Keith’s Note: For NASA Watchers this GAO report comes as no surprise. GAO says that NASA’s plans for Artemis lack financial reality, are plagued by hardware delays, are not fully integrated, and are managed in a fashion not resonate with a long-term program of exploration.
“NASA, however, does not yet have guidance for creating or managing Artemis mission schedules that will help integrate the individual programs required for launch. NASA is using existing schedule management guidance developed for individual programs, not multi-program missions. Without guidance specifically for multi-program missions, NASA lacks reasonable assurance it has consistent schedule management practices in place for the Artemis schedules. Schedule management guidance would also assist coordination, which will be increasingly necessary as the Artemis missions will involve more programs over time and therefore become more complex.
NASA conducts workforce planning through the programs that comprise the Artemis missions across the next 5 budget years. NASA faces uncertainties beyond that horizon that have hindered longer-term planning. However, NASA is committing billions of dollars in development and production contracts for future Artemis missions that extend into the 2030s. This will require an extensive workforce to execute. Prior GAO work found that other agencies facing uncertainty assessed a range of future options, known as scenario planning, which provided flexibility to determine future workforce needs. In May 2022, NASA officials said they were examining the use of scenario planning to help future workforce planning efforts. But they have not yet completed or implemented guidance to do so. As NASA begins to execute the first of many Artemis missions, it has the opportunity to use scenario planning to inform future workforce environments it may face and address broader workforce challenges.”
Summary – GAO: NASA Lunar Programs: Improved Mission Guidance Needed as Artemis Complexity Grows
Is this GAO report the usual 6 months to 1 year out of date?
Today NASA selected Axiom S, pace to build the Artemis 3 lunar suits, and SpaceX did a 6 engine static fire of Starship 24 in Boca Chica.
https://youtu.be/A2EIeGWtjYQ
I find it interesting that if you follow the link to the SpaceRef summary of the recent GAO analysis (and Page 2 of the Report), the picture of the lunar lander is that of the “National Team” (Lockheed / Northrop / Blue Origin) lander that lost out to the SpaceX design, but has been somewhat resuscitated with additional study funds.
Does the GAO know something we don’t?
It’s not the “national team” concept, I believe it’s the govt reference design.