NASA OIG: NASA’s Management Of The Artemis Program
“With Artemis I mission elements now being integrated and tested at Kennedy Space Center, we estimate NASA will be ready to launch by summer 2022 rather than November 2021 as planned. Although Artemis II is scheduled to launch in late 2023, we project that it will be delayed until at least mid-2024 due to the mission’s reuse of Orion components from Artemis I. While the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Division–which includes HLS, Gateway, and next-generation spacesuits–is working on an integrated master schedule (IMS) for Artemis III that incorporates Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Division programs–SLS, Orion, and Exploration Ground Systems–the draft version does not include information on programs critical to Artemis that are outside of AES and ESD. Given the time needed to develop and fully test the HLS and new spacesuits, we project NASA will exceed its current timetable for landing humans on the Moon in late 2024 by several years.
In addition, NASA lacks a comprehensive and accurate cost estimate that accounts for all Artemis program costs. For FYs 2021 through 2025, the Agency uses a rough estimate for the first three missions that excludes $25 billion for key activities related to planned missions beyond Artemis III. When aggregating all relevant costs across mission directorates, NASA is projected to spend $93 billion on the Artemis effort up to FY 2025., We also project the current production and operations cost of a single SLS/Orion system at $4.1 billion per launch for Artemis I through IV, although the Agency’s ongoing initiatives aimed at increasing affordability seek to reduce that cost. Multiple factors contribute to the high cost of ESD programs, including the use of sole-source, cost-plus contracts; the inability to definitize key contract terms in a timely manner; and the fact that except for the Orion capsule, its subsystems, and the supporting launch facilities, all components are expendable and “single use” unlike emerging commercial space flight systems. Without capturing, accurately reporting, and reducing the cost of future SLS/Orion missions, the Agency will face significant challenges to sustaining its Artemis program in its current configuration.”
Keith’s note: “$4.1 billion/launch” – “Artemis III several years after late 2024”. Money cannot solve this. This is going to come up at NSpC meeting on 1 December 2021 whether or not it is on the agenda – and if not mentioned in the meeting – then it certainly will be mentioned in the media. Now would be a good time for Space Team Biden to really consider how to “Build Back Better” and consider a pivot wherein you open up the entire Artemis architecture up to private sector solutions – and do so from a blank sheet of paper. These companies have all been thinking about how to do this for years. The standard reflex government action of setting up a “blue ribbon panel” to find out what went wrong will simply delay all of this and result in the same answer that we already have. If America wants to put Americans back on the Moon then someone needs to start to take this issue seriously. It will not solve itself.

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

18 replies on “NASA OIG Artemis Review: Delays And Cost Overruns Are A Feature – Not A Bug”

  1. NASA pays less for the full development of SpaceX Starship lunar lander than just one SLS/Orion launch. how much longer can alabama and others defend the bloated cost over runs and schedule slips?

    1. Hell, the recent increase in the budget for Orion development is comparable to the entire HLS Starship contract, which includes development and an unmanned demo landing as well as the actual Artemis 3 landing.

    2. As a taxpayer, I’m offended at how much waste this is.
      As a space fan, I cry over the opportunity cost loss. So many other valuable space related things that we could have done with that money. So much more NASA could be accomplishing with the same budget.

      1. I think opportunity loss related to time [waste of time] is the tens of trillion of dollars “lost”.
        Plus lives “lost”/ “spent” for the people who work in these dumb bureaucracies.
        In terms money, Department Education wastes a lot more money- and I don’t care much about the wasted lives that bureaucracy is inflicting on them- as they actually want to do nothing vaguely important.

        1. Department of Education is mainly a pass through to state and local schools. DoE has few people. So while the money may be wasted, its wasted at the local level. NASA directly, either as civil servants or contractors, employs 100000 people, all spending money on its projects. If the projects are building out of date technology, or worse, the projects never get done or are so late that progress is invisible, then the money is being wasted by NASA, its poorly thought out and poorly implemented projects.

          1. “or contractors…”
            Is DoE going wild with making lots of SLS.
            Or the state and local schools are contractors and DoE has no clue how to educate. Teachers have some clue.
            Keep it simple, just give teachers money with few strings attached.

          2. DoE/Federal Government does very little prescribing of what to teach or how to teach it. States, cities and local districts fight for their independence. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand education in the US.

            Only if or when Federal agencies like NASA or Nat Institute of Health provide something useful will the states and locals use it. NASA hasn’t developed or provided useful school content in 45 years. It is probably NASAs single biggest downfall.

            All those districts, all those teachers, all those students (75 million) and all those parents make for a large audience and taxpayer base.

          3. “Overall, the President’s fiscal year 2021 Budget includes $66.6 billion in new discretionary budget authority for the Department of Education, a $6billion, or 8percent reduction below the fiscal year 2020 .”
            The 66.6 billion is “useful”.
            And Boeing also gets “useful help” from NASA- Boeing is not forced to take the money.

            The global space industry is about 450 billion per year, make and spend 450 billion per year.
            The US space industry is fair chunk of 450 billion- you can look it up. NASA is a small chunk of it- about 20 billion.
            The education industry in US is somewhere around trillion, the Department of Education is small amount of that.
            Both these “industries” is why NASA or Department of Education exists- neither would be funded without it.
            The topic is how much NASA “wastes”- I am saying it is comparably, tiny and somewhat useful {but also problematic} as compared to Department of Education.
            I also say NASA recently has been far more “useful”- and quite the opposite with Department of Education.

          4. I would agree that for those NASA individuals involved in R&D, out of the 100000people, they can be useful. How many is that?

            There are only 4000 ED employees, compared to the 100000 NASA. All the ED employees do is manage money; about $ 225 billion, 10X as much as NASA each year. Almost all of that money gets spent by students and teachers on education. Maybe fewer dollars are needed for education?

            Do you think the taxpayer would be wiser to spend that money on Orion and SLS?

          5. –Do you think the taxpayer would be wiser to spend that money on Orion and SLS?–
            There economic “wisdom” of can’t recover sunk costs, but I favor doing it in regards to Orion and SLS.
            I thought ISS was bad idea, but I wanted it launched when we approaching the time when it could be launched, same applies to Orion and SLS.
            SLS serves as a bad back up, but it’s a back up.
            I would favor spending more money on SLS, if more money would allow it to launch quicker.
            Generally of all US government I favor more money spend on NASA if more money makes NASA move faster.
            I think NASA should have larger budget, and blame NASA leadership on why doesn’t get more money.
            And if NASA had explored the Moon 10 years ago, it would currently have a much larger budget.

  2. Space X is very innovative, in ways that drives down their costs. They operate within a totally different context than NASA Old Space developments do. The evidence is obvious.

    1. Yes! It is so obvious that even NASA selected it for the next phase of the moon mission. Space X gives me hope for the future. Legacy Space has proven for over half a century to be a poor investment.

  3. Reminds me of the Augustine Law 16 that said that by 2054 the entire defense budget would purchase just one aircraft and that aircraft would have to be shared by the Air Force and the Navy.

    NASA reached the point a bit sooner-just one spaceship with its rocket will cost the entire annual budget for human space flight.

  4. USD$ 4.1bn per launch – how many SpaceX Starships – each carrying over 100 tons to LEO – each fully reusable – can you launch for that amount? Just curious.

  5. If Congress….oh never mind.

    You folks will continue to rant at NASA as a whole, instead of putting the blame squarely where its needs to be: Congress and its whole system of graft.

    1. There is enough blame to go around. Congress and presidents of both parties deserve blame, but so does NASA for always meekly going along with constantly changing and unrealistic goals.

      The recent NASA choice of Space X for the lunar lander and speaking up to congress saying this is all we can do with the money appropriated is hopefully a step in the right direction.

Comments are closed.