NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said the space agency expects a decision from the US Government Accountability Office on a lunar lander protest by August 4. This would seem to set a firm timeline after which NASA can move forward with its Artemis program.
Nelson's comments came in response to members of the US House Science, Space, and Technology Committee asking for specifics on Artemis, which NASA intends to use to return humans to the Moon and eventually go on to Mars.
"I will have a plan to announce," Nelson said, referring to Artemis specifics and the protest timeline.
Later, US Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) asked whether this plan would include a "resource loaded" schedule and budget for the Artemis program, and Nelson responded, "Yes sir."
This would represent a significant step forward for Artemis, as resource loading is a formal process by which a schedule integrates cost, schedule, and risk. It requires communication between the agency's leadership, program managers, and cost estimators and ultimately allows for more informed decision-making. It would signal to Congress that the Artemis program has concrete plans and goals rather than existing only as a PowerPoint presentation.
The protest
In mid-April, NASA selected SpaceX to conduct a "demonstration" mission of its Starship vehicle as a Human Landing System on the Moon. This crewed flight would occur no earlier than 2024.
NASA based its decision, in part, on cost. "We looked at what’s the best value to the government," Kathy Lueders, chief of the human exploration program for NASA, said at the time.
The decision was swiftly followed by protests from the two other bidders for the Human Landing System contract, a "National Team" led by Blue Origin and another team led by Dynetics. "NASA has executed a flawed acquisition for the Human Landing System program and moved the goalposts at the last minute," Blue Origin said in a statement that accompanied its sealed protest.
Nelson was confirmed as NASA administrator after the contract award was announced and after the protests were filed. Nelson has subsequently said he supported NASA's contract award to SpaceX but that he also will abide by US GAO decision on the protest.
Budget
One of the big questions before Congress is whether to fully fund the Human Landing System, the key remaining technology needed to return humans to the Moon. NASA asked for $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2021 to start development of two landers. Congress provided just $850 million for this year's budget.
As a result, NASA said it only had enough funds for one lander and chose what it deemed the lowest-cost, most technically ready option: SpaceX's Starship vehicle. Nelson said he very much would like to have competition in the lander program, but, he said, "That will depend on you all." In other words, if Congress appropriates substantially more funding for a lunar lander program for the 2022 budget, then NASA will be able to support development of two lunar landers.
Several members of Congress tried to object to this idea. Brian Babin (R-Texas) noted that the Biden administration had only asked for $1.2 billion in the recent 2022 President's Budget Request for a Human Landing System. This is only about one-third of the amount the White House requested in the 2021 budget. "Once you dig into the details, some concerning themes emerge," Babin said of the fiscal year 2022 NASA budget request, suggesting that it was really the White House that was not committed to Artemis.
But Nelson was having none of this. "The Congress appropriated $850 million," Nelson told Babin. "And so you can only get so many pounds of potatoes out of a five-pound sack. If you all are generous... then we're going to try to rev it up."
So until NASA receives more money—above and beyond the $1.2 billion budget request for the coming fiscal year—it will have to press ahead with its current plan.
Commercial space safety
Another theme during the hearing was questions about whether private companies, such as SpaceX, could develop vehicles safe enough for human spaceflight. Nelson noted that SpaceX is already doing this with its Crew Dragon vehicle in low Earth orbit. Even if NASA is buying spaceflight as a service rather than owning the systems outright, the agency still has adequate supervision of safety, he said.
But could private companies be counted on to deliver this service beyond low Earth orbit? This is what Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) wanted to know. He cited the Apollo program (and NASA's development of the Apollo rockets and spacecraft) as a model Artemis should emulate.
Nelson gently pushed back on this as well. "In the Apollo program, we got to the Moon with American corporations," Nelson said. "They did all the work. NASA supervised it. NASA had a reason to supervise it, because NASA's responsibility is to make sure it is safe. We're just continuing that in a different way."
Nelson also reiterated that NASA is committed to developing the Human Landing System with fixed-price contracts, which should allow for shorter timelines and lower costs.
315 Reader Comments
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Edit: Typo
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Or if Congress were less invested in pork the US might be a nation beyond any normal hope and potentially even imagination?
Yep. Happy so far
I'm still trying to understand how someone from Congress (on a Space committee no less) used Apollo as an example against the SpaceX award, apparently with no idea about how Apollo was structured to use private companies. Don't these people have an army of advisors to steer them clear of public stupidity?
Last edited by Cathbadhian on Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:55 pm
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Edit: Typo
The US Congress will never _not_ be invested in pork.
A more realistic hope would be to hope that China hurries up and lands on the moon... so that the US Congress suddenly deems it very important to match that, and to land on Mars first.
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Or if Congress were less invested in pork the US might be a nation beyond any normal hope and potentially even imagination?
Its hard to control where the money and jobs are going when its a fixed contract award instead of a prime contractor of a cost-plus NASA designed vehicle. They are really giving away the game as to what the real purpose of NASA is to them: a jobs program distributed among as many states as possible and treated like a political football.
The managers come up with a number, which they present to their department heads, who adjust it and present it to the Agency heads, who adjust it and present it to the Presidents budget committee, who adjusts it and presents it to the President, who then adjusts it and presents it to Congress.
Congress can call in anybody on the list above - who are then required to defend the number given by the President. (Not their own numbers - they're required to defend the budget that was presented, no matter how it's been adjusted in between.)
Once that is done, Congress adjusts the numbers, and approves the budget, which goes back to the President to sign. At this point every level from the top down gets to approve projects to spend that money or a portion of it. (Assuming it hasn't been marked for specific projects or not allowed to be spent by any level above, of course.)
(If you think this is a recipe for imaginary numbers - congrats.)
It's just night and day. SpaceX just want to build, launch, crash, improve, build, launch...etc. You get the picture.
Everyone else needs to fund a massive bureaucracy and subsidized jobs program stifling innovation. Blue Origin doesn't have those two problems, but it has inherited the same lazy do-nothing culture from everyone it hired, crying into the existential abyss when the government doesn't turn on the free cash tap. BO is literally worse than ULA and Ariane combined - it just has no excuse to be taking its tips for success from companies which are losing so badly to SpaceX.
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Edit: Typo
The pork is probably the only reason some parts of Congress support NASA at all.
Representatives "Why can't the Forest Service move the moon?" and "What if we station so many Marines on Guam that it tips over and sinks?" aren't funding space probes because of their keen interest in scientific progress.
What an asshole. He knows full well the White House budget request is completely meaningless. Congress controls the purse strings, full stop.
Strictly speaking the Director of NASA reports to the President not Congress. But the money has to come from Congress. So he has to play nice with the Legislative Branch too.
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Edit: Typo
Nelson should have said, "You can't have your pork and eat it too". You know, terms they can assimilate with.
Last edited by VaughnP on Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:23 pm
What an asshole. He knows full well the White House budget request is completely meaningless. Congress controls the purse strings, full stop.
Just look where he is from. He is just doing his best to keep up with Roy, Patrick, Abbott, Cruz, Gohmert and the other dim bulb politicians from the Lone Braincell State. If he gets any dumber, he can come here to AZ, as we have Ducey, Gosar and Biggs, along with a Fraudit.
Strictly speaking the Director of NASA reports to the President not Congress. But the money has to come from Congress. So he has to play nice with the Legislative Branch too.
Yes, he does have to play nice, just like NASA administrators have for decades. Appeasing Shelby, in particular, has become a mandatory requirement.
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Edit: Typo
The pork is probably the only reason some parts of Congress support NASA at all.
Representatives "Why can't the Forest Service move the moon?" and "What if we station so many Marines on Guam that it tips over and sinks?" aren't funding space probes because of their keen interest in scientific progress.
I must admit I hadn't heard about the possibility of Guam tipping over and sinking...
Although it does appear that by trying to make a snide remark in jest by saying that if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was interested in helping combat climate change perhaps they could alter the moon's orbit, Gohmert thought that people were needling him because he thought that THEY thought he was referring to Black Lives Matter.
Talk about a case of open mouth, insert foot - then ankle, knee and femur...
I spent over a dozen years in TX, and it's idiots like him who make me glad I left.
/edit - typo in that last sentence...
Last edited by beausoleil on Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:18 pm
What an asshole. He knows full well the White House budget request is completely meaningless. Congress controls the purse strings, full stop.
The President's budget request is supposed to highlight priorities for the Administration. The answer I would have chosen would have been "given the insufficient funding for the FY2021 human landing program, NASA could only award one proposal. As such, the President has asked for enough money to carry that program forward. Had Congress appropriated enough funding for FY'21 then I'm sure the request for '22 would have been higher than $1.2 billion."
Strictly speaking the Director of NASA reports to the President not Congress. But the money has to come from Congress. So he has to play nice with the Legislative Branch too.
Yes, he does have to play nice, just like NASA administrators have for decades. Appeasing Shelby, in particular, has become a mandatory requirement.
Shelby, while still a senior Senator on the Appropriations Committee, is no longer Chair. As such, he doesn't get to decide the day's docket. Being nice to him is probably useful but kissing his ass is not a requirement.
Strictly speaking the Director of NASA reports to the President not Congress. But the money has to come from Congress. So he has to play nice with the Legislative Branch too.
Yes, he does have to play nice, just like NASA administrators have for decades. Appeasing Shelby, in particular, has become a mandatory requirement.
Shelby, while still a senior Senator on the Appropriations Committee, is no longer Chair. As such, he doesn't get to decide the day's docket. Being nice to him is probably useful but kissing his ass is not a requirement.
He may not be the chair, but I can't imagine him meekly letting anyone attack funding for SLS. It will be more like trading favors, like "I'll support your budget priority, but only if you keep the pork flowing to Alabama".
The managers come up with a number, which they present to their department heads, who adjust it and present it to the Agency heads, who adjust it and present it to the Presidents budget committee, who adjusts it and presents it to the President, who then adjusts it and presents it to Congress.
Congress can call in anybody on the list above - who are then required to defend the number given by the President. (Not their own numbers - they're required to defend the budget that was presented, no matter how it's been adjusted in between.)
Once that is done, Congress adjusts the numbers, and approves the budget, which goes back to the President to sign. At this point every level from the top down gets to approve projects to spend that money or a portion of it. (Assuming it hasn't been marked for specific projects or not allowed to be spent by any level above, of course.)
(If you think this is a recipe for imaginary numbers - congrats.)
Congress usually just throws out the Presidents request and makes up their own numbers.
What supposed goalposts were moved? Looks to me more like SpaceX far exceeded the requirements compared to the competition.
Strictly speaking the Director of NASA reports to the President not Congress. But the money has to come from Congress. So he has to play nice with the Legislative Branch too.
Yes, he does have to play nice, just like NASA administrators have for decades. Appeasing Shelby, in particular, has become a mandatory requirement.
Shelby, while still a senior Senator on the Appropriations Committee, is no longer Chair. As such, he doesn't get to decide the day's docket. Being nice to him is probably useful but kissing his ass is not a requirement.
He may not be the chair, but I can't imagine him meekly letting anyone attack funding for SLS. It will be more like trading favors, like "I'll support your budget priority, but only if you keep the pork flowing to Alabama".
But trading favors puts him on the same footing as all Senators. He just happens to be personally invested in SLS. When he was Chair, if he didn't want your bill to come to a vote at all it just wouldn't make the schedule.
I doubt SpaceX has spent even half that much on Starship so far.
I just wish Congrass was less invested in pork so NASA could allocate its resources more effectively.
Edit: Typo
The pork is probably the only reason some parts of Congress support NASA at all.
Representatives "Why can't the Forest Service move the moon?" and "What if we station so many Marines on Guam that it tips over and sinks?" aren't funding space probes because of their keen interest in scientific progress.
I must admit I hadn't heard about the possibility of Guam tipping over and sinking...
Although it does appear that by trying to make a snide remark in jest by saying that if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was interested in helping combat climate change perhaps they could alter the moon's orbit, Gohmert thought that people were needling him because he thought that THEY thought he was referring to Black Lives Matter.
Talk about a case of open mouth, insert foot - then ankle, knee and femur...
I spent over a dozen years in TX, and it's idiots like him who make me glad I left.
/edit - typo in that last sentence...
I guess it depends what political circles you're in. For about a decade it was the favorite example among my politically outspoken Republican friends about how stupid Congressional Democrats were. (While ignoring the fact that their party also has numerous ignoranuses in office.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dkqUy7mUk
What supposed goalposts were moved? Looks to me more like SpaceX far exceeded the requirements compared to the competition.
When the congressional appropriation came in skinny they started to weigh costs after BO had already bid at a bloated cost. BO's complaint is basically that they would have matched Space X's bid (cus bezos has deep pockets) if they knew they had to.
What supposed goalposts were moved? Looks to me more like SpaceX far exceeded the requirements compared to the competition.
BO's entire complaint hinges on the public statements by NASA that given the budget shortfall they chose the least expensive option. The scoring rules for the program did not put cost as the highest-rate category so according to BO that was unfair.
BO would like you to ignore the fact that they weren't rated higher than SpaceX in any category and were certainly worse on cost. As such, there's no possible combinations of score weightings that would have resulted in BO winning. However, if NASA did over-weight cost according to the RFP it would be enough for the GAO to throw the award out.
However, I believe BO is going to be found to not have standing. Their proposal was found to be unresponsive to the RFP with charges to activities that were expressly forbidden.
Edit: And I believe the other proposal was found to have negative payload to the surface. So I'm not sure their proposal can be considered responsive either.
Last edited by Wickwick on Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:30 pm
What supposed goalposts were moved? Looks to me more like SpaceX far exceeded the requirements compared to the competition.
When the congressional appropriation came in skinny they started to weigh costs after BO had already bid at a bloated cost. BO's complaint is basically that they would have matched Space X's bid (cus bezos has deep pockets) if they knew they had to.
We would've ripped you off less if we had known we were supposed to! /s
What supposed goalposts were moved? Looks to me more like SpaceX far exceeded the requirements compared to the competition.
The one where they were going to pick 2 winners; meaning to get an award you only had to have a workable proposal (sorry Dynetics) and not be the most expensive one to win (sorry again Dynetics). Which meant that BO only needed to underbid Dynetics and not also a company that was developing half the tech stack in their proposal for internal use out of its own funds.
With 99% certainly nothing of significance, but ordinarily that'd stall old space companies from working on the contract in the meantime - it's not like their moon landers would be good for anything without a moon landing contract. SpaceX is working on the most essential pieces anyway though, so it's not working as expected.
Of course if it went on for a really long time SpaceX wouldn't develop the Moon-specific bits without NASA money, but Starship launch and 1st/2nd stage recovery they do for their own sake. They'll just be well on the way to the first payment milestone when the paperwork clears and
the contract formally starts, with good lawyers they'll never be punished for finishing early.
What supposed goalposts were moved? Looks to me more like SpaceX far exceeded the requirements compared to the competition.
The one where they were going to pick 2 winners; meaning to get an award you only had to have a workable proposal (sorry Dynetics) and not be the most expensive one to win (sorry again Dynetics). Which meant that BO only needed to underbid Dynetics and not also a company that was developing half the tech stack in their proposal for internal use out of its own funds.
The RFP always stated that two winners was the preference but I don't believe that was explicitly spelled out anywhere. As such, that wouldn't be grounds for a protest.
Strictly speaking the Director of NASA reports to the President not Congress. But the money has to come from Congress. So he has to play nice with the Legislative Branch too.
Yes, he does have to play nice, just like NASA administrators have for decades. Appeasing Shelby, in particular, has become a mandatory requirement.
Shelby, while still a senior Senator on the Appropriations Committee, is no longer Chair. As such, he doesn't get to decide the day's docket. Being nice to him is probably useful but kissing his ass is not a requirement.
He may not be the chair, but I can't imagine him meekly letting anyone attack funding for SLS. It will be more like trading favors, like "I'll support your budget priority, but only if you keep the pork flowing to Alabama".
But trading favors puts him on the same footing as all Senators. He just happens to be personally invested in SLS. When he was Chair, if he didn't want your bill to come to a vote at all it just wouldn't make the schedule.
One important point to consider is that repubs will almost certainly regain control of the House and Senate next year. Shelby will be retired at that time, I think, but a repub will then chair the committee. Their distaste for SpaceX, and willingness to shovel pork to Old Space, will make Artemis even more dysfunctional than it already is.
You must login or create an account to comment.