The Politically Incorrect Guide to Saving NASA’s Faltering Artemis Program

Regardless of the outcome of this year’s election, the United States will have a new president within a few months. Although there are countless issues of greater importance than spaceflight to most Americans, the country’s new leader will inevitably take a fresh look at the nation’s space policy.

Supporting NASA’s Artemis plan to return humans to the Moon should be among the next administration’s top priorities. This ambitious and important program is now half a decade old, and although the overall goals remain well supported in Congress and the space community, there are some troubling cracks in the foundation.

These issues include:

• The first crewed flight on the Orion spacecraft, a vehicle that has been in development for two decades, remains in doubt due to concerns about the heat shield.
• There is no reliable date for the first landing mission on the moon. Officially, NASA plans to send an Artemis III mission to the moon in September 2026. Unofficially? Be real. Not only must the problem of Orion’s heat shield be resolved, but both the lunar lander (SpaceX’s Starship) and spacesuits (made by Axiom Space) are unlikely to be ready by then. 2028 is likely a realistic date that is not earlier.
• The space agency’s plans after Artemis III become more complex. The Artemis IV mission will nominally include the debut of a larger version of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a new launch tower, and a stop at a new space station near the moon, the Lunar Gateway.
• There is growing evidence that China is pouring resources into a credible lunar program to send two astronauts to the Moon by 2030, seeking a geopolitical “victory” by defeating America on its return to the Moon.

NASA’s flat or even reduced budget exacerbates all of these problems, and the space agency is unlikely to get significant raises in the near term. Thus, the fundamental problem with the Artemis program is that NASA is trying to do too much with its deep space program with too few resources. We’ve already seen evidence of NASA dismantling its science programs — including major cuts to the Chandra space telescope and the cancellation of the VIPER mission — to support Artemis’ rising costs.

If the agency continues down this path, like a frog in boiling water, the Artemis program will likely end in failure.

Simple plan

Fortunately, I have a solution. It may be politically unpopular, and there are losers. Among the largest are Boeing, SpaceX, and two NASA field centers, Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center. However, if Artemis is to succeed, difficult choices must be made.

For policymakers, two strategic objectives are at stake here. The first is to lose the geopolitically important race against China, Russia and their partners and to return to the moon in the 21st century. The second is to sacrifice a sustainable lunar program for one that is unsustainable in the long term.

In this context, here are the main policy options that I believe should be made to support the Artemis program in the near and long term:

• Cancellation of the Lunar Gate
• Cancel the Block 1B upgrade for the SLS missile
• Designated Centaur V as the new upper stage for the SLS rocket.

That’s it in a nutshell. Read on for details.