Congress Is Still Waiting For Artemis Details
Chairwomen Johnson and Horn Statements on Artemis Human Lander Systems Contract Awards, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
“Unfortunately, more than a year after their announcement to accelerate the Artemis program, NASA has yet to provide Congress a transparent architecture and technical and cost assessment, despite our repeated requests. The American taxpayer deserves to know their money is being spent wisely, especially if they are being asked to invest billions of taxpayer dollars in a private lunar landing system. Our nation should dream boldly and pursue aspirational goals but we have to do so thoughtfully and intentionally. I look forward to working with NASA in good faith to steer our nation’s space program in a direction that allows our country to achieve inspiring goals and explore space in a responsible and measured way.”
Key House Democrats “DIsappointed” With HLS Awards, Space Policy Online
“However, if Johnson and Horn’s views are shared by appropriators, it could signal trouble for NASA getting the funding increase it needs not just this year, but for the next several years, to execute Artemis. The FY2021 budget request alone is a 12 percent increase over current spending. Bridenstine expressed optimism yesterday that NASA’s budget will not be impacted by the trillions being spent on COVID-19 relief. Noting how small NASA’s budget is compared to the rest of government spending, less than half a percent, he said “We’re not going to be the solution to balancing the budget. … I don’t think we’re in any jeopardy.”
– NASA Picks Human Lander System Developers
“With these contract awards, America is moving forward with the final step needed to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, including the incredible moment when we will see the first woman set foot on the lunar surface,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “This is the first time since the Apollo era that NASA has direct funding for a human landing system, and now we have companies on contract to do the work for the Artemis program.”
– Does NASA Know The Real Cost Of Sending Humans To The Moon?, Earlier post
– NASA Releases Its Artemis “Plan” – 5 Months Late, Earlier post
– GAO Wants To Remind You That Artemis Is Lacking Detail, Earlier post
– NASA Authorization Bill Markup, Earlier post
So the Democrats on the House Committee oppose it and the Republicans on the Senate Committee support it. Seems about right for anything that involves President Trump these days. It is why if a Democrat takes office I suspect Artemis will be over and our only hope for a lunar return will be SpaceX and Blue Origin.
I imagine that Rep. Johnson is also unhappy that since private firms are designing the landers there will be less jobs at JSC and of course less pork to share. Hence her comments of the safety risks of having private firms design and build the landers.
https://www.commerce.senate…
NASA Announces Top Three Competitors to Design Artemis Human Landing System
“The Apollo Program was possible only because of public investments in spacefaring technologies,” said Wicker. “Making good use of commercial partnerships lowers the long-term cost of space exploration, and it allows the American aerospace industry to do what it does best – innovate. These competitors’ designs will play a major role in producing a brand-new human lander that will enable our astronauts to access important areas of the Moon’s surface and sustain our nation’s deep space exploration efforts.”
Reactions like this from Congress help explain to me how the ever growing catastrophe of the SLS project can keep stumbling forward.
When will we finally see one courageous politician willing to publicly shame SLS for the colossal waste of taxpayer dollars that it is?
I’d say never. I don’t hear about courageous politicians much these days. I’m hoping for a greedy politician, since they seem to be more common. When will we see a greedy politician who realizes SLS is a fine rhetorical point to use in an election campaign? That wouldn’t be a courageous politician shaming SLS; it would be a greedy one using SLS to shame his opponent in an election. I suspect that is more likely to happen.
I’d agree. And what’s more, when/if this turd lands NASA is going to experience some truly awful press, like the $500 hammer or whatever it was. I’ve wondered why the press hasn’t picked up on this. Eric Berger has been ringing the bell and he’s got fairly high visibility.
I suspect because like lots of NASA ‘accounting’ it’s damn hard to say for sure the cost of a project, just like the defense department and airplanes. And because there’s a fair amount of technical jargon to unwind.
When F9 became a dependable rocket, easily compared to Atlas, I wondered if the simple comparison would get traction. Nope.
Examples of this are ubiquitous in our government, so there should be no such surprise:
https://www.washingtonpost….
https://www.govexec.com/fed…
These days the word “sustainability” is incessantly touted and then dragged across the floor because few seem to understand all the variables necessary to make that word function properly. And one of the primary missing or omitted components is committed financial support, which is driven here by policy, politics and goal setting. This is part of the reason we have been flying circles for the past 45 years.
Some of this is outlined in a newly published paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.c…
Sustainably, in my mind, doesn’t mean billion dollar plus SLS launches at a flight rate of one or two a year.
The rest of the program is set up to, hopefully, be sustainable. But you’re right, it will need money in order to be sustainable. For example, funding of the crewed lander program to completion likely won’t be cheap, especially with multiple providers. I’d like to see a minimum of two providers, just like we’ve seen for commercial crew.
Commercial crew has proven that having to dissimilar designs provides for redundancy in case there is a problem with one of the designs. The next round of commercial cargo for ISS actually has three providers. This is a good thing, IMHO.
Cheap is a relative term. If NASA followed the Orion/SLS contracting model it would probably cost 20 times as much for one lander and it would only be able to be launched on the SLS at $1-2 billion a mission. Add in the SLS/Orion and you are taking $2-4 billion for each crew landing on the Moon. It would also take the NASA and the contractors a decade or so to build.
In terms of two providers, reducing it by one decreases the chance of success. It also reduces greatly the chance of Congressional funding. The Democrats running the committee may complain about it, but the National Team has long time NASA contractors like LM and NG with lots of high paid lobbyists that will get them on board. The same is true for Dynetics Headquartered in Huntsville, they make it impossible for Senator Shelby to say No. And if they are funded than SpaceX is funded.
I can’t tell if they are upset because of the agency still holding to 2024 date or that their Boeing sugar daddy didn’t get an award.