Chamber members criticize NASA’s lunar landing awards



[ad_1]

WASHINGTON – While NASA’s decision to award lunar lander development contracts to three companies was praised by a Senate committee, House Science Committee leaders said they remained concerned about NASA’s approach to return humans to the moon.

NASA issued awards to teams led by Blue Origin, Dynetics and SpaceX on April 30 to begin detailed studies for landers under the Human Landing System (HLS) program. The three companies received fixed-price contracts valued at $ 967 million combined to undertake 10-month studies of their concepts. That work will conclude with reviews in early 2021 where NASA will decide which company or companies will receive funds to continue lander development, with the goal of having a lander ready for a 2024 mission to send astronauts to the surface of Moon.

NASA’s use of public-private partnerships, including plans to purchase commercial landing services instead of the landers themselves, faces opposition from the House Science Committee. The committee’s leaders introduced a NASA authorization bill in January that, among other provisions, mandates NASA to develop an integrated lunar lander that would be government-owned and launched in the Space Launch System. None of the three companies selected by NASA plans to use SLS to launch their landers.

“I am concerned that NASA has decided to ignore the intent of Congress and instead go ahead with the Human Landing System awards to try to meet an arbitrary lunar landing deadline of 2024,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D -Texas), chairman of the House Science Committee, said in a May 1 statement.

Johnson criticized the use of NASA trade associations for the program. “The multi-year delays and difficulties experienced by companies in NASA’s taxpayer-funded commercial crew program, a program with the much less ambitious goal of bringing NASA astronauts into low Earth orbit, I They make it clear that we shouldn’t try to privatize the American Moon-Mars program, “he said,” especially when at the end of the day American taxpayers, not private companies, will end up paying most of the costs, “he said.

“I was disappointed to see that NASA’s decision on the development of lunar landing systems stands in stark contrast to NASA’s bipartisan House authorization bill and expert advice to minimize risk and ensure the greatest likelihood of success. in landing humans on the moon, “said Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.), Chairman of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, said in the same statement.

Horn also criticized the lack of a detailed plan and budget for the Artemis program. “Unfortunately, more than a year after its announcement to accelerate the Artemis program, NASA has yet to provide Congress with a transparent architecture and technical and cost assessment, despite our repeated requests,” he said.

The Horn subcommittee marked the authorization bill in late January. In an interview a month later, Horn said the committee had made some changes to the bill, including those related to the development of a lunar lander, but said it was too early to discuss them. However, he said the bill would still require that the moon landers be owned by the government.

At the time, Horn said he expected the House Science Committee to mark the bill in March, sending it to the House for consideration. However, that marking has yet to take place as the House has been on recess since mid-March due to the coronavirus pandemic, apart from brief sessions to vote on the pandemic-related legislation.

The House’s comments on the HLS awards contrast with the support offered by the Senate Commerce Committee. “Making good use of trade partnerships lowers the long-term cost of space exploration, and enables the US aerospace industry to do what it does best: innovate,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), President. The committee said in a statement on April 30.

The industry also supports the use of NASA trade associations for the development of the lunar lander. “This approach to ensuring safety, while reducing costs and keeping schedules, is consistent with multiple independent government reviews and the testimonies of numerous expert witnesses before Congress,” said Eric Stallmer, president of the Commercial Flight Federation. Space, in a May 1 statement to SpaceNews.

At the April 30 press conference where NASA announced the awards, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said there was broad bipartisan support for Artemis’s overall program. He said he spoke to “many” members of Congress in the days leading up to the lander announcement to inform them of NASA’s plans.

“Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate, have all been very supportive of the effort to get to the moon,” he said. “We have a budget request that reflects that priority, and I have not heard anyone suggest that, due to the coronavirus pandemic, we will have to cut NASA.”

What is less certain, however, is whether NASA will obtain the additional funding it requested in FY2021 for the development of the lunar lander and other elements of the Artemis program. Congress has not yet begun work on appropriations bills that, even under normal circumstances, are not completed until the new fiscal year begins on October 1. That requires NASA and other agencies to operate provisional funding bills, known as continuing resolutions, that fund them at the levels of the previous fiscal year, often for several months.

In one scenario, Congress could choose to pass a one-year rolling resolution that, unless it contains exceptions, would keep NASA at 2020 funding levels. In that case, it may be impossible to maintain a human lunar landing in 2024 at weather.

Bridenstine, on the media conference call, hoped that NASA could be included in an infrastructure bill of some kind later this year intended to serve as an economic stimulus after the pandemic. “If we make an infrastructure package as a nation, I would like NASA to be part of that infrastructure package, and that’s what I’m going to work for,” he said. However, there is still no agreement between House and Senate leaders on the content, size, or timeline for such a bill.

[ad_2]