Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
NASA's planned Artemis III sequence puts Blue Origin's lander checkout before the SLS and Orion crew launch, while NASA says an orbital rehearsal is needed even if the landers are ready.
Chapters
00:00 Today's headlines
01:02 NASA asking companies to reboost Hubble
02:18 MDA Space antenna agreement with Thales
03:57 Marius Hills Pit may lead to lava tube
04:53 Blue Origin lander before SLS commits
07:49 Lander bottleneck and Apollo 9 rehearsal
Source links
Space Stakes is an AI-voiced podcast, built and run by a real person. Nothing in this episode is financial advice.
Follow Space Stakes: subscribe on YouTube · Apple Podcasts · Spotify
More from Brian Lampert: Quickly Quantum, the daily quantum computing briefing, and Concrete Compute, the daily AI infrastructure briefing. Transcripts and every episode: space-stakes.kngoworld.chatgpt.site.
The money, missions, and power shaping space. Space Stakes is a daily briefing on the business of the new space race — launches, contracts, constellations, and the capital behind them. Every episode cuts through the industry's hype: signed contracts vs. paper constellations, funded orders vs. "up to" ceilings, launch dates vs. track records. Who pays, who profits, and who actually delivers — told so both aerospace insiders and curious newcomers finish feeling it was made for them. Space Stakes is an AI-voiced podcast, created and built by a real human, Brian Lampert. Nothing on this show is financial advice.
Also from Brian Lampert: Quickly Quantum and Concrete Compute.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman says NASA will only commit the Space Launch System if Blue Origin’s lander is already in orbit, according to an interview with NASASpaceFlight.com. That puts the commercial lander ahead of the crew launch in a planned three-launch campaign—and makes its checkout a condition for NASA’s next step. Blue Moon is expected to loiter in orbit for roughly 30 days, while Starship follows the SLS and Orion crew launch. What does NASA need to learn before it commits? We’ll work through the sequence, the rehearsal NASA says it still wants, and what this means for the schedule. Welcome back to Space Stakes, your daily brief on the business of space. It's Sunday, November 1, 2026. Let's get into it.
Elon Musk posted on X, “Congrats to the @SpaceX team on over 700 Falcon 9 flights!” That’s a company milestone, as Musk presents it, and a crisp reminder that reusable launch vehicles earn their business case one flight at a time.
And from launch cadence to a telescope’s remaining time in orbit: NASA is asking companies for ideas to reboost, service, or safely dispose of Hubble, Ars Technica reports. The request for information, or RFI, asks what commercial companies can do; it isn’t a purchase commitment. Responses are due November 30.
Hubble has been in orbit for 36 years, Ars Technica says. Left alone, the observatory is expected to plunge back into the atmosphere in the early-to-mid-2030s. NASA is asking about boosting it to an altitude of at least 373 miles (600 km), improving its performance, or guiding it to a controlled reentry. The agency says a boost or servicing mission must not harm Hubble and is expected to occur by 2032. A contractor would provide the launch vehicle, servicing spacecraft, mission operations, and crew if applicable.
NASA last raised Hubble’s orbit in 2002, during a Space Shuttle Columbia servicing mission. A later servicing flight in 2009 didn’t reboost the telescope. Ars Technica says NASA wants to learn who might be interested, what a mission might cost, and who could reach Hubble before its eventual reentry. The practical question for you is whether asking the market produces an actual mission plan—and then a funded decision. For now, NASA is gathering options.
Meanwhile, Europe’s effort to build secure satellite communications has a newly priced piece of work: MDA Space says its initial agreement with Thales Alenia Space is worth more than C$100 million (€64.18 million), European Spaceflight reports. The authorization lets MDA begin developing digital phased array antennas and a digital antenna controller for the first 66 IRIS2 satellites. MDA says a definitive contract covering the full scope has yet to be finalized, and the agreement comes as Canada and the EU have announced plans to explore Canadian participation in the programme.
This follows our earlier coverage of MDA’s antenna work for IRIS2; the new detail is the value MDA put on the initial authorization. Those antennas are part of Layer One, the first 66 satellites. European Spaceflight says Airbus Defence and Space was selected to manufacture the satellite platforms and integrate the spacecraft, while Thales Alenia Space secured a contract for the Ka-band communications payloads. Launches for this first layer are expected to begin in 2029.
The wider IRIS2 constellation also has contracts for other satellites: SES awarded Germany’s OHB a contract worth nearly €1 billion for 18 medium Earth orbit satellite platforms, and Belgium’s Aerospacelab secured a €2.4 billion contract to manufacture and integrate 264 low Earth orbit satellites. Those are separate pieces of the programme, not part of MDA’s initial authorization. For you, the meaningful change is that the supply chain now has a stated price for this antenna work. The test is whether the authorized work becomes finished hardware and, eventually, a working service.
Changing from orbital infrastructure to what might be underneath the Moon’s surface, Space.com’s This Week In Space podcast features Than Putzig of the Planetary Science Institute discussing a NASA-backed payload bound for the Marius Hills Pit.
The podcast describes the pit as a roughly 50-meter-wide opening that may lead into a lunar lava tube—a long cavity formed by flowing lava. Geophysical instruments on a rover could look for hidden spaces below the surface and measure the size of those tubes. The discussion also considers what a follow-up robotic explorer could reveal and how the research fits alongside NASA’s Artemis plans for a south polar moon base.
For someone who doesn’t work in space, the appeal is easy to grasp: before people talk about living beneath the lunar surface, a robot has to help establish what’s there. The podcast raises the possibility of a future habitat; it doesn’t claim the pit is ready to house anyone. That distinction keeps the science interesting without turning a question into a destination.
That's the rest of the rundown. Now, the story that deserves the long look.
Artemis III is planned as a low-Earth-orbit checkout campaign involving Orion and two commercial landers, rather than a single launch carrying everything together. The stakes are in the order: Blue Origin’s lander has to be in orbit and checked out before NASA commits SLS and its crew.
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman told NASASpaceFlight.com that the campaign will require launches involving three vehicles and providers. The planned order starts with New Glenn carrying Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander, which is expected to be able to loiter in orbit for roughly 30 days. Then comes the SLS and Orion crew launch, followed by a Starship launch. Low Earth orbit is the region relatively close to Earth where the vehicles can meet and practice operating together.
Isaacman put the sequence plainly: “We’re not going to launch without Blue Origin in it,” he said. “That’s why they’re going to launch first. Like they need to be up there, do some checkouts, and then we commit SLS.”
That is the key operational gate: the lander’s presence and checkout precede the crew launch. NASA can then use the planned campaign to practice rendezvous and docking—bringing spacecraft together and connecting them in orbit—before a later crewed lunar landing attempt. The sequence also creates time for Blue Moon to remain in orbit before Orion arrives.
Isaacman described the three-launch, three-provider setup as unprecedented for a NASA crew mission, and tied it to the kind of multi-launch campaigns he expects for future large-scale space infrastructure. He said, “That in itself is interesting in my mind because it’s a signal of where we’re going, which is everything we’re going to build from here forward. You’re going to have these multi-launch campaigns.”
He also pointed to autonomous assembly in orbit. “If we realize this nuclear NASA dream and you’re going to have these fleets of fission-powered spacecraft, there’s going to be a lot of launches to build those things. So I like that that’s a direction it’s going to go,” he said. Fission-powered means spacecraft using energy from splitting atoms; Isaacman described those fleets as a future possibility, not an existing system.
The campaign has a test value beyond the hardware. Isaacman said Starship is expected to provide high-definition imagery, controllability testing, and rendezvous and docking practice during the roughly two-week period that includes the two planned rendezvous events. He described the visual and operational return of having all three vehicles nearby as “just so cool.” He also said the primary operational learning is expected from Blue Origin, whose team has not previously kept people alive outside the New Shepard suborbital environment for extended periods.
A space commentator, @LunarCitizens, posted on X: “Wow, Blue Origin has become the critical path for Artemis III, and NASA doesn’t look fully confident in them.” The first part captures the sequence Isaacman described: Blue Origin’s lander has to be in orbit before SLS commits. The claim about NASA’s confidence is the poster’s interpretation; Isaacman’s interview identifies the lander as the schedule bottleneck, while also saying Blue Origin is making substantial progress.
But is the lander the only reason for the rehearsal? Isaacman says no: NASA would still require a low-Earth-orbit rehearsal even if the landers were ready. He compared it to Apollo 9, a mission that practiced undocking, translation, and re-rendezvous before a lunar attempt. In his words, “The landers could be ready right now and we would still, and NASA would still insist on an Apollo 9 mission in low Earth orbit.” That matters because it separates the need to practice the mission architecture from the question of whether Blue Origin can deliver its lander.
At the same time, Isaacman named the lander as the primary remaining bottleneck and said, “We don’t have a fully assembled Blue test article yet,” while adding that Blue Origin is making substantial progress. He also described NASA support for several parts of the programme: embedding personnel, building some hardware itself, and helping with subcontractor work. He said NASA had provided similar help for Orion, including assigning thermal protection system specialists, and summarized the effort this way: “Everybody needed help. Everybody needed NASA to be NASA and put people out in the field and do things.”
So what does NASA get from putting the commercial lander ahead of the crew launch? Isaacman’s answer is operational practice before a later lunar landing attempt: checkouts, rendezvous, docking, and a rehearsal of the steps needed to work with multiple vehicles. The public investment is tied to a concrete capability NASA says it wants to exercise. But the planned order also means the SLS commitment depends on Blue Origin getting its lander into orbit and through checkouts first.
I think the sequence is a sensible way to make the mission teach NASA something before it tries a landing, and I’m glad Isaacman described that learning as part of the mission’s purpose rather than pretending this is a simple launch. But a sensible architecture still needs flight-ready hardware. A fully assembled Blue test article is the specific evidence I’d want before treating the lander’s readiness as resolved.
I also think the Apollo 9 comparison is useful precisely because Isaacman says NASA would insist on a rehearsal even if the landers were ready. That makes the schedule story more complicated than blaming one provider: the rehearsal is part of NASA’s plan, while the lander is the stated bottleneck. The next proof is whether Blue Origin can get from a test article that isn’t fully assembled to the in-orbit checkout Isaacman says must come first.
Time for the Hype Check. My substance score is 6 out of 10: the sequence is concrete and the rehearsal has a clear operational purpose, but the lander has not yet reached the fully assembled test-article stage Isaacman described. Crew does not launch until the commercial lander is already checked out on orbit; Blue Origin has to make that first step real, and NASA has to show that the rehearsal delivers the experience it says it needs.
If you want a clear-eyed daily guide to the business behind these missions, follow Space Stakes wherever you listen.
This has been Space Stakes, an AI-voiced podcast, created and built by a real human using today's cutting-edge technology. Nothing you heard on this show is financial advice. I'm Brian Lampert, and I'll catch you all tomorrow — take care!
Watching on YouTube? Hit subscribe, and tomorrow's briefing will be waiting for you. I also host Concrete Compute: a daily briefing on the AI buildout. The datacenters, the megawatts, and who actually pays for them. Find it wherever you get your podcasts.