendments from various committee members with the same vote.

The new version of the bill supports changes that NASA is seeking to make to Artemis that NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced at a Feb. 27 briefing.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chairman of the committee, referred to those changes to Artemis in his opening remarks. “Today, the Commerce Committee will help guide those changes with the NASA Authorization Act,” he said. “Our bill authorizes critical funding for and gives strategic direction to the agency, in line with the priorities of Administrator Isaacman and the Trump Administration.”

At the Feb. 27 briefing, NASA announced it would not proceed with upgrades to the Space Launch System, sticking instead to a “near Block 1” version. In a March 3 statement, NASA confirmed that meant it no longer sought to develop the Exploration Upper Stage for the Block 1B version of SLS.

“Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Administrator may seek to identify and fund an alternative technology to replace the Exploration Upper Stage,” the Senate bill states, provided the administrator of NASA determines the stage is “unlikely to achieve the mission goals of the Artemis campaign.”

The bill would instead require NASA to provide a briefing on the issues the agency is facing trying to achieve a higher flight rate of the SLS and plans to address this with a “standardization” of the rocket.

Another section of the Senate bill authorizes NASA to develop a base on the moon, building on a provision in a White House executive order on space policy in December that called on NASA to establish the “initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost” by 2030.

“As soon as practicable, the Administrator shall undertake activities necessary to establish a Lunar Surface Moon Base to develop a permanent crewed United States presence on the Moon capable of long-duration habitation, robotic, and industrial operations to advance science, technology, and strategic interests,” the bill states.

The section includes some general goals for the base and guidelines for development, but few specifics such the composition of the base, schedule for its development or cost. The bill does direct NASA to select a lead center for the base’s development with a specific set of requirements that appear to be intended to ensure the program is run by the Johnson Space Center in Texas.

Although the bill includes extensive language about a lunar base, it says little about the lunar Gateway intended to operate in lunar orbit. While last year’s budget reconciliation bill provided $2.6 billion for development of the Gateway, a NASA infographic released Feb. 27 about its revised Artemis plans did not feature the Gateway even while including a lunar base.

Regarding the Gateway, the bill states only that NASA will provide a briefing “on plans for the Gateway outpost” within 60 days of enactment. ISS extension

Another portion of the bill addresses the International Space Station and plans for commercial space stations. Among the biggest changes is a two-year extension of the ISS lifetime, from the end of 2030 to the end of 2032.

The extension, the bill argues, is required because of delays in the Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations, or CLD, program, including postponing the release of a call for proposals for the next phase of the program.

“NASA has repeatedly delayed the release of a request for proposals for sustained commercial low-Earth-orbit services, and such delays, coupled with shifting requirements and inconsistent programmatic direction, have introduced substantial uncertainty into the development planning, financing, workforce scaling, and infrastructure investment decisions of commercial providers,” the bill states.

“As a result of such uncertainty and delayed procurement action, commercial providers have been unable to scale development and private investment at a pace aligned with the previously articulated NASA objective of de-orbiting the ISS in or around 2030,” the bill continues.

The bill directs NASA to maintain ISS operations at its current level, in terms of number of crew and cargo flights to support it. It instructs NASA not begin a transition from the ISS, and deorbiting of the station, until at least one commercial successor is operational. It also requires NASA to select at least two companies for the next phase of the CLD program. Mars missions and studies

The portion of the bill dealing with NASA programs largely endorses ongoing missions. An exception is the Mars Sample Return (MSR) program, effectively canceled when it was not funded in the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill enacted in January.

The Senate bill directs the formal termination of the earlier MSR program and calls for the creation of a new MSR effort. The new plan would have a total cost cap of $8 billion, although it was not clear if that included funds spent on the earlier MSR program. It would also require use of “existing flight-proven technologies” and limit international cooperation to contributions that do not “unduly increase” the cost and risk of the program.

The bill directs NASA to submit a plan for carrying out that revised MSR program, including cost and schedule estimates, within 120 days of enactment. It also states that the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, funded in last year’s budget reconciliation bill, should remain separate from this revised MSR effort.

A later section of the bill requires NASA to perform studies of concepts for “Mars-focused missions” that could be launched on commercial heavy-lift vehicles.

One concept included the bill would send human tissues to Mars “for the purpose of studying biological and environmental effects on human tissue in the Martian environment.” A second concept would be focused on space weather measurements as well as physical and life sciences studies that could support future human Mars missions. Launch briefings, not quotas

One provision not found in the bill approved by the committee dealt with limits on commercial launch contracts. According to industry sources who had seen earlier drafts of the bill, it included a provision that would have kept any single company from receiving more than 50% of overall value of launch contracts awarded by the agency in any year.

The proposal had the public support of former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, whose work today includes serving as a lobbyist to United Launch Alliance.

“By capping any single launch provider at 50 percent of NASA’s total launch contract value, Congress is reinforcing competition and protecting the small and medium-sized manufacturers, propulsion companies, avionics developers, and suppliers that make up the backbone of America’s space enterprise,” he wrote in a social media post.

Others, including those commenting on his post, disagreed, arguing it would help companies unable to otherwise compete on a level playing field. The provision would have benefitted ULA as well as Blue Origin and potentially other launch providers at the expense of SpaceX, which has won the lion’s share of NASA launch contracts in recent years.

The bill approved by the committee did not include any restrictions on launch contracts. Instead, it endorsed a “competitive United States commercial launch marketplace” and called for a briefing by NASA on its “plans and strategy for continuing to procure commercial launch services.”

3–4 minutes

WASHINGTON — Workers have completed repairs to the helium pressurization system in the upper stage of the Space Launch System, keeping a potential April launch of the Artemis 2 mission on track.

In a March 3 statement, NASA said engineers traced a blockage in helium flow in the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, or ICPS, to a seal in a quick-disconnect line feeding helium from ground equipment into the stage. The seal had become dislodged, blocking helium flow.

Technicians removed the quick-disconnect fitting, reassembled it with the seal properly positioned and reinstalled it. Tests confirmed that helium was flowing into the stage after the repairs.

The quick-disconnect line was one of the leading suspected causes of the blockage, along with a check valve inside the stage. NASA said Feb. 21 that neither issue could be addressed at the launch pad, requiring the agency to roll the vehicle back to the Vehicle Assembly Building for repairs.

While addressing the helium issue, workers also performed maintenance on other parts of the SLS. That included replacing batteries in the core stage, ICPS and boosters, as well as replacing batteries in the rocket’s flight termination system ahead of end-to-end testing required by the Eastern Range.

NASA also said it is replacing a seal in a line that feeds liquid oxygen into the core stage. That seal is separate from those in liquid hydrogen lines that caused leaks during a wet dress rehearsal in early February and were replaced at the pad. NASA did not disclose why it is replacing the liquid oxygen seal, as there were no reports of leaks during the two fueling tests conducted last month.

NASA said the repairs and maintenance keep the vehicle on schedule to roll back out to the pad later this month for a launch attempt in early April. Two-hour launch windows are available on the evenings of April 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 during the next launch period. The following opportunity opens April 30.

The agency did not disclose when it plans to roll the SLS and Orion spacecraft back to the pad. At a Feb. 27 briefing, Lori Glaze, acting associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, said teams would need “at least a week and a half or so” at the pad after rollout to complete preparations for a launch attempt.

5–7 minutes

WASHINGTON — NASA has provided new details about its plans to procure a Mars communications orbiter funded under last year’s budget reconciliation bill as companies continue positioning themselves to bid on the project.

NASA published draft objectives and requirements Feb. 24 for what it is calling the Mars Telecommunications Network, formerly known as the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter.

The budget reconciliation act passed in July 2025 included $700 million for NASA to develop a spacecraft to provide “robust, continuous communications” for other assets on and orbiting Mars. The bill requires the spacecraft to be “delivered to the Administration” no later than the end of 2028 but does not explicitly require a launch by that date.

NASA outlined four top-level objectives for the Mars Telecommunications Network: provide communications services for spacecraft expected to operate at Mars through 2035; provide positioning, navigation and timing, or PNT, services for those spacecraft; provide communications for existing Mars spacecraft; and provide communications and PNT services for missions demonstrating entry, descent and landing technologies at Mars through 2035.

The document includes more detailed proposed requirements, including operating for at least five years, supporting data rates of up to 100 megabits per second on direct links with Earth and maintaining compatibility with NASA’s Deep Space Network. The draft does not require the use of optical communications links between the spacecraft and Earth, which can support higher data rates, but it also does not preclude their use.

The document makes clear the spacecraft will be dedicated to communications and navigation services. Some scientists had hoped NASA would incorporate one or more science instruments on the orbiter, but others noted the schedule and budget likely would not allow that.

NASA did not provide a procurement schedule for the Mars Telecommunications Network beyond stating that a draft request for proposals is forthcoming. Comments on the draft objectives and requirements are due March 10.

“NASA anticipates that the Draft and Final Requests for Proposals will reflect the applicable provisions” of the budget reconciliation bill, the agency said in the procurement notice. That includes limiting eligibility to companies that received NASA funding in fiscal years 2024 or 2025 for commercial design studies of alternative Mars Sample Return approaches and that proposed “a separate, independently launched Mars telecommunication orbiter supporting an end-to-end Mars sample return mission.”

NASA published a procurement notice in late January listing the companies it deemed eligible for the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, then withdrew it without explanation within a day. The listed companies were Blue Origin, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rocket Lab, SpaceX, Quantum Space and Whittinghill Aerospace, all the participants in the Mars Sample Return design studies.

Among the eight, Blue Origin and Rocket Lab have been the most vocal in pursuing the Mars Telecommunications Network, publicly stating their interest for months.

“MTO offers an integrated solution combining our New Glenn launch vehicle and the Blue Ring Mars-capable spacecraft platform. Both have flight-proven heritage,” Blue Origin said in a Feb. 11 post. While New Glenn has launched twice, the company has yet to fly a full Blue Ring spacecraft, having tested only components in space.

“Rocket Lab delivers a rare combination of proven spacecraft, deep space mission experience, reliable launch vehicles, and end-to-end space systems capability as a vertically integrated mission provider,” Rocket Lab said in a blog post around the same time. It cited its development of the twin ESCAPADE spacecraft launched in November to Mars, as well as components flown on other Mars missions.

“A Rocket Lab Mars Telecommunications Orbiter also brings a non-Artemis performer into the mix to contribute to a national space objective,” the company added. “Free from lunar commitments, Rocket Lab is laser-focused on rapidly and affordably delivering the most reliable Mars Telecommunications Orbiter to strengthen America’s capability at Mars.”

Peter Beck, Rocket Lab’s chief executive, reiterated the company’s interest during a Feb. 26 earnings call. “We’ve made no secret of the fact that we think Rocket Lab is the strongest contender to deliver NASA’s Mars Telecommunications Orbiter program,” he said.

He later added that the company was “well-positioned” for the competition. “I think we’ll put our best foot forward there, and, of course, others think they can do the job, too,” he said.

5–6 minutes

Updated 2:30 p.m. Eastern with commercial crew program changes and timing.

HOUSTON — Ken Bowersox, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, is retiring from the agency less than a week after the release of a report critical of NASA’s handling of the Starliner crewed test flight.

At the end of a keynote at the ASCENDxTexas conference here Feb. 25, Bowersox said he is leaving the agency and will be replaced by his deputy, Joel Montalbano.

He didn’t give a reason or a timetable for his retirement but suggested it was imminent. “Ordinarily, this would be the point where I would encourage you to send me your questions, your comments, your ideas, except I have decided to retire,” he said. “If you were to send me an email, I probably wouldn’t get it.”

In a Feb. 26 statement, NASA said Bowersox would retire effective March 6, but that Montalbano would take over on an acting basis immediately.

Bowersox has been associate administrator for space operations since May 2023 after the retirement of Kathy Lueders. He had been deputy associate administrator for space operations and, before that, human exploration and operations for several years.

He is a former naval aviator and astronaut who flew four shuttle missions from 1992 to 1997 and a long-duration ISS mission, launching on a shuttle in 2002 and returning on a Soyuz in 2003 after the Columbia accident grounded the shuttle program. He was vice president of astronaut safety and mission assurance at SpaceX from 2009 to 2011 and later served as chair of the NASA Advisory Council’s human exploration and operations committee before returning to NASA.

Bowersox said last July that he had decided not to participate in early retirement programs that resulted in departures of about 20% of the agency’s civil servant workforce. “Although I’m getting close to that age, so nobody should be surprised when it happens,” he said of retirement.

The Space Operations Mission Directorate oversees operations of the International Space Station as well as the Commercial Crew Program. It also handles some supporting functions, like launch services and communications.

Bowersox’s announcement comes less than a week after NASA released an independent report into the Boeing CST-100 Starliner crewed test flight in 2024. That mission suffered technical problems that led NASA to return the spacecraft uncrewed, forcing the astronauts who flew to the ISS on it to remain there for months until they could come home on a Crew Dragon.

The report sharply criticized NASA’s handling of the incident, including what NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman called “unprofessional conduct” during debates on how to proceed with the mission and “insufficient senior NASA leadership engagement.”

“This created a culture of mistrust that can never happen again, and there will be leadership accountability,” he said at a Feb. 19 briefing about the report, but declined to say at the time if that meant NASA managers would be reassigned or fired.

NASA also announced Feb. 26 that Dana Hutcherson would take over as acting commercial crew program manager, effectively immediately. She succeeds Steve Stich, who had been commercial crew program manager for several years. Hutcherson had been deputy program manager for commercial crew.

Bowersox said the Starliner report offered a major lesson for future programs done on a more commercial basis that have less NASA oversight than traditional programs.

“I think the message is, in those fewer interactions, you have to make sure that you’re executing them perfectly,” he said, “that you have the right people, you have the right information, and that you are capable of making the right decisions with that lower impact of the government and lower level of interaction with the contractor team.”

He said NASA is developing a corrective action plan to “tighten up all of our processes” in the commercial crew program. He added he expected Boeing to be able to make an uncrewed test flight of Starliner this year.

Montalbano has been deputy associate administrator for space operations since April 2024. He was manager of the ISS program from 2020 to 2024 and earlier in his career was a flight director.

7–9 minutes

WASHINGTON — NASA has classified the flawed Starliner crewed test flight in 2024 as its most serious level of mishap, with the agency’s leadership citing shortfalls in how officials oversaw the program.

NASA released Feb. 19 an independent report into the Boeing CST-100 Starliner Crew Flight Test (CFT) mission, which suffered thruster failures during the spacecraft’s approach to the International Space Station. The incident led NASA to return the spacecraft uncrewed, with the two astronauts who launched on Starliner remaining on the ISS for more than eight months before coming home on a Crew Dragon.

The report recommended that NASA classify the incident as a “Type A” mishap, citing both the technical issues with the flight as well as organizational problems.

“Starliner has design and engineering deficiencies that must be corrected, but the most troubling failure revealed by this investigation is not hardware,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said at a press conference to discuss the report’s findings. “It’s decision-making and leadership that, if left unchecked, could create a culture incompatible with human spaceflight.”

That decision-making and leadership, he said, allowed a spacecraft with thruster problems that occurred on previous uncrewed test flights to launch again with astronauts on board. That included the second uncrewed flight, OFT-2 in 2022, that suffered several thruster failures.

“The investigations often stopped short of the proximate or the direct cause, treated it with a fix, or accepted the issue as an unexplained anomaly,” he said of reviews after OFT-2. “In some cases, the proximate cause diagnosis itself was incorrect due to insufficient rigor in following the data to its logical conclusion.”

There was also poor decision-making after the thruster failures on the CFT mission. The spacecraft was able to safely dock with the station but NASA then spent weeks studying the problem. “The astronauts did remain safely aboard the International Space Station while they were advocating for data, for more testing and for leadership engagement necessary to complete their mission safely,” Isaacman said.

“Now on orbit, disagreements over crew return options deteriorated into unprofessional conduct” among program officials, he said, describing “an environment where advocacy tied to the Starliner program viability persisted alongside insufficient senior NASA leadership engagement to refocus teams on safety and mission outcomes.”

That persisted after the safe return of the Starliner astronauts, Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore, with NASA’s initial decision not to declare the mission a mishap. “Concern for the Starliner program’s reputation influenced that decision,” Isaacman said. “The record is now being corrected. Today, we formally designate this event a Type A mishap to ensure lessons are fully captured for future missions.”

A Type A mishap requires an independent investigation, although the agency concluded that the investigation already commissioned served that purpose. Such a mishap is defined as one with a cost of more than $2 million. The losses of the shuttles Challenger and Columbia are defined as Type A mishaps, but Isaacman noted that a recent hard landing by a NASA WB-57 aircraft because of a landing gear failure, which did not injure the pilots on board, also is classified as a Type A mishap. Lessons for Starliner and Artemis

Before the release of the report and the classification of the CFT mission as a Type A mishap, NASA had been working towards an uncrewed launch of Starliner to the ISS as soon as this April. If successful, a crewed mission would follow as soon as late this year. NASA officials confirmed those plans at a Feb. 9 briefing.

Isaacman indicated there are no immediate changes to those plans, although engineers have yet to reach a technical root cause for the thruster failures.

“Right now, our focus here at NASA is working alongside Boeing again to understand the technical challenges that have caused these service module and crew module thruster issues,” he said, then implement fixes and other recommendations from the report.

“Now, if that happens to line up in April, then so be it. And if we can follow that on with crewed missions, that’s fantastic as well,” he said. “But we are not going to fly again, crew or uncrewed, until it’s ready.”

He said there would be changes within NASA as well. “Programmatic advocacy exceeded reasonable bounds and placed the mission, the crew and America’s space program at risk in ways that were not fully understood at the time decisions were being contemplate,” he stated.

“This created a culture of mistrust that can never happen again, and there will be leadership accountability,” he added, but declined to specify if personnel would be fired or reassigned.

That “programmatic advocacy” was linked to concerns by some within the agency that the overall commercial crew program could only be successful if there were two providers. Isaacman said he still believed Starliner could operate and meet what he described as “near endless demand” for cargo and crew access to low Earth orbit that will continue even after the ISS is retired.

“We are committed to helping Boeing work through this problem, to remediate the technical challenges,” he said, noting that he had no indication Boeing would cancel Starliner. “I fully anticipate Boeing will be there.”

Boeing reiterated its commitment to Starliner in a brief statement. “In the 18 months since our test flight, Boeing has made substantial progress on corrective actions for technical challenges we encountered and driven significant cultural changes across the team that directly align with the findings in the report,” the company stated. “We’re working closely with NASA to ensure readiness for future Starliner missions and remain committed to NASA’s vision for two commercial crew providers.”

The briefing took place while NASA was performing a second wet dress rehearsal for the Artemis 2 mission, whose Space Launch System has Boeing as the prime contractor. Isaacman said he was not concerned any technical or organizational problems with Starliner would affect SLS.

“These are two very different contracting approaches,” he said, noting SLS follows a more conventional approach with much greater NASA oversight and control than the commercial crew program, which uses a services contract.

“This is now the most important human spaceflight mission in more than a half-century,” he said of Artemis 2. He noted he has sent “second and third and fourth sets of eyes” to review mission preparations.

The timing of the release of the report with the Artemis 2 countdown test was a coincidence, he said, but is a valuable reminder.

“It is to make sure we are we are sending the right message within the workforce of NASA that we have to make the right decisions in this circumstance. Leadership has to be appropriately applied, because the situation we found ourselves in with Starliner with CFT could happen anywhere across the organization,” he said. “The approach we took is not compatible with human spaceflight, and we cannot permit it to continue.”

5–7 minutes

WASHINGTON — NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said he expects to provide details about several agency priorities, including lunar exploration and commercial space stations, in the coming weeks.

In a recent interview, Isaacman said announcements on how the agency plans to proceed with several key programs will follow NASA’s response to a White House executive order on space policy issued in December.

Among the directives in the order is a plan “for achieving the policy objectives in this order regarding leading the world in space exploration and expanding human reach and American presence in space,” as well as separate guidance for a “National Initiative for American Space Nuclear Power.” The policy also includes directives regarding procurement reviews and acquisition reform.

The order came as NASA was already working on new initiatives, such as the Fission Surface Power program to develop a nuclear reactor to support lunar operations, as well as proposed changes to the Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development, or CLD, program to support commercial space stations that would succeed the International Space Station. Those efforts also include the ongoing procurement of lunar rovers for future Artemis missions.

Many of those programs have been on hold in recent weeks as industry awaits new solicitations or contract awards, with little information from NASA.

“This notice is to advise you that NASA’s procurement activities remain ongoing as the agency works to align acquisition timelines with national space policy and broader operational objectives,” NASA stated in a Jan. 28 update on the CLD program. “You should anticipate that additional clarity regarding procurement milestones will be provided in the coming weeks.” NASA issued a similar notice the same day for the Fission Surface Power program.

Isaacman said the agency is currently focused on responding to the executive order. “Even though some of these programs may have been underway previously, we have a national space policy that is an executive order,” he said. “We have a timeline to communicate back, and that’s quickly approaching.”

For those interested in the affected programs, he said, “we will be communicating that shortly after submission of our response to the executive order.” He added in the Jan. 30 interview that it should be “approximately a month from now.”

Those topics, he said, remain priorities. “I do think America is going to get underway on nuclear power before the end of 2028, and we’ll share details on it soon.”

Industry officials have had mixed reactions to the pause in plans for programs such as commercial space stations and lunar nuclear reactors.

“I think this is a pretty substantial acquisition for him during the first few years of his tenure as administrator, and I think it’s warranted that he takes a pretty significant look at this,” Jonathan Cirtain, president and chief executive of Axiom Space, said of Isaacman and the CLD program during a Feb. 12 call with reporters about the company’s new funding round.

Others are less patient. “It’s been a case of hurry up and wait,” said one industry official, speaking on background about the Fission Surface Power program. The official said companies moved quickly to respond to NASA’s announcement last summer about the initiative, providing feedback on two draft solicitations while preparing for a final version, but have received little in the way of updates since December. MSR uncertainty

There is less certainty about plans for Mars Sample Return, or MSR. Congress did not provide funding for MSR in its final spending bill for fiscal year 2026 but did allocate money for technologies that could be used for future Mars missions.

“With near clarity now on the human exploration focus on the moon, we can free up some of our resources to consider how we would go and retrieve the Mars samples,” Isaacman said. “Step one is closing out the old program.”

He said he would examine alternative proposals submitted to NASA in 2024 for MSR. At the end of the Biden administration, NASA said it would continue studying two approaches: one based on a concept by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and another using unspecified commercial landers.

“We’re going to have to take a look at it and see which of those, if any of them, are economical and can be achieved in a reasonable time period,” Isaacman said. “If not, we have to reformulate and think what is an alternative approach to it.”

He said he remains interested in returning the samples being cached by the Perseverance rover to Earth, some of which could contain evidence of past Martian life.

“Am I interested in getting those samples back? You bet,” he said when asked about the status of MSR during a Feb. 13 news conference after the Crew-12 launch. “This is an opportunity for what could be the most consequential discovery in human history.”

4–5 minutes

WASHINGTON — A NASA test to confirm repairs to seals in the Space Launch System’s liquid hydrogen fueling system was only partially successful because of problems with ground equipment.

In a statement late Feb. 13, NASA said it performed a “confidence test” the previous day on the SLS core stage fueling system, partially filling the stage’s liquid hydrogen tank to test seals that had been replaced in a fueling interface.

The seals were the suspected cause of hydrogen leaks during a wet dress rehearsal Feb. 2, when the SLS was loaded with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as part of a practice countdown. The leaks forced an early end to the test, and NASA later said it planned to replace two seals in hydrogen lines that transfer fuel into the rocket.

In its latest statement, NASA said the confidence test, not announced in advance and first reported by Spaceflight Now, was intended to evaluate the new seals. However, the agency said that “teams encountered an issue with ground support equipment that reduced the flow of liquid hydrogen into the rocket.”

Despite the reduced flow, NASA said it was able to “gain confidence in several key objectives” and collect data at the interface that had been the source of the earlier leak.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman mentioned the test, which he described as a “mini wet dress rehearsal,” during coverage of the Crew-12 launch Feb. 13.

“We’re doing a series of mini wet dress rehearsal tests today to make sure we give that vehicle the highest probability of success to get off the pad in early March,” he said during NASA’s webcast of the launch.

At a news conference after the launch, Isaacman said program officials wanted to review data from the tests before deciding whether to proceed with a second full wet dress rehearsal.

“On Artemis 1, we were combating hydrogen leaks multiple times,” he said. “We obviously encountered that again on the Artemis 2 wet dress rehearsal.”

“From some of the early views, we did not see some of the leaks for the portion of the test we were running that at a comparable period during the full Artemis 2 wet dress we did,” he said. He did not mention the reduced flow of liquid hydrogen into the stage, which could affect the ability to fully evaluate the new seals.

“We will continue to do everything available to gain confidence going into the full wet dress,” he said.

In the new statement, NASA said it plans to inspect the ground support equipment and replace a filter believed to have caused the reduced hydrogen flow.

The agency has not announced a date for a second wet dress rehearsal, but Isaacman said there was still time to conduct one ahead of the next Artemis 2 launch opportunity in early March.

“We have a lot of time ahead of us,” he said. “We could undertake more than one wet dress, if necessary. We’re going to make absolute most use of the time that we have leading up to the start of the window.”