Tag: manufacturing

Cheering on Artemis II: One step closer to a vacation on the Moon

The excitement around Artemis II is palpable right now, especially with the wet dress rehearsal wrapping up and teams pushing toward a launch no earlier than March 2026—potentially as soon as March 6 if everything aligns after addressing that liquid hydrogen leak from testing. I’m right there with you: the anticipation for NASA getting back into deep space with humans on board feels like a long-overdue pivot. This mission—four astronauts (Reid Wiseman commanding, Victor Glover piloting, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen as specialists) circling the Moon in Orion atop the SLS rocket for about 10 days—tests the critical human-rated systems: life support in the capsule for extended durations, navigation, comms, and most crucially, the heat shield enduring reentry from lunar-return speeds around 25,000 mph. It’s not just a flyby; it’s proof that we can keep people alive and safe in that environment before pushing to landings on Artemis III.

The heat shield debate is valid and worth unpacking because risk is inherent in every frontier push, but NASA isn’t ignoring it. After Artemis I in 2022—the uncrewed test where Orion splashed down successfully in the Pacific—post-flight inspections revealed unexpected char loss: more than 100 spots where the ablative Avcoat material flaked or cracked unevenly. Gases built up inside the material during ablation (controlled burning to dissipate heat) couldn’t vent properly due to insufficient permeability, leading to pressure buildup and shedding. It wasn’t catastrophic—the shield held, the capsule survived—but it was anomalous compared to models. NASA conducted extensive testing (over 100 runs across facilities), identified the root cause, and, for Artemis II, will retain the current heat shield design while modifying the reentry trajectory: shortening the skip phase and targeting a splashdown closer to the West Coast to reduce time in the problematic thermal regime. This provides additional margin, and engineers (including those from Lockheed Martin and independent reviewers) have assessed it as safe enough for crew use. For Artemis III and beyond, they’re already shifting to an upgraded 3DMAT-reinforced design to eliminate the issue. Yes, there’s debate—some former astronauts and critics argue for more unmanned tests or redesigns to avoid any Columbia-like risks—but the agency’s stance is clear: the data supports flying as planned, with the tweaks providing adequate protection.

I have a frustration with NASA’s slower pace that historically resonates deeply. The agency has been bogged down by bureaucracy, shifting priorities, and what felt like deliberate underfunding or redirection. Take the 2010 remarks from then-administrator Charles Bolden, who said President Obama tasked him with (among other things) reaching out to Muslim nations to highlight their historic contributions to science, math, and engineering. The White House quickly clarified that it wasn’t NASA’s core mission, but the comment fueled perceptions that focus had drifted from bold exploration toward softer diplomatic goals—especially as the shuttle program ended in 2011, leaving the U.S. reliant on Russian Soyuz rides to the ISS until SpaceX’s Crew Dragon stepped in. That gap period was humiliating and stalled momentum. Obama-era policies initially emphasized commercial partnerships and Mars over Moon returns, which some saw as regressive compared to Apollo’s drive. Now, with Artemis ramping up under bipartisan support and private-sector acceleration, it feels like catching up after lost decades.

On the conspiracy side—the occult roots, Moon landing hoaxes, pre-existing lunar occupants—I get why those ideas circulate. Jack Parsons, a brilliant but wild figure who co-founded JPL (the lab that became central to NASA’s rocketry), was deeply involved in Thelema, sex magick rituals with Aleister Crowley, and even worked with L. Ron Hubbard before Scientology. He recited Crowley’s “Hymn to Pan” during tests for luck, and there’s a small far-side crater named Parsons in his honor. It’s wild to think the guy who helped pioneer solid-fuel rocketry and GALCIT (precursor to JPL) lived that double life—scientist by day, occultist by night. But does that invalidate the engineering? No more than it erases the Moon landings. Apollo artifacts are there: retroreflectors still bounce lasers from Earth, orbital imagery from LRO shows descent stages and rover tracks, and recent commercial missions like Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost Mission 1 (landed March 2, 2025, in Mare Crisium, operated 14+ days on surface) have imaged or approached legacy sites. Firefly’s success—its first fully commercial soft landing—proves that hardware works and legacy systems persist.  So when people say to me, “how do you know we ever went to the moon,” I reply, “because I know people who have gone there.  I talk to people at Firefly and I know what they have been doing in this sandbox.

Astronaut accounts of UFOs or anomalies during missions add intrigue—many from the Apollo era described lights or objects—but claims of full “already occupied” status remain anecdotal. Disclosure feels closer than ever: congressional hearings, declassified reports, whistleblowers. Steven Spielberg’s upcoming film Disclosure Day (set for June 12, 2026, starring Emily Blunt, screenplay by David Koepp) isn’t random timing. Spielberg’s track record with Close Encounters and E.T. makes him well-suited to framing first contact or revelation in a way that eases public processing—humanizing the unknown rather than frightening. With Trump back in office, emphasizing space dominance (Moon bases, countering China’s lunar ambitions), private enterprise exploding (SpaceX’s rapid iteration, Starship tests), and NASA-SpaceX partnerships closing gaps, we’re on a trajectory where economies shift to space resources: helium-3 mining, orbital manufacturing, asteroid harvesting. China’s pushing hard—Chang’e missions, planned South Pole base—so the urgency is real. We need lunar footholds before they lock in advantages.

I have a vision of lunar hotels in 5–10 years that isn’t a fantasy. Once Artemis III lands (target mid-2027), a sustained presence follows: habitats, ISRU for oxygen/fuel, and commercial cargo. Vacation spots? Blue Origin and SpaceX tourism precursors point that way. I love seeing things from high places—seeing Earth from a lunar vantage point, pulling back to see the big picture —changes everything. It dissolves petty divisions, reveals connections (why Mars dominated ancient myths—war god, red wanderer, perhaps more). Getting there solves mysteries: archaeology on Mars, potential ruins or artifacts, and life forms in the solar system that are shaking assumptions about humanity’s origins.

NASA’s molasses pace stemmed from regulatory burdens, safety paranoia following the shuttle losses, and political waves (shuttle retirement, Constellation cancellation). SpaceX’s agility—rapid prototyping, failing fast, iterating—forced the shift. Without them, we’d still hitch rides. Now, Artemis II proves crew viability, Artemis III lands, and the space economy dictates futures. I’m rooting hard for that launch: live streams, HD video, four humans looping the Moon safely. It’s the step toward a lunar getaway, to perspective from the high ground. Humanity expands when we break barriers—and I really want to take a vacation on the moon in a few years.  And beyond. 

Footnotes

1.  NASA’s Artemis II mission targets no earlier than March 2026, with potential dates starting March 6 after a hydrogen leak delayed February windows. Wet dress rehearsal data review ongoing as of February 2026.

2.  Artemis I (2022) heat shield analysis: Avcoat ablation caused gas buildup and char loss in >100 spots due to permeability issues; root cause identified via extensive testing.

3.  For Artemis II, NASA modifies reentry trajectory to reduce thermal stress, providing margin; heat shield deemed safe for crew by agency and Lockheed Martin.

4.  Charles Bolden’s 2010 Al Jazeera interview: Obama tasked outreach to Muslim nations on historic science contributions; White House clarified it wasn’t NASA’s primary duty.

5.  Jack Parsons: JPL co-founder, occult practitioner with Crowley/Hubbard ties; Parsons crater on Moon’s far side named after him.

6.  Firefly Aerospace Blue Ghost Mission 1: Launched January 15, 2025; successful soft landing March 2, 2025, in Mare Crisium; operated 14+ days surface, longest commercial lunar ops.

7.  Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day: UFO-themed sci-fi film, released June 12, 2026, distributed by Universal Pictures.

8.  Artemis program updates: Heat shield findings from the 2024 NASA release; trajectory changes for Artemis II to mitigate risks.

Bibliography

•  NASA. “Artemis II: NASA’s First Crewed Lunar Flyby in 50 Years.” nasa.gov/mission/artemis-ii (accessed February 2026).

•  NASA. “NASA Identifies Cause of Artemis I Orion Heat Shield Char Loss.” December 6, 2024.

•  Space.com. “The Artemis 1 moon mission had a heat shield issue. Here’s why NASA doesn’t think it will happen again on Artemis 2.” February 2026.

•  Wikipedia. “Space policy of the Obama administration.” en.wikipedia.org (accessed February 2026).

•  Space.com. “Muslim Outreach Isn’t NASA Chief’s Duty, White House Says.” July 14, 2010.

•  Science History Institute. “The Sex-Cult ‘Antichrist’ Who Rocketed Us to Space: Part 1.” March 12, 2024.

•  Firefly Aerospace. “Blue Ghost Mission 1.” fireflyspace.com (accessed February 2026).

•  IMDb. “Disclosure Day (2026).” imdb.com/title/tt15047880 (accessed February 2026).

•  Wikipedia. “Disclosure Day.” en.wikipedia.org (accessed February 2026).

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The Secret to Elon Musk’s Success: His high score on the video game Diablo

I could tell Elon Musk was expanding his intellect as much as a few years ago, and I covered it as I witnessed it.  It was in the kind of books that he was reading, and because of that, I’m not surprised by his support of President Trump.  The only way you can remain a Democrat with Marxist foundations is through ignorance.  When you start learning things, you can’t support dumb politics.  While Elon Musk has always been intelligent and very successful, his political positions are more a result of knowledge than of upbringing or regional considerations.  For him, the realities of running his businesses have driven him to learn more to survive and, ultimately, provide him with a political point of view that facilitates productivity.  Having compassion for other people is one thing.  Destroying the world over compassion is quite another, and I could tell that as Elon Musk dealt with the realities of politics through his businesses, especially the Department of Labor trying to push him to unionize his Tesla plants, he was heading toward more small government than an imposing, all-powerful government that could take everything you own, and sit on FAA permits because you weren’t supporting their political party to stay in power.  For that matter, President Trump also went through the same kind of conversion throughout his life.  That doesn’t make all these people suddenly conservative the way I would be.  I grew up in a conservative area around a lot of conservative people, so I started that way.  As I learned more in life, my roots in conservative thought deepened.  But logic dictates that we all get to the same place once we figure out how the world works and the people in it strive to live in it. 

So, with all that said, people wonder why Elon Musk is so successful and why those who work for him are so engaged.  Now, I talk to many people at a consulting level.  If people listen to me, they are successful.  If they don’t, then they fail.  There isn’t any muddy middle.  There is no consensus on where everyone gets a participation trophy; success is a very rigid standard, and I always get asked about it by compelling people worldwide.   My joint statement toward any successful enterprise is that engagement is the most important and challenging thing to manage in a business.  You can see it in sports when two NFL teams play football.  Usually when one team wins over another given that all the players are the same essentially, they all weigh the same, they are all just as tall and have talented players at all the positions.  The element that determines winners from losers is the coaching staff and their ability to get good engagement from their players.  Labor unions tend to be unproductive because people aren’t motivated to engage in the business through collective bargaining.  They are always fighting the company management they work for to do as little as possible and still get paid wages at a highly engaged value.  Getting people engaged in a project or company is elusive, and the easiest thing that most management turns to is wages, hoping that people will be motivated to make more money and that they might work harder as a result of how much they are paid.  But of course, as I always say, money is not a good motivator.  Throwing money at people does not get people to be more engaged; most of the time, it lowers it as more money often destroys the things that make a person good and strive to be better.  Once a person stops striving for goals in their life, they tend to be less engaged in the things they do, from raising children to buying a new car. 

I thought it was interesting that Elon Musk during the middle of October 2024 had launched new Tesla products, the Tesla Bot and the Tesla Taxi, then a few days later launched with SpaceX, the first Super Heavy Booster into space carrying a Starship, then landed it back at Boca Chica right on target to be captured by the giant chopsticks, to be reloaded with fuel and to launch again.  It was a remarkable feat of engineering by thousands of people, and Elon Musk had created the culture that performed it.  But Musk wasn’t done.  The next day, SpaceX used a Falcon Heavy to launch the Europa Clipper, which is going to Jupiter to study a moon there, and it came off without a hitch.  That launch alone a few years ago would have resulted from a decade of work at NASA.  But after all that, do you know what Elon Musk was most proud of?  He leveled up in the Diablo video game, which he does quite a lot playing video games.  With all his success, he lives in a little shack at Boca Chica, runs around in t-shirts, and plays video games with his co-workers.  He’s one of the wealthiest people in the world, if not the richest, and he has no pretense of measuring success the way we traditionally do, with great wealth hanging from him in a social context.  And he cares about his high score in a popular video game. 

What is expected at Elon Musk companies, and I know this personally, is that he recruits and retains highly engaged people. Business schools have yet to unlock this mystery because everyone learns the same wrong things.  Elon Musk does a lot that goes well beyond Lean Manufacturing techniques, and no consulting firms in the world have yet figured it out.  But I’ll tell everyone here for free because I like you.  The secret to Elon Musk’s success is that he does not, as a management culture, rob his employees of their emotional investment in their work.  By providing a job, they have a means to make a living.  But he does not impose himself on their work and instead removes barriers to success.  Not success measured in monetary value.  Once people can pay for their lives, families, homes, and social engagements, they want to do work they feel good about.  Elon Musk gives them jobs in which they can invest to create high-engagement cultures.  Cultures where people want to work and express themselves through good work.  If you watch employees at SpaceX, you see them highly engaged at all hours of the day, 7 days a week.  Because they like their work, and it shows in what they do. Most companies miss these traits altogether because engagement is challenging to measure.  But once it is unlocked, the results are apparent.  Elon Musk showed how he gets high engagement by not being pretentious at so much success, especially after a week where he started it on stage with President Trump at that now famous rally at Butler, Pennsylvania.  Musk was equally impressed with his high score on Diablo; people see that in him and can relate to him.  When an owner or job provider does not rob people of the value of their work through social conditions that impose a static order upon them, people will then invest in themselves into a project because they want to, for all the same reasons that people play video games with no monetary compensation provided, at all.  People do things because they feel good doing them.  The world is far better off for a business or capitalist enterprise when people are engaged in their jobs because the products produced reflect that engagement.  And when people are allowed to invest in themselves and not be robbed by some cultural stigma, success always follows.   And winning becomes expected, not just some fantasy folklore from some island that time forgot.  But it is available to all who dare to tap into its vast secrets and opportunities for the curious and hardworking.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call