Keith’s Note: When Senator Administrator Bill Nelson walked in the door at NASA they thought Mobile Launcher 2 would cost $500 million. NASA OIG now says that it will have cost $2.7 billion by the time Bechtel delivers it. Add in delays and cost overruns in the overall Artemis project and the ever slowing launch cadence between missions and you have to wonder why NASA is building something that it simply does not need and probably never did. And when OIG suggests that NASA convert this to a fixed cost contract to nail down the final costs NASA says “no”. Bill Nelson gets mad about China beating the U.S. (back) to the Moon when NASA is doing a great job of allowing that to happen. According to OIG: “NASA projects the ML-2 will cost over three times more than planned. In 2019, NASA estimated the entire ML-2 project from design through construction would cost under $500 million with construction completed and the ML-2 delivered to NASA by March 2023. In December 2023, NASA estimated the ML-2 project would cost $1.5 billion, including $1.3 billion for the Bechtel contract and $168 million for other project costs, with delivery of the launcher to NASA in November 2026. In June 2024, NASA established the Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC)—the cost and schedule baseline committed to Congress against which a project is measured—for a ML-2 project cost of $1.8 billion and a delivery date of September 2027. Even with the establishment of the ABC, NASA intends to keep Bechtel accountable to the cost and schedule agreed to in December 2023. Despite the Agency’s increased cost projections, our analysis indicates costs could be even higher due in part to the significant amount of construction work that remains. Specifically, our projections indicate the total cost could reach $2.7 billion by the time Bechtel delivers the ML-2 to NASA. With the time NASA requires after delivery to prepare the launcher, we project the ML-2 will not be ready to support a launch until spring 2029, surpassing the planned September2028 Artemis IV launch date. NASA officials disagree with our analysis and expect cost growth to lessen over time now that Bechtel has started construction of the launcher. The Agency believes this is an area of expertise for the contractor. While progress has been made with the beginning of construction of the ML-2, it is still too early to determine the impact on the contract’s continued cost growth and whether Bechtel can achieve and sustain an improved level of performance throughout the construction phase.” Full report: NASA’s Management of the Mobile Launcher 2 Project

NASA’s Management of Space Launch System Block 1B Development, NASA OIG: “Quality control issues at Michoud are largely due to the lack of a sufficient number of trained and experienced aerospace workers at Boeing. To mitigate these challenges, Boeing provides training and work orders to its employees. Considering the significant quality control deficiencies at Michoud, we found these efforts to be inadequate. For example, during our visit to Michoud in April 2023, we observed a liquid oxygen fuel tank dome – a critical component of the SLS Core Stage 3 – segregated and pending disposition on whether and how it can safely be used going forward due to welds that did not meet NASA specifications. According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision. The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that Boeing will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards. We project SLS Block 1B costs will reach approximately $5.7 billion before the system is scheduled to launch in 2028. This is $700 million more than NASA’s 2023 Agency Baseline Commitment, which established a cost and schedule baseline at nearly $5 billion. EUS development accounts for more than half of this cost, which we estimate will increase from an initial cost of $962 million in 2017 to nearly $2.8 billion through 2028. Boeing’s delivery of the EUS to NASA has also been delayed from February 2021 to April 2027, and when combined with other factors, suggests the September 2028 Artemis IV launch date could be delayed as well. Factors contributing to these cost increases and schedule delays include redirection of EUS funds to the core stage during Artemis I production, changing Artemis mission assignments, maintaining an extended workforce 7 years more than planned, manufacturing issues, and supply chain challenges.”

Keith’s note: From GAO: “Two pieces of NASA’s Gateway program—the first space station to orbit the moon—are scheduled to launch together in 2027. NASA is taking steps to ensure Gateway will be ready. For example, the program plans to update a cost and schedule analysis that will help determine whether the launch date is feasible. But this program also faces some significant challenges. For example, the mass of the pieces is too high. So, if it isn’t reduced, they might not be able to reach the correct lunar orbit once launched. We recommended documenting the Gateway program’s plans to address this issue to help ensure it can meet the planned launch date.” Full report: Artemis Programs: NASA Should Document and Communicate Plans to Address Gateway’s Mass Risk

Source: PSI Planetary Exploration Newsletter: “As many of you will have seen, earlier this week NASA made the shocking decision to cancel the VIPER project following completion of the rover’s build. It now faces the prospect of being dismembered. We have organized an open letter to Congress from the wider science community asking them to refuse any request to cancel this mission, by ensuring that it continues to be included as a budgetary line-item. You can find this letter here: https://forms.gle/XDSzTra4NPSS1VC27 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the letter’s organizers, Dr Benjamin Fernando ([email protected]) or Dr Parvathy Prem ([email protected]) who have organized this letter in a personal capacity.”

Keith’s note: It would seem that none of International Space Station Research & Development Conference (ISSRDC) will be webcast. No mention whatsoever is made on their website. No mention of any webcast is made at NASA.gov either. NASA recently issued a contract to destroy the International Space Station. Not even bothering to webcast this event – which supposedly exists to promote and explain all that the ISS has done – is too much for CASIS or NASA to bother setting up. No one at NASA seems to care since they all have Artemis Go Fever. As such, the 300+ million U.S. taxpayers who put billions into this amazing resource aren’t entitled to learn what NASA did with all their money or why ISS needs to be splashed. The scheduled death of the ISS is not even on the meeting’s agenda. And of course, as Artemis delays mount, NASA will come back for more money without ever truly explaining why they are throwing this astonishing resource away or why they need to build another space station out near the Moon to support missions are moving ever further into the future. And then NASA’s Administrator has the audacity to whine and complain that China may beat the U.S. back to the Moon. DUH, Bill. China has a plan and they stick to it. NASA does not. Update: CASIS sent me a note: “While we are not actively promoting the livestream component to the conference yet (similar to last year), it will be made open to the public during the event. We will promote the livestream component for those not able to physically attend in a media advisory prior to the conference. Additionally, there will be social pushes during the event driving the public to the livestream.”

Keith’s note: The draft FY 2025 spending bill is working its way through the House. NASA Science gets the same amount as it was supposed to get in FY 2024 which equates to a ~$230M cut. NASA education programs get $89 million – the same as it was supposed to get in FY 2024 i.e no big increase as The White House had requested. Looks like the Artemis Program will do OK – even if the education for the Artemis Generation will not.

Keith’s note: In case you missed it while the Starliner thruster issue has been in the headlines, yet another EVA was canceled due to a spacesuit issue. First there was a problem with a suit’s comfort/flexibility. Then there was a water leak the other day. Scratch two EVA attempts. These suits are 50-ish years old – older than some of the astronauts who wear them. Now NASA is going to the Moon for long duration stays and new space suits are needed. Axiom and Collins had xEVAS contracts. Now Collins has decided to discontinue their work leaving only one company to produce the new spacesuits. Redundancy in terms of suppliers has been a smart thing that NASA has been doing. Now they will have only one spacesuit option and if it is delayed then that becomes a big pacing item for the whole Artemis thing – as if there are not already enough of those.

Keith’s note: This evening I spoke with CGTN about the return of the Chang’e-6 lunar sample return mission; global interest in lunar exploration; and space exploration in general. [Audio] Video below:

Keith’s note: I just did the Brian Kilmeade show on Fox News Radio / YouTube. It was a fast moving show – he asks a lof of questions about a lot of things. I had a good time. Oh yes: we both agreed that Space Force needs unitard uniforms instead of camo uniforms, Just sayin’ [Audio]

“Our review found that NASA deviated from its original, hands-off strategy for the initiative and from its plan for incremental progress towards larger missions. Rather, the Agency’s aggressive lander development schedules led to increasingly risk-averse practices and policies. For example, NASA insight and oversight increased, and more detailed vendor proposals were required. This resulted in higher costs and delayed delivery schedules while threatening the initiative’s ability to achieve its broad objectives. Specifically, inserting a larger lander to accommodate the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) into CLPS’s early schedule interfered with a progressive development approach. This introduced the added risk of beginning the first large lander delivery before knowledge could be gained from the success (or failure) of smaller deliveries. NASA’s planned hands-off approach was also somewhat negated when the Agency added augmented insight and placed added requirements on the vendors’ development process. We found that NASA-directed changes, including augmented insight and landing site changes, led to $171.4 million in project cost increases. … Our analysis showed these challenges will continue to hinder NASA’s ability to meet the initiative’s objectives. While the initiative has a contract capped at $2.6 billion through 2028, increased costs on previous task orders jeopardize the plan to issue two task orders per year. … In the 5 years since CLPS began, NASA has not reassessed market conditions to better understand the Agency’s role and changing market conditions. Finally, we found CLPS lacks a detailed management plan that could outline a disciplined approach, promote accountability for how the Agency measures success, and help the initiative weigh competing priorities.” Full report

Keith’s note: I did CNN this morning talking about the Boeing Starliner launch, SpaceX Starship, and China’s lunar exploration plans (and my reaction to how NASA Administrator Bill Nelson characterizes them). [Audio] I then did live launch coverage on Bloomberg Radio/Youtube, and then I did a quick interview with BBC World Service [Audio]. I also talked again to Deutsche Welle [Audio].

Keith’s note: I was just on Deutsche Welle talking about the return flight of China’s Chang’e-6 sample return mission. [Audio] I am booked to appear on CNN tomorrow (Wed) morning to talk about Boeing’s Starliner CFT-1 mission, China’s Chang’e-6, and SpaceX’s fourth flight of StarShip. And then I will be on a bit later on Bloomberg to do live launch coverage. Lots of spacey news items this week.

Keith’s note: This item was posted on NASA.gov on 8 May 2024: “OTPS seeks input from the lunar community to inform a framework for further work on non-interference of lunar activities“. Cool stuff – and important as human activity on the Moon starts to expand with many new players. But who knew about it? I checked and there was no email from NASA PAO on this. When I look at the NASA press release page there is nothing mentioned. No mention is made on the 80 million-follower @NASA Twitter account either. So there does not seem to be much in the way of interest by NASA PAO in pushing out news about OTPS stuff – however cool and relevant it may be. The NASA Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy has a link but you have to know to go there to find the link. OTPS has no social media presence. The OTPS AA Charity Weeden does not have a Twitter account and her LinkedIn account doesn’t do much. Her Deputy has a Twitter account (I think it is hers) @AerospaceFury that has been inert since 2017. However, I did stumble across this OTPS thing for the first time on a LinkedIn post overtly related to an official NASA effort by Therese Jones (the Point of Contact for this NASA activity) which I promptly liked and reposted. But when I went to search out her Twitter account for an official post I discovered that she has blocked @NASAWatch (and my personal account) – thus making it hard to simply retweet it. So, I used another account to see if I could access her Twitter account and found a tweet here from 1:33 pm EDT today and then grabbed the link and tweeted it on @NASAWatch. Her Twitter account has ~2,500 followers. @NASAWatch has 50 times as many followers. Not that big – but 118,000 is more than the lone NASA-related employee account’s 2,500 – the only account that was talking about this activity. It is good that someone took the initiative to get wider exposure for this when official mention was lacking. But wouldn’t you think that an organization and its staff – with such an important role – one saddled with an underpowered PAO/outreach capability – would want to make the most of external/earned media – and not overtly block people/accounts that can help get the good word out? I guess not. 10 May update: the tweet has been deleted – but I am still blocked. Oh well. Maybe NASA OTPS will lift a finger and get PAO to make them an official social media account so that their cool stuff can reach the largest possible audience – in a professional fashion.

Keith’s note: This is the current NASA Advisory Council. No one is under 50. Many are much older. Indeed, some are de-facto life appointees. And no one is a member of the Artemis Generation – yet NAC members evoke them anyway as a throwaway talking point. If this is where our future in space is to be born it will be dull and listless. We can do better. Much better.

“As a test flight, Artemis I was used to examine how the integrated SLS and Orion and associated systems performed in their intended environment, allowing the Agency to confidently mitigate risks, certify system designs, and validate mission capabilities for future missions in the Artemis campaign. To this end, the Artemis I test flight revealed critical issues that need to be addressed before placing crew on the Artemis II mission. In particular, the test flight revealed anomalies with the Orion heat shield, separation bolts, and power distribution that pose significant risks to the safety of the crew. Resolution of these anomalies is among the most significant factors impacting NASA’s readiness for Artemis II. To its credit, the Agency is taking action to address these issues.” … “In particular, the test flight revealed anomalies with the Orion heat shield, separation bolts, and power distribution that pose significant risks to the safety of the crew.” Full report

“NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and Japan’s Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) Masahito Moriyama have signed an agreement to advance sustainable human exploration of the Moon. Japan will design, develop, and operate a pressurized rover for crewed and uncrewed exploration on the Moon. NASA will provide the launch and delivery of the rover to the Moon as well as two opportunities for Japanese astronauts to travel to the lunar surface.” More

Keith’s Note: I was part of Bloomberg radio / video live coverage of the SpaceX IFT3 Starship launch on Thursday morning. Update: Wow. Simply WOW. The booster was lost before engines could be lit to begin a “landing” attempt in the ocean. The Ship 28 itself made it into space but was lost during reentry when both the Starling and TDRSS telemetry feeds stopped simultaneously. But the Pez door opened and the prop transfer commands were issued. More to follow. I’ll be on Deutsche Welle just after noon EDT. Update: Here’s the [audio] I did a CTV interview too [audio]

Keith’s note: True to form, overt politico Senator Administrator Bill Nelson D-FL said “As history has proven, as the present has shown, and as the future will continue to demonstrate, an investment in NASA is an investment in America for the benefit of humanity,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “President Biden’s budget will fund our nation’s abilities and leadership for the future of space exploration, scientific discovery, cutting-edge technology, climate data, the next generation of aeronautics, and inspiring our future leaders – the Artemis Generation.” This is, of course, nonsense since NASA’s budget overruns/delays on Artemis, Mars Sample Return etc. have already begin to eat up other projects. An insufficient FY 25 budget simply makes things worse. Remember just a few years ago the NASA mantra was “Journey to Mars” in the 2030s. Well, the new variant – NASA “Moon to Mars” thing now only shows the Moon – no Mars – in the 2030s. Negative progress – indeed its space exploration Shrinkflation. Clicking your heels together, crossing your fingers, and whistling “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” ain’t gonna solve anything, Bill. NASA’s plans are royally screwed. And the Artemis Generation will not witness all the happy talk you continue to throw their way. I guess that Moon rock is not in the Oval Office anymore.

• According to Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline {see chart above} From NASA budget summary, latest Artemis schedule. SpaceX Starship HLS test in 2026, same year as Artemis III landing. Artemis V, first use of Blue Origin’s HLS, now in 2030.
• According to @Lori_Garver The @POTUS ’25 @NASA budget of $25.38B is ~$2.5B less than projected last year. Along w/ congressional cut of $2.3B for 2024, the agency’s growth trend is now reversed. Absorbing these reductions w/out cancelling major programs will cause delays across the board. Tough choices.
• The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration put out a statement that only expresses concern about human spaceflight – not all the other things NASA does.
• In a 7 March Statement the Planetary Society only focuses on space science – and not human spaceflight
• Here are the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request documents posted by NASA. Read them and weep.