The success of NASA’s Artemis 1 flight to the Moon sets the future. That unmanned mission is the stepping-stone toward a similar crewed flight several months from now, maybe. An Artemis 2 mission is certainly scheduled and contemplated. But the road beyond the first successful test of the technology has some rocky sections.
Artemis is meant to be the program that establishes the first permanent presence of humans on the Moon. It really began in the George W. Bush Administration as the Constellation program that was to go to the Moon and then on to Mars. As costs mounted, the enthusiasm for the effort waned.
Cost considerations led to a new idea to use componentry from Space Shuttle to build a new heavy lift vehicle called the Space Launch System (SLS). While the use of proven components at first blush seemed to address the cost problem, the long gestation period of the rocket pushed the price to something in the $40 billion range. Again, critics began to question the expense, particularly since commercial rockets being developed appeared to have capabilities which matched or exceeded the government’s spacecraft. But powerful supporters of the SLS in Congress persisted and the recent success of the SLS with its Orion capsule was a testament to their confidence.
But wait. The suggested cost of moving forward with the SLS-Orion system is said to be a nearly $100 billion commitment. Will Congress really be willing in times of massive new national debt to sign up for that kind of additional spending. Is there a way of continuing toward the goal of human presence on the Moon with newly developed commercial technologies. Several companies have rockets under development that can potentially do the mission. Should not those spacecraft be considered in a competition for future flights, particularly if they do not require the waystation called Gateway anticipated in the current Artemis plan?
The questions Congress will raise in the future will not be about the value of going back to the Moon to stay. The questions will be whether the government should try to do it on its own, or whether to use commercial assets that can be acquired as a part of a public-private partnership program.
It is certainly not a new idea to look beyond government agencies acting singularly on major national projects. When NASA was created, there were no singularly focused commercial entities with which to partner, so the Apollo program had to be done exclusively by government. Unfortunately, it convinced NASA and its allies in Congress that the agency should be the only way to access non-military space. What got lost was a lot of innovation. In recent years, we have corrected course and have programs that encourage some active partnership between NASA and commercial companies, the commercial crew program that allows non-NASA astronauts to go the orbit, for example.
Unfortunately, there was a long period of NASA refusal to accept the idea that they could be helped by innovative firms with fresh ideas. When the Bush Administration announced its Constellation program, a commission was formed to provide guidance for mission implementation. I served on that presidential commission, and we made several recommendations that would have restructured NASA to make it more accessible to commercial entities. For example, we suggested that some of the NASA facilities be converted into Federally Financed Reseach and Development companies. One NASA center, arguably its best, was already in that status. Such a change would have created a regular stipend from the Federal Government for the work NASA needed done, but also would have permitted NASA centers to offer non-conflicted expertise to outside companies which would pay them for the help. Such relationships would have strengthened both the agency and the companies. NASA immediately rejected the proposal. Those kinds of decisions have brought us to current decisions about the way forward.
Artimis 1 should be celebrated. It is a magnificent achievement. We, as a nation, should be proud of the men and women who contributed to its success. But we should be aware also that the world has changed and is changing. Looking outward involves a willingness to look inward. Are the structures of the past adequate to the challenges of the future. Congress needs to ask the right questions.