14APR

Non-polar sites, AVATAR tissue in review

3 min read

10:30UTC

A National Academies study ongoing through H2 2026 will identify non-polar Artemis landing sites, and the first post-mission scientific vehicle for crew deep-space radiation exposure has completed its data run.

← Back to Moran breaks with White House on NASA Jump to analysis ↓

ScienceDeveloping

Key takeaway

DEPS-SSB-24-06 and AVATAR both advance without a public venue, reshaping Artemis IV-V and owning crew dose biology.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is running study DEPS-SSB-24-06, sponsored by NASA and progressing through H2 2026, to identify non-polar landing sites for Artemis IV and Artemis V ¹. The separate AVATAR (Artemis crew bone-marrow tissue response) investigation, which flew bone-marrow-derived tissue samples grown from each Artemis II astronaut, has completed its data collection and will report through NASA's research-solicitation channel rather than a press briefing.

DEPS-SSB-24-06 matters because it implicitly concedes that the lunar south pole cannot absorb every Artemis mission. Sustained south-pole operations depend on a narrow set of sites that meet three competing constraints simultaneously, the same bottleneck that concentrated Chang'e 7 and Artemis on Shackleton's rim; expanding the manifest beyond Artemis III (redesignated to a LEO docking test, and the first crewed landings forces NASA to look at lower latitudes where thermal environments, comms geometry, and scientific targets all change. A non-polar Artemis IV or V is not a cosmetic change to the architecture; it resets what the surface systems, rovers, and suits have to be designed for.

AVATAR carries the more immediate data question. It is the first post-mission scientific vehicle for the Artemis II crew's deep-space radiation exposure, designed to measure the tissue response of each astronaut's own bone-marrow cells after a nine-day mission that included a G3 geomagnetic storm and an M7.5 flare . That data is the biological counterpart to the dosimetry record NASA has declined to publish on a committed timeline . Routing it through the research-solicitation channel means peer-reviewed results, months away, with no direct press briefing and no forcing function for interim disclosure.

Two of the most consequential post-mission science workstreams, one defining the geography of Artemis IV and V and the other defining what is known publicly about crew tissue response to a real deep-space dose, both move forward without a public-facing venue attached. The research-solicitation channel is a scientifically legitimate path. It is also a slow one, and its outputs arrive in journals rather than press rooms, which is where accountability for mission-grade decisions is normally contested.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Two separate scientific investigations are running in the background of Artemis. The first is a National Academies study (given the reference code DEPS-SSB-24-06) that is identifying possible landing sites for Artemis IV and V missions that are NOT at the Moon's south pole. The south pole is the target for Artemis III, but scientists have argued that other parts of the Moon contain older and geologically different rock that would tell us more about how the solar system formed. This study, due to finish in the second half of 2026, may result in later Artemis missions going to more scientifically varied locations. The second is AVATAR, an investigation into how biological tissue responds to space radiation. Artemis II flew through a significant solar storm, and tissue samples from a biological payload on the capsule will be analysed to see how radiation affected living material. This will help NASA refine its safety limits for future crews on longer missions. Both studies feed into decisions that must be made soon: where Artemis IV and V land, and whether NASA's current radiation safety rules are set at the right levels (ID:2161, ID:2214).

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

DEPS-SSB-24-06's existence reflects a tension built into Artemis's architecture from the 2020 Artemis Accords period. The programme's engineering baseline (polar landing for in-situ resource utilisation potential) was set by the Human Landing System requirement, not by the National Academies' 2023 Decadal Survey, which identified multiple non-polar geological targets as higher scientific priority than south-pole ice characterisation.

The AVATAR tissue-response investigation operates in a different domain but with a related structural driver. The G3 geomagnetic storm on 4 April produced the highest-energy particle environment any Artemis crew has flown through.

Tissue samples from the AVATAR biological payload aboard Orion will provide the first crewed-mission validation data for NASA's new probabilistic radiation risk model, which replaced the deterministic career limit model in 2023. That model change means Artemis III crew selection and mission duration limits are based on a framework that Artemis II will be the first mission to validate against actual crewed tissue data.

Both investigations have H2 2026 timelines that overlap with Artemis III's schedule pressure window, making their findings potentially consequential for programme decisions that must be made before the results are public.

What could happen next?

Opportunity
If DEPS-SSB-24-06 identifies non-polar sites with strong geological rationale, NASA has a documented scientific basis for resequencing Artemis IV before Artemis III if the polar landing faces further delay.
Risk
AVATAR tissue data, if it indicates higher-than-modelled biological response at G3 storm exposure levels, would require a recalibration of NASA's 2023 probabilistic radiation risk model and could constrain crew selection and mission duration for Artemis III.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: The Apollo Lunar Science Experiments Package (ALSEP) site selection for missions 12 through 17 was not restricted to a single geological province. Mission planners chose sites that collectively sampled mare basalt, highland anorthosite, and volcanic ash, producing a comparative geological record.

The structural parallel to DEPS-SSB-24-06 is that non-polar Artemis IV and V sites would recover the multi-province scientific approach that the south-pole-only Artemis III baseline abandoned.

Counter-parallel: Artemis III's polar-only baseline was itself driven by site availability constraints: the Human Landing System requires south-pole proximity to enable potential ice-derived propellant resupply, and the polar location was a programme requirement, not a scientific preference.

Non-polar sites for Artemis IV and V do not remove that constraint from Artemis III, and the Academies study cannot address the engineering driver that created the south-pole restriction in the first place.

Consensus view: The National Academies Space Studies Board's own framing of DEPS-SSB-24-06 describes it as a scientific broadening exercise, not a retreat from the south-pole baseline.

The Planetary Society's Director of Science and Technology Casey Dreier has argued publicly that the study represents a genuine expansion of Artemis's science return: non-polar landing sites for Artemis IV and V would access ancient crustal material unavailable at the south pole, addressing the lunar chronology questions that the south-pole ice focus has displaced.

Counter-view: The CSIS Human Spaceflight Programme has assessed that the non-polar site study is structurally consistent with a south-pole contingency: if Artemis III's south-pole landing faces further delay from heat shield redesign or Human Landing System certification, a pre-approved non-polar site list allows NASA to resequence missions without a formal programme rebaseline. This interpretation treats DEPS-SSB-24-06 not as science expansion but as schedule insurance.

Key tension: Whether the Academies study represents a genuine broadening of Artemis's science mandate or preparation for a south-pole retreat that NASA has not yet disclosed publicly, given that the study was commissioned before Artemis II flew and its H2 2026 timeline overlaps with the Artemis III schedule pressure window .

Sources:National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Mentions:National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine →DEPS-SSB-24-06 →AVATAR →NASA →Chang'e 7 →Prima →CSIS →Human Landing System →Artemis II →Artemis V →Artemis III →Artemis IV →Artemis I →G3 geomagnetic storm →Artemis programme →

First Reported In

Update #10 · Moran breaks with White House on NASA

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine· 14 Apr 2026

Read original →

Different Perspectives

Dual-framework nations

Signing both the Artemis Accords and the ILRS framework is rational hedging, not defection; smaller nations maximise access without exclusive commitment. Lunar governance is genuinely multipolar, and the US coalition count of 61 overstates exclusivity.

NASA

NASA celebrated mission success while releasing no heat shield, radiation, or bolt data at the 22:30 EDT press conference; Isaacman committed to a 2028 lunar landing as Kshatriya acknowledged a 'tight turnaround for Artemis III,' the first public schedule qualifier from programme leadership.

ESA

ESA issued Press Release N19-2026 fourteen hours after the European Service Module burned up, ending nine days of silence; Director General Aschbacher praised ESM capability but omitted any reference to Gateway or Artemis III.

Boeing / Northrop Grumman

SLS component production spans more than 40 US states, giving the industrial base strong political protection regardless of commercial alternatives. Congressional mandates guarantee contracts through FY2029, insulating the supply chain from technical programme changes.

NASA Office of Inspector General

The IRB heat shield findings should have been published before launch. The Starship HLS is two years behind schedule with a worsening manual control dispute. NASA has no crew rescue capability for lunar surface operations. The programme is proceeding with documented, unresolved risks.

US: NASA, White House, Congress

NASA cleared five anomalies with no public dose data and no mention of the cabin alarm. Isaacman's FY2027 proposal designates Artemis the sole protected programme while cutting science 47%; Congress rejected the identical FY2026 top-line, and over 100 members already requested more science funding. OIG audit IG-26-004 found Starship HLS two years late with no crew rescue capability.