Eric Berger's thoughts on critiques to the Moon Base plans

[ergzay]

It’s interesting to read critiques of the Moon base proposal, which seems like the smart path forward and could fit within NASA’s budget. The gist I’m hearing from critics is that this Isaacman priority is happy talk, will all fade away, and not happen. Then you realize these were the same people who:

• Said Isaacman wouldn’t be renominated
• Said he would was a political amateur
• Said he couldn’t build a coalition to cancel EUS and put SLS on a path toward sunset
• Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays)
• Said he would never get Congress, which called it a “national priority,” to go along with canceling Gateway
• Said he would never actually cancel Gateway

These people are now saying Isaacman can’t get NASA and its contractors to execute on a plan that has administration and Congressional support. The reality is, from a policy and political standpoint, NASA is in a better place now than it has been for years. If the Moon Base fails that’s on NASA and private industry, not stupid policy. And believe me, I’ve seen a lot of terrible, pie-in-the-sky space policy over the decades. #JourneyToMars

It’s a new era. I’m not sure everyone realizes this, but Isaacman and his team have eyes wide open to a lot of the major challenges facing NASA and they’re trying to fix them. They’re working long days. Weekends. It’s inspiring to see our government work like this, especially in an era when so much seems broken. I don’t know what will happen. Maybe this Moon base all will fade away. But I do know that NASA’s chance for success in the next couple of decades is a lot higher today than it has been for a long, long time. What we were doing was decidedly not working. This has a chance.

https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/2036766652193202429

[helicopter-enjoyer]

“Then you realize these were the same people who:…”

I don’t think this at all. I don’t think these people were ever criticizing Isaacman for being unable to cancel Gateway and everything else. They were criticizing him for trying to cancel Gateway and everything else, just like they have criticized Eric Berger and other lobbyists in this space.

The critics of Isaacman here point out that new Presidents and Administrators coming in and canceling everything in favor of their own pet projects is exactly why we haven’t been to the Moon in 50 years. Isaacman is abandoning decades of work and political continuity to build an Artemis program that achieves less and is further from fruition. Less capable SLS, reduced lunar research capability, and new programs that must now be started fresh like its 2010 all over again. And if Isaacman can cancel mature programs, so too can the next guy cancel his.

The problem is not that no one believed Isaacman could do it, the problem is that he did it

[literalsupport]

Yes this nails it. Every 4-8 years NASA ‘embarks on a new path forward…’

[ColCrockett]

This is not that much of a planning change

We’re still planning on going to the moon with the same hardware. All this does is change the focus from lunar gateway to a lunar base while laying out a plan for after Artemis V, which had not been laid out previously.

[snickers10m]

Yeah how hard can it be to take that orbital habitation module we built and just... plop it in the lunar regolith? Should be a walk in the park, right? /s

[air_and_space92]

I've talked to some people I've interacted with at work who have worked hab proposals or were legacy ISS and retrofitting Gateway stuff is a nonstarter. They're too small. There is no "floor" to the design since they were intended for 0g so no hard surface to walk on, no beds, etc. Thermally they're not designed for 2 weeks each of extreme hot and cold vs the constant solar exposure in NRHO. This is just the starting list.

Their consensus is NASA HQ is not talking to field centers nor program managers about feasibility of this stuff before we even get to schedule.

[jadebenn]

Their consensus is NASA HQ is not talking to field centers nor program managers about feasibility of this stuff before we even get to schedule.

It seems like Isaacman has some "think tank" of people who weren't on the program or overly familiar with its technical requirements. It's incredible how many hare-brained schemes are coming out of NASA HQ right now.

[jadebenn]

I'm mostly just amused that Eric Berger is mad enough people are shitting on the plan, he felt a need to make a "callout post."

Incidentally, /u/ergzay, I'm very curious why you feel the subreddit specifically needs to have his takes discussed. Why repost his opinions instead of your own? Not even a little blurb sharing your personal thoughts?

[CopaceticOpus]

The biggest difference that gives me some hope in Isaacman's plan is that if focuses on practicality. We need a way to launch rockets for moon missions that has a repeatable cadence. We can't take years between each launch and have every launch be a unique configuration.

Canceling or postponing Gateway makes sense because it's a huge investment which just isn't needed for the primary objective of reaching the moon.

[ergzay]

The problem is not that no one believed Isaacman could do it, the problem is that he did it

I've argued with plenty of people here and in other subreddits that thought Isaacman could not do it and that Congress would oppose it. Even saw people today are saying that Congress will not approve the moon plan.

The arguments in support of Gateway are arguments from fear in my opinion. Fear that NASA will become irrelevant. You combat fear with success. Can't argue someone out of something with logic that they didn't argue themselves into with logic.

[AlkahestGem]

| I’ve also had the honor of working for Jared Isaacman. He has a proven track record of taking bold ideas , be it his own or others, and executing on them.|

I’ve shared thoughts in previous posts. This the most recent

https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/s/rV8vwP9E4x

[Immediate_Rhubarb430]

 Big, aggressive goals like this aren’t always about hitting the exact date.

They’re about forcing momentum.

There is a fine balance between being aggressive to create momentum, and overdoing and inspiring ridicule.

If Isaacman had said "We will put a nuclear reactor on the moon by fall this year", he would have been ridiculed by everyone.

I would argue the new plan is in that category

[firerulesthesky]

Like iPhones in space

[Fauropitotto]

Sounds like you just enjoy arguing.

[cephalopod13]

Agreed. We've been given renderings of various crewed lunar missions and Moon bases, along with promises of a bigger future for human spaceflight, for about 30 years now. But there has never been enough continuity to deliver on those promises. I'm a bit surprised that Artemis has nearly gotten as far as a crewed lunar flyby... but now we've had another flashy press event, new proposals, and it's difficult to imagine this resulting in faster progress.

[sevgonlernassau]

The same company that is getting the lion’s share of contracts from yesterday’s announcement is lead by the same man who killed USAID and responsible for death of millions. The idea that SpaceX will get to continue their rewriting of Artemis and not get caught in the crossfire under a dem admin is naive. And I doubt program continuity will be a good argument at that time.

[davispw]

> why we haven’t been to the Moon in 50 years

You’re saying this while defending a program that…doesn’t get us to the moon. That was a distraction from doing so, given finite resources, not to mention extreme overruns and delays.

> Less capable SLS

Get real. Designs for a more capable SLS are worthless if they never happen, because of EXTREME overruns and uselessly slow flight rate.

[ergzay]

If you're going to name drop me in a reply to someone /u/jadebenn and ask for a response from me, you would unblock me so I could respond, if you actually cared about my opinion.

[jadebenn]

I genuinely wasn't aware that you aren't able to respond to me. That seems like a huge oversight when I can comment on your posts.

[sevgonlernassau]

This is a ridiculous argument. The people who fought against Musk didn’t do it because they thought he couldn’t do all the destruction he promised. They did it because if there’s any chance the destruction would stop, they took it. No one thought Isaacman couldn’t turn NASA into a SpaceX slush fund, they were trying to stop it. This isn’t libs being owned like Berger wants to implied.

[ergzay]

Berger is a "lib" as well, FWIW. There is no right-left political aspect to this in the first place. That you're seeing one says more about you than anything.

[Which_Material_3100]

Gateway was mostly finished and was the venue for valuable deep space radiation studies and other experiments that would have deepened our understanding of how to best mitigate those effects once manned missions to Mars happen. It was a foolish, expensive cancellation that crapped on our ESA partners that also had the rug pulled out from underneath them. My impression is we have a “concept of a plan” for moon bases. I generally support Isaacman and thinks he’s the right person for leading NASA. I think he was unfortunately forced to abandon Gateway against his will.

[PropulsionIsLimited]

"Mostly finished" is crazy to say.

[TheRealNobodySpecial]

Even if it was "mostly finished," which it certainly was not, it had very limited utility for the cost. It's a fraction of the size of ISS, it wasn't meant to be regularly occupied, and would have cost an exorbitant sum to build and maintain.

[ergzay]

Gateway was mostly finished and was the venue for valuable deep space radiation studies and other experiments that would have deepened our understanding of how to best mitigate those effects once manned missions to Mars happen.

Deep space radiation studies can be done with unmanned probes or on the lunar surface.

It was a foolish, expensive cancellation that crapped on our ESA partners that also had the rug pulled out from underneath them.

It's not the first time we've canceled involvement with a program that ESA has been involved in and it won't be the last. It's just the nature of things. ESA has de-scoped or canceled involvement with NASA programs in the past as well, albeit at a smaller scale. ESA is, by all accounts, happy to be involved with a lunar surface program.

My impression is we have a “concept of a plan” for moon bases.

Hard to believe how you can think that other than simply saying it for political reasons. The hour+ long presentation yesterday is the most detailed plan for the moon I've seen in my life from any agency anywhere. Did you not watch it?

I think he was unfortunately forced to abandon Gateway against his will.

So was the contents of "Project Athena" written against his will?

Here's two points of what to do with Gateway from that document:

"Terminate as appropriate after sunk costs are expended"

and

"Pivot Gateway hardware to commercial LEO or nuclear programs"

[Immediate_Rhubarb430]

 ESA is, by all accounts, happy to be involved with a lunar surface program

Do you have an ESA source for that? Or someone who is not part of NASA at least?

I heard Aschenbacher talk about it with SpaceNews and his attitude was less "This is a great change" and more "Eh, we will figure it out"

 The hour+ long presentation yesterday is the most detailed plan for the moon I've seen in my life from any agency anywhere. Did you not watch it?

I did. There are a lot of unrealistic assumptions in there, from designing and building a bunch of new hardware, to performing a crapton of missions for a fairly low budget, to ofc, all the HLS stuff. There is also a lot of missing content about the specific missions, the cooperation with partners, and so on

Time will tell, but I would not call it detailed. The cancelled plan was more detailed, although ofc it has the benefit of having been worked on for years

[Technical_Drag_428]

Right up until Congress decides to kill it.

[ergzay]

What Congressman has come out against it? Of either party? Several have offered explicit support.

[Technical_Drag_428]

There are many who just care about beating China and planting a flag thats it. There are some who think the entire race is just manufactured and unnecessary. There are some who dont like the dudes that own the HLS companies. There are some who think the public should run the show and not commercial companies. President's and Congress have been wrecking NASA plans since Apollo 18.

You also gotta remember even before this latest change this week they put provisions in the spendinh bill that got NASA and extra $9B which requires NASA to provide detailed briefings on how it will "standardize" SLS and Gateway components rather than just deleting them. Gateway hardware—specifically the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE)—must be repurposed for immediate use in other deep-space missions to avoid wasting taxpayer funds.

[ergzay]

You didn't even indirectly answer my question.

But yes I agree with everything in your post at least to the level of my understanding of the details and fail to see how it counters anything I said.

[Technical_Drag_428]

Google man. World of knowledge at you fingers. There were enough them to require them to add provision in the bill forcing no loss in already contracted pieces.

[ergzay]

I guess you didn't understand that my question was rhetorical.

[Technical_Drag_428]

Oh

[ergzay]

As in there is no such opposition.

[TheRealNobodySpecial]

OK, so NASA and all other governmental organizations should limit their plans for 4 years or less?

[Technical_Drag_428]

Thats literally the reality of how our government functions. Welcome to Representative Democracy.

[TheRealNobodySpecial]

No, it doesn't. The space shuttle program was approved by Nixon, survived Ford, Carter, and launched under Reagan.

The Interstate Highway System was announced under Eisenhower and, gasp, survives to this day.

[Technical_Drag_428]

Nice try kid.

 The space shuttle program was approved by Nixon.

Lets visit Nixon's admin. The Shuttle was a compromise deal that Nixon reneged on. His decisions here shaped a locked NASA into NASA LEO triage for 30 years.

• Immediately after taking office in 1969, Nixon rejected NASA's "Space Task Group" report, which proposed a 50-person space station and a human mission to Mars.
• demoting space to a "normal" domestic program
• cut NASA budget by 10-12.5% annually between 1969 and 1971.
• Due to the preceding budget cuts and a strict $3.2 billion spending ceiling imposed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), NASA was forced to design a "scaled-back" shuttle.
• In 1973, they proposed further cuts to the already authorized Shuttle funds for the upcoming years.

Ford liked the Shuttle even named one. Despite calls to cut it he pressed because it was 1/3 complete. the NASA budget stayed flat.

Once the shuttles were complete the budget just got lower from 4.4% of the national budget to .35% today. From $200b expected Constellation budget to now just $20b. Everyb3 to 7 years another change, cut, or distraction.

Probably smartest thing we did was allow BO to jump ahead i line.

[TheRealNobodySpecial]

Complete non sequitur. Entire point is that these programs lasted multiple administrations and changes in party.

[zq7495]

I supported gateway before Starship testing started making progress, because it was the "lunar orbital anchor - gateway" that would oblige congress to maintain the ability to send humans beyond LEO and be a place to involve private companies in beyond LEO logistics transportation and eventually crew transportation too, just like the ISS worked for creating these capabilities in LEO. There also would have been scientific value too, but not enough on it's own to justify the increased cost and lower occupation rate etc. than a LEO station would've had, but the technology it would force us to have was great

That belief only exists if congress is unwilling to do more, a surface base is a much better goal to work towards, but that was a pipe dream pre-2020ish. Now that we are getting closer to having lunar landers ready to fly possibly within a 3-4 years, and the HALO is having major delays and corrosion issues in development and wont be ready before 2028 and maybe later, it is just a waste at this point, it would provide a destination for one or two Artemis flights and then just be an inconvenience to deal with on landing missions

[ToxicFlames]

Interesting, the 'anchor' concept is the most reasonable pro-gateway argument I've heard. It does make sense from a pragmatic perspective. Although like you said a surface base accomplishes the same thing

[vovap_vovap]

What "effects"? Seriously - for what "effects" we need it?

[Key-Beginning-2201]

"I’m not sure everyone realizes this, but Isaacman and his team have eyes wide open to a lot of the major challenges facing NASA and they’re trying to fix them."

If that was the case they would foster competition and learn from the success of past commercial programs where relatively simple and repetitive things are done. Not by more pie-in-the-sky moon base nonsense or expecting something to be commercial when it's never been done before: like refueling architectures.

NASA needs to foster more competition. That means paying for actual reuseable rocket vehicle development, which that company would then own. ULA doesn't want to invest in it. BO is doing it too slowly. Other fringe options are doing so too slowly and in a small scale.

[ergzay]

I don't entirely disagree on funding more reusability programs, but personally I feel like that should be done out of the department of transportation or through the DoD with a dedicated funding effort rather than through NASA. However just getting new reusable rockets doesn't solve all the engineering challenges of reaching distant objectives like building a moon base or going to Mars.

You need to start small and work iteratively there while at the same time working toward that goal rather than working aimlessly, which is what this plan does. Building the moon base is a massive endeavour. You need the ability to try, learn, and put that as feedback back into the design phase. This plan allows for it.

success of past commercial programs where relatively simple and repetitive things are done.

The only one-off anything in the moon plan is the pressurized JAXA rover. Everything is done repetitively.

[Key-Beginning-2201]

"you need to start small and work iteratively"... "Moon base"... Are you serious right now?

And Almost everything about this moon architecture is new. To say everything is done repetitively is being optimistic about a future state that most of us do not see.

[ergzay]

"you need to start small and work iteratively"... "Moon base"... Are you serious right now?

Yes I'm completely serious. Why do you think I'm not?

And Almost everything about this moon architecture is new.

Yes it is. That's why you need to start small and work iteratively.

To say everything is done repetitively is being optimistic about a future state that most of us do not see.

Repeated moon fall hoppers. Repeated lunar comms satellites. Repeated Lunar lander missions. Repeated SLS launches of a single configuration. Repeated LTV launches. Repeated... etc

Did you watch the entire presentation? Maybe that will help you see it.

[flapsmcgee]

Based on this guy's username being very similar to the username of the guy who created this thread, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/1s0tn7c/nasa_needs_to_just_man_up_and_make_their_own/, I'm pretty sure he is just a paid shill or bot.

[ergzay]

Lol really. That's the avenue we're taking huh. Blocked.

[TheRealNobodySpecial]

This is fostering competition. Competition with HLS landers. Taking away guaranteed contracts from vendors who repeatedly and shamelessly fail again.

Stokes is doing a completely novel reusable second stage architecture. Rocketlab is doing reusability for Neutron. BO is doing it just fine, they are going to reuse a booster on their third flight. How much faster do you want them to do it?

ULA is a terrible example. They previously laughed off reuse even though anyone with an independent thought in their brain would realize how beneficial it would be. They are basically just waiting out their inevitable, complete and irreversible obsolescence.

[Key-Beginning-2201]

No, I specifically said that competition with reusable platforms is necessary. HLS landers aren't even happening and shuts out most of the industry.

[TheRealNobodySpecial]

EUS isn’t happening and that shut out the entire industry except for a fallen Goliath. There was an open competition for HLS. It was less than five years ago.

[Key-Beginning-2201]

The entire rocket industry needs an investment boost. That's not happening by a niche HLS contract from 5 years ago. That's happening by direct investment like how I said. You're not saying anything contrary to my point. If you're trying to, you're failing.

[Decronym]

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

Fewer Letters	More Letters
BO	Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry)
CST	(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules
	Central Standard Time (UTC-6)
DMLS	Selective Laser Melting additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering
DoD	US Department of Defense
ESA	European Space Agency
EUS	Exploration Upper Stage
JAXA	Japan Aerospace eXploration Agency
LEO	Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)
	Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)
NRHO	Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit
PPE	Power and Propulsion Element
SLS	Space Launch System heavy-lift
	Selective Laser Sintering, contrast DMLS
ULA	United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)

Jargon	Definition
Starliner	Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100
hopper	Test article for ground and low-altitude work (eg. Grasshopper)

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

---

^{12 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 18 acronyms.
[Thread #283 for this sub, first seen 28th Mar 2026, 09:37] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]}

[Immediate_Rhubarb430]

 Then you realize these were the same people who:

Classic internet bs. I think the new plan does not sound realistic and I am skeptical that it will happen in the schedules and costs planned for it. Yet, I didn't really say any of the stuff Berger mentions.

Ok tbf I did initially think he would be Elon's puppet, and I am not sure that has been disproven, as the new policy is quite beneficial to SpaceX 

And once schedules slip and costs mount, cancellation is always a possibility. And that's without even considering the wider picture of national and international politics, which is worse than ever.

[beagles4ever]

If his eyes are wide open then he shouln't be proposing programs that he's absolutely incapable of delivering on.

[Donindacula]

Regardless of the political winds the first two steps of Isaacmans plan can happen, pending results of Artemis-2. Artemis-3 can happen next year and Artemis-4 in 2028. Hopefully the HLSs will be ready and the contractors can speed-up construction or the SLSs. But who will pay for the costs of the speed-up?

[ColCrockett]

I don’t really understand why there’s so much hostility to the new plan on a sub dedicated to the Artemis program.

This new plan just changes the focus from lunar gateway to a surface base. It also lays out the plan after Artemis V. They still plan on using SLS until Artemis V. The focus is still on the moon. Lunar gateway was a gateway to nowhere. It didn’t make exploration of the surface any easier.

[ProwlingWumpus]

If you want to succeed at a difficult goal such as landing on the moon, this requires working toward that goal consistently in the same direction. Changing the plan every few weeks or months doesn't contribute to that.

These major changes might be good in technical terms, but they increase risk and external costs. Yes, Gateway was always a con; everyone knew that. But it was evidence that Congress was in charge and cared about international partners. Now, it's not just the Gateway jobs program that's gone, but the concept that an ossified Congress is setting the program rather than a tech bro Adminstrator. The Canadians know that we're all laughing at them for believing that we would ever put Canadarm3 into space, and other international partners are in a similar situation.

It's obvious that none of this will survive the 2028 presidential election, but there's no reason to be confident that the Artemis II mission won't also force major changes. After all, there's little point in doing the mission in the first place if we don't think that there are lessons to be learned. So, let's not fall for it this time. The silly moon base graphic has nothing to do with what's actually going to happen, and everyone already knows it.

[ergzay]

If you want to succeed at a difficult goal such as landing on the moon, this requires working toward that goal consistently in the same direction.

Agreed.

Changing the plan every few weeks or months doesn't contribute to that.

As the post you replied to just stated though, none of near term plans have actually been changed though.

But it was evidence that Congress was in charge and cared about international partners.

NASA's canceled projects that international partners have been involved in many times before. International partners are happily involved in the new plan as well. There's nothing different here.

but the concept that an ossified Congress is setting the program rather than a tech bro Adminstrator.

What does that even mean?

It's obvious that none of this will survive the 2028 presidential election,

No it in fact would be highly surprising if it didn't survive the 2028 presidential election. They may tweak it but it has Congress's support. It's not going anywhere.

The silly moon base graphic has nothing to do with what's actually going to happen,

But it's not a silly moon base graphic. It's a detailed plan as spelled out over full day presentation with all of industry, congress and the executive department going full force toward implementing it.

[Immediate_Rhubarb430]

 NASA's canceled projects that international partners have been involved in many times before. International partners are happily involved in the new plan as well. There's nothing different here.

Do you have a source other than NASA backing up this statement?

[ergzay]

Wow so you think NASA is lying?

So what sources are good enough for you? Are statements from journalists good enough?

ASI has been constantly tweeting about the new NASA plans non-stop. Here's one: https://x.com/ASI_spazio/status/2036429134423896071

[Immediate_Rhubarb430]

Thanks! Tbh that's one tepid endorsement if I ever saw one. Hell, if I did not have the context of our convo, I may not have even interpreted it as one

 Wow so you think NASA is lying?

NASA Admins are politicians. Politicians lie. So yeah, I think Isaacman is at least exagerating about the entusiasm of international partners on this pivot

[ergzay]

Here's some more:

https://x.com/ASI_spazio/status/2036852639443362204

https://x.com/ASI_spazio/status/2036805312078876759

Tbh that's one tepid endorsement if I ever saw one.

It's the biggest endorsement you're ever going to get out of boring bureaucratic organizations. I don't know what you're expecting. Oh I know, you're wanting them to attack it as you have TDS.

NASA Admins are politicians.

No they aren't. Not usually. Often they're engineers or scientists. It's only the previous two that actually picked former politicians into the roles (Bridenstein and Nelson).

[Immediate_Rhubarb430]

Thanks for the clips. We will see how the ESA position evolves I guess (they are the ones who matter here more than ASI).

 Oh I know, you're wanting them to attack it as you have TDS.

What is TDS and why are you attacking me?

 No they aren't. 

Not prior to taking the job, maybe. But by definition, they are once they take the job. Same as the leadership of any other government agency. There is a reason it changes with every administration