NASA will trade the Artemis mission that was expected to land astronauts on the moon for a new plan intended to increase launch frequency of the agency’s mega rocket.
At a news briefing on Friday, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman described a vast overhaul to the moon-to-Mars program. The changes scrap the Artemis III lunar landing and instead make it a flight in low-Earth orbit for a crew to practice meeting up with either the SpaceX or Blue Origin-built lunar landers — or, perhaps, both.
Those efforts also will impact the U.S. space agency’s timeline for the future Artemis missions, moving up the revised Artemis III flight to the middle of 2027, which could make way for Artemis IV and Artemis V at the beginning and end of 2028. Under the new direction, Artemis IV would be the first mission to put astronaut boots on the lunar surface.
The sweeping revisions to the agency’s program came during an update on repairs to the Space Launch System rocket, which will launch Artemis II, a 10-day lunar flyby mission with a crew, as early as April.
“There has to be a better way in line with our history,” Isaacman said. “We did not just jump right to Apollo 11. We did it through Mercury, Gemini, and lots of Apollo missions, with a launch cadence every three months. We shouldn’t be comfortable with the current cadence. We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know works.”
SEE ALSO:
These ‘avatars’ will fly around the moon with NASA’s Artemis 2 astronauts
NASA leaders said the shakeup is meant to address a larger underlying problem: the U.S. agency is flying its most powerful rocket too infrequently and repeating some of the same technical issues from one mission to the next.
Isaacman pointed to hydrogen leaks on Artemis I and helium flow problems on Artemis II as signs that a three‑year gap between launches is not sustainable. When teams only fly every few years, he said, they lose “muscle memory” — the routine, hands-on experience required to handle a complex rocket safely and efficiently.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
To fix that, NASA is redefining the Artemis campaign as a step‑by‑step test program. The agency now aims to launch roughly once every 10 months, standardize its rocket configuration, and rebuild in‑house expertise that has withered over time.
Increasing the Artemis launch cadence
A major change is the decision to treat Artemis III as a practice mission in Earth orbit rather than a landing attempt. That mission will let astronauts and engineers test how the Orion spaceship and the landers find each other, fly together, and possibly dock. It will also allow crews to start checking life‑support systems and other hardware inside the landers before sending them all the way to the lunar surface. Officials said they may even try limited tests of the new moonwalking suits in weightlessness, if schedules allow.
Mashable Light Speed
NASA leaders argued that it makes more sense to uncover problems and practice operations close to home, in Earth orbit, rather than discovering them for the first time while attempting a landing on the moon. If the faster launch tempo holds, Artemis IV and Artemis V together could give NASA two opportunities in 2028. Officials stressed that the timeline still depends on hardware readiness and safety reviews.
Work toward Gateway, a small space station that would orbit the moon and serve as a staging point for future missions, is not going away, officials said. But they made clear the agency’s priority is getting Artemis flights off the ground more often before building out that lunar outpost.
Not far from their minds is the reality that China is also attempting to land its own crew on the moon before 2030 and may be able to get there before the United States. NASA hasn’t sent humans to the lunar surface since Apollo 17 in 1972. And though no other nation has followed in the giant leap for humankind, that won’t always be true.
NASA leaders announced an overhaul to the Artemis program’s timeline, trying to simplify the missions and created a stepped approach from one launch to the next.
Credit: NASA infographic
“[In] the 1960s [it] turned out, in hindsight, we had a near-endless schedule margin there,” Isaacman said. “That is certainly not the case today. I’d say this is very, very close from a timeline perspective.”
Artemis 2 works toward April launch
The revised campaign comes as engineers work through immediate issues on Artemis II, the first crewed flight of the program. After a successful “wet dress rehearsal” — a full countdown test that loads the rocket with super‑cold fuel — teams discovered that helium was not flowing correctly to the engines in the rocket’s upper stage.
Helium is used to pressurize tanks and help push fuel into the engines. Without proper helium flow, the rocket cannot safely fly. Because the upper stage is hard to reach at the launchpad, NASA rolled the stacked rocket back into the Vehicle Assembly Building, the sky-scraping hangar where it was originally put together.
While the rocket is inside, technicians will remove and inspect suspected helium system components, update any faulty hardware, and perform other work. That includes replacing batteries in the flight termination system — the emergency system that can destroy the rocket if it strays off course — swapping out a seal on the line that feeds liquid oxygen into the rocket, refreshing items inside Orion, and giving the closeout crew more practice sealing the capsule.
NASA wants to streamline that work to preserve a chance to launch Artemis II on April 1, April 3 through 6, or April 30. They have not provided potential launch dates beyond April, despite many requests from reporters to do so.
Technicians are trying to diagnose a helium flow problem in the upper stage of the moon rocket ahead of Artemis II, which could launch as early as April.
Credit: NASA
Back to the Apollo-era approach
Beyond the near-term, Isaacman said NASA will standardize the current moon rocket configuration instead of evolving the design after only a few flights, as originally planned. The goal is to avoid turning each booster into a bespoke project and instead fly a simpler, repeatable version that industry can achieve quicker.
Isaacman also highlighted a push to rebuild NASA’s workforce, shifting some key roles from contractors — who today make up about 75 percent of the agency’s technical labor — back to in-house expertise. NASA leaders say that will give them more control over launch preparations, as it did in the Apollo and space shuttle eras.
The White House, Congress, and major contractors support the new approach, he said. The bigger question is whether the American public will get on board. Many people are unaware that NASA is just weeks away from launching astronauts into deep space for the first time in over a half-century.
“It’s a different environment than the 1960s. There’s more than three channels on a TV, so capturing people’s attention at times can be challenging,” Isaacman said. “I have no doubt when Artemis II takes flight, the world will take notice to that.”
Source link
#NASAs #huge #Artemis #shakeup #Moon #landing #swapped #mission
![ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet: No one is coming for us | TechCrunch
Every time you use AI, you are, in some small way, depending on a 42-year-old, 44,000-person Dutch company that spends €4.5 billion each year to advance its technology.
ASML, headquartered in the Netherlands, makes the machines that make the chips that make AI possible. More specifically, it makes the only machines in the world capable of printing the microscopic patterns on silicon wafers that define the most advanced semiconductors — a process called extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV. The machines are roughly the size of a school bus, take months to assemble, involve hundreds of suppliers, and cost anywhere from 0 million to upwards of 0 million apiece depending on the generation (prices that give even ASML’s biggest customers pause occasionally).
That monopoly has made ASML the most valuable company in Europe, worth over 0 billion. And with the four largest American tech companies — Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and Google — committing more than 0 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year alone, demand for ASML’s machines has surged to the point where the company has openly said the world won’t have enough chips for years.
All that demand has also made ASML a target. Substrate, a San Francisco startup founded by a protégé of Peter Thiel, has raised more than 0 million and been valued at over billion on the claim that it can build a rival lithography machine. Separately, there have been reports that former ASML engineers in China have partly reverse-engineered the technology, a prospect with enormous geopolitical implications.
Christophe Fouquet, who became ASML’s CEO in 2024 after more than a decade at the company, sat down with this editor on the rooftop deck of his Beverly Hills hotel Tuesday morning ahead of his appearance at the Milken Institute Global Conference. Dressed in a blue suit and white shirt, he was relaxed — even when the conversation turned to the rivals.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
TC: Did you see the AI explosion coming?
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
CF: No, not at all. We worked very hard, but not with the idea that this would come. You went from a concept — something people thought would eventually arrive — to ChatGPT, which was really the first good example of what AI could do. And now I think we look at AI as the next revolution, not only industrial but societal. Did I see it coming? No. Sitting in the middle of it every day, sometimes we wake up in the morning and still check that what is happening is really happening.
The big question everyone has is whether the supply chain can keep pace with demand. Can it?
The demand is such that the market overall will be supply-limited for quite a bit. Right now, the biggest bottleneck seems to be in chip manufacturing. We, as an equipment supplier, follow our customers, and so far we’ve followed them pretty well — but we know we have to step up our entire supply chain and capacity. If you talk to the hyperscalers, I think they will tell you that for the next two, three, even five years, they’re not going to get enough chips.
TSMC made news recently saying your latest machines are too expensive. How do you respond?
An EUV system, if you look at the price, is going to be more expensive than a low-NA system, but the cost of making a wafer with this tool on some advanced layers will be cheaper. We can get 20%, 30% cost reduction.
[Editors note: both machines Fouquet is referring to here are EUV machines — the same fundamental technology. NA stands for numerical aperture, a measure of how finely a machine can focus light onto a chip. Low-NA EUV is the current generation; high-NA EUV is ASML’s newest generation, capable of printing even finer patterns but carrying a price tag of 0 million or more apiece. Fouquet is arguing that even though the new machine costs more, it produces chips more cheaply.]
I get a lot of questions about whether it’s going to be this month or next month or the month after. And I usually say it doesn’t really matter, because we designed high-NA for the next 10, 20 years. You can go back to the press from 2016, 2017, and you’ll find the same quotes — low-NA EUV was very pricey. We know what happened after that. The same will happen with high-NA.
There’s a startup called Substrate, backed by Peter Thiel, claiming it can build a rival lithography machine. What do you think of it?
Wanting to have it and having it — that’s still a huge difference. The challenges of lithography are many. Being able to make an image is a starting point, but you need to make that image in very high quantity, at very low cost, at high speed, and with nanometer accuracy. I always say the only reason ASML could build an EUV machine is because 80% of it already existed, based on previous knowledge and products built over time. We had to solve one problem — getting EUV light — and that alone took 20 years. When you start from scratch, the challenge is enormous. I’ve seen a lot of claims. I’ve seen a few pictures. But we had our first EUV picture 30 years ago, and we still needed 20 more years of hard work to turn it into a manufacturing system.
What about xLight, a laser startup partly backed by the U.S. government that wants to work with you?
xLight is focusing on one element of our EUV machine — the source that creates the light. The source we have can be extended for many years to come, and we know how to scale it. What xLight is doing is a new source that still has to be built and proven. The only question is whether it provides a performance or cost advantage over what we have. I think the jury is still out. We are working with them so they can demonstrate their technology — we feel that’s a responsibility on our side. But it’s still a very long journey.
There are also reports that former ASML engineers in China have reverse-engineered your machines.
To reverse-engineer anything, you first need to have the machine. And there is no EUV machine in China — we never shipped any tools there. All the tools we have shipped, we know where they are. They’re either in use with customers, and we track those, or they’ve been dismantled and came back to us. The idea that one of our systems is in China is simply wrong. And because our EUV technology has never been exported there, we also have no people in China trained on EUV.
Very early on, when restrictions came in, we created a complete separation within the company between those who can access EUV technology, documents and training, and those who cannot. Our team in China sits on the other side of that line. The facts point to very little, if any, progress at all. It’s hard for people to accept that because access to this technology is so important.
On export controls more broadly — Jensen Huang was here last night arguing that companies should sell globally, that more corporate revenue means more tax dollars for a company’s home country. He also said the important thing is to keep the best and latest closer to home. Do you agree?
I think he’s totally right. What he adds — and I think this is what Nvidia has done — is that you can keep a technological advantage by maintaining a generation gap in what you sell. Nvidia sells a few generations back, and that lets them find the balance between still doing business and not handing a strong competitive advantage to countries where you won’t sell the latest. We believe the same approach should apply to our products. Today we ship tools to China — allowed by export controls — but it’s a tool we first shipped in 2015. If you apply Jensen’s philosophy to our situation, Nvidia is working with roughly an eight-generation gap. We’re looking at two or three. There’s room for rationalization — finding the right balance between not doing business at all, losing a major opportunity, and strongly inviting others to compete with you.
How do you assess where things stand with the current administration on all of this?
There is a good dialogue, which is very important. I think there’s a genuine understanding of what business needs, but there’s still the challenge of finding the right balance between all the different voices and interests. The dialogue is there, and we appreciate that. I’ve been in Washington many times. At least the discussion is happening. But it’s a very complex topic.
You don’t seem concerned about anyone short-cutting your technology.
People like to have the greatest technology, but they tend to forget what it took to build it. It’s been many years of work — not only at ASML but with our suppliers. Many different groups of people solving very difficult problems, and then one company bringing it all together using decades of lithography expertise to turn it into a manufacturing system. This is in no way easy. And I think that’s also our best protection. It’s simply what it took to put it together.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#ASML #CEO #Christophe #Fouquet #coming #TechCrunchASML,Christophe Fouquet,Jensen Huang,nvidia,TSMC](https://i2.wp.com/techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/GettyImages-2250757778.jpg?resize=1200%2C800&ssl=1 "ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet: No one is coming for us | TechCrunch
Every time you use AI, you are, in some small way, depending on a 42-year-old, 44,000-person Dutch company that spends €4.5 billion each year to advance its technology.
ASML, headquartered in the Netherlands, makes the machines that make the chips that make AI possible. More specifically, it makes the only machines in the world capable of printing the microscopic patterns on silicon wafers that define the most advanced semiconductors — a process called extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV. The machines are roughly the size of a school bus, take months to assemble, involve hundreds of suppliers, and cost anywhere from 0 million to upwards of 0 million apiece depending on the generation (prices that give even ASML’s biggest customers pause occasionally).
That monopoly has made ASML the most valuable company in Europe, worth over 0 billion. And with the four largest American tech companies — Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and Google — committing more than 0 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year alone, demand for ASML’s machines has surged to the point where the company has openly said the world won’t have enough chips for years.
All that demand has also made ASML a target. Substrate, a San Francisco startup founded by a protégé of Peter Thiel, has raised more than 0 million and been valued at over billion on the claim that it can build a rival lithography machine. Separately, there have been reports that former ASML engineers in China have partly reverse-engineered the technology, a prospect with enormous geopolitical implications.
Christophe Fouquet, who became ASML’s CEO in 2024 after more than a decade at the company, sat down with this editor on the rooftop deck of his Beverly Hills hotel Tuesday morning ahead of his appearance at the Milken Institute Global Conference. Dressed in a blue suit and white shirt, he was relaxed — even when the conversation turned to the rivals.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
TC: Did you see the AI explosion coming?
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
CF: No, not at all. We worked very hard, but not with the idea that this would come. You went from a concept — something people thought would eventually arrive — to ChatGPT, which was really the first good example of what AI could do. And now I think we look at AI as the next revolution, not only industrial but societal. Did I see it coming? No. Sitting in the middle of it every day, sometimes we wake up in the morning and still check that what is happening is really happening.
The big question everyone has is whether the supply chain can keep pace with demand. Can it?
The demand is such that the market overall will be supply-limited for quite a bit. Right now, the biggest bottleneck seems to be in chip manufacturing. We, as an equipment supplier, follow our customers, and so far we’ve followed them pretty well — but we know we have to step up our entire supply chain and capacity. If you talk to the hyperscalers, I think they will tell you that for the next two, three, even five years, they’re not going to get enough chips.
TSMC made news recently saying your latest machines are too expensive. How do you respond?
An EUV system, if you look at the price, is going to be more expensive than a low-NA system, but the cost of making a wafer with this tool on some advanced layers will be cheaper. We can get 20%, 30% cost reduction.
[Editors note: both machines Fouquet is referring to here are EUV machines — the same fundamental technology. NA stands for numerical aperture, a measure of how finely a machine can focus light onto a chip. Low-NA EUV is the current generation; high-NA EUV is ASML’s newest generation, capable of printing even finer patterns but carrying a price tag of 0 million or more apiece. Fouquet is arguing that even though the new machine costs more, it produces chips more cheaply.]
I get a lot of questions about whether it’s going to be this month or next month or the month after. And I usually say it doesn’t really matter, because we designed high-NA for the next 10, 20 years. You can go back to the press from 2016, 2017, and you’ll find the same quotes — low-NA EUV was very pricey. We know what happened after that. The same will happen with high-NA.
There’s a startup called Substrate, backed by Peter Thiel, claiming it can build a rival lithography machine. What do you think of it?
Wanting to have it and having it — that’s still a huge difference. The challenges of lithography are many. Being able to make an image is a starting point, but you need to make that image in very high quantity, at very low cost, at high speed, and with nanometer accuracy. I always say the only reason ASML could build an EUV machine is because 80% of it already existed, based on previous knowledge and products built over time. We had to solve one problem — getting EUV light — and that alone took 20 years. When you start from scratch, the challenge is enormous. I’ve seen a lot of claims. I’ve seen a few pictures. But we had our first EUV picture 30 years ago, and we still needed 20 more years of hard work to turn it into a manufacturing system.
What about xLight, a laser startup partly backed by the U.S. government that wants to work with you?
xLight is focusing on one element of our EUV machine — the source that creates the light. The source we have can be extended for many years to come, and we know how to scale it. What xLight is doing is a new source that still has to be built and proven. The only question is whether it provides a performance or cost advantage over what we have. I think the jury is still out. We are working with them so they can demonstrate their technology — we feel that’s a responsibility on our side. But it’s still a very long journey.
There are also reports that former ASML engineers in China have reverse-engineered your machines.
To reverse-engineer anything, you first need to have the machine. And there is no EUV machine in China — we never shipped any tools there. All the tools we have shipped, we know where they are. They’re either in use with customers, and we track those, or they’ve been dismantled and came back to us. The idea that one of our systems is in China is simply wrong. And because our EUV technology has never been exported there, we also have no people in China trained on EUV.
Very early on, when restrictions came in, we created a complete separation within the company between those who can access EUV technology, documents and training, and those who cannot. Our team in China sits on the other side of that line. The facts point to very little, if any, progress at all. It’s hard for people to accept that because access to this technology is so important.
On export controls more broadly — Jensen Huang was here last night arguing that companies should sell globally, that more corporate revenue means more tax dollars for a company’s home country. He also said the important thing is to keep the best and latest closer to home. Do you agree?
I think he’s totally right. What he adds — and I think this is what Nvidia has done — is that you can keep a technological advantage by maintaining a generation gap in what you sell. Nvidia sells a few generations back, and that lets them find the balance between still doing business and not handing a strong competitive advantage to countries where you won’t sell the latest. We believe the same approach should apply to our products. Today we ship tools to China — allowed by export controls — but it’s a tool we first shipped in 2015. If you apply Jensen’s philosophy to our situation, Nvidia is working with roughly an eight-generation gap. We’re looking at two or three. There’s room for rationalization — finding the right balance between not doing business at all, losing a major opportunity, and strongly inviting others to compete with you.
How do you assess where things stand with the current administration on all of this?
There is a good dialogue, which is very important. I think there’s a genuine understanding of what business needs, but there’s still the challenge of finding the right balance between all the different voices and interests. The dialogue is there, and we appreciate that. I’ve been in Washington many times. At least the discussion is happening. But it’s a very complex topic.
You don’t seem concerned about anyone short-cutting your technology.
People like to have the greatest technology, but they tend to forget what it took to build it. It’s been many years of work — not only at ASML but with our suppliers. Many different groups of people solving very difficult problems, and then one company bringing it all together using decades of lithography expertise to turn it into a manufacturing system. This is in no way easy. And I think that’s also our best protection. It’s simply what it took to put it together.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#ASML #CEO #Christophe #Fouquet #coming #TechCrunchASML,Christophe Fouquet,Jensen Huang,nvidia,TSMC")
Post Comment