WASHINGTON — NASA Administrator Bill Nelson defended the cost and schedule of the agency’s Artemis moon exploration effort, even as officials hinted at the possibility of changes in an upcoming mission.
At a hearing on May 23, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), chair of the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, pressed Nelson on the costs associated with Artemis and suggested that the agency would convene an independent review of those costs.
She asked Nelson to describe “what NASA is doing to hold contractors accountable for cost overruns and schedule delays,” including whether the agency withheld payments to contractors for those overruns. She did not cite specific cases involving Artemis, but rather previous studies of the program’s total costs, including an estimate from NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) that each of the first four Space Launch System/Orion launches cost $4.2 billion will cost.
Nelson said the companies are “blocked” from paying rewards if their performance falls short. He also highlighted NASA’s use of commercial partnerships on Artemis, such as for the Human Landing System program that uses fixed-price contracts.
“Given the high costs, has NASA considered an independent research review board?” Sheheen asked, citing the benefits of independent reviews of the James Webb Space Telescope program when it faced additional overruns and delays late in its development.
Nelson argued that such a review was not necessary. “We constantly have different eyes” on Artemis, he said, citing reviews from OIG and the Government Accountability Office. “The fact is that if you go to the moon to go to Mars, it is difficult.”
In fact, NASA officials have expressed some frustration with the level of outside oversight of Artemis. The agency’s response to the most recent OIG audit related to Artemis, regarding the agency’s readiness for the Artemis 2 mission, complained that OIG had found no issues that they had not already addressed and that the collaboration with the auditors “caused disruptions to ongoing workflow and priorities. ” for those working on the upcoming mission.
The Artemis 2 mission’s launch is still scheduled for September 2025, a “realistic date,” Nelson told subcommittee ranking member Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), despite ongoing work on the Orion heat shield and other technical problems. However, Nelson emphasized that “we won’t fly until it’s done.”
This would be followed in September 2026 by Artemis 3, the first manned landing. “Artemis 3, if you compare it to the Apollo program, is a combination of Apollo 9, 10 and 11,” he said. “It’s a difficult task and when we land, it’s dependent on SpaceX having its lander ready.”
Nelson’s use of “if” in reference to an Artemis 3 landing raised some eyebrows. Nelson said that SpaceX has so far “achieved all their milestones” in developing the lunar lander version of their Starship vehicle that will be used on Artemis 3. However, agency officials have publicly questioned SpaceX’s ability to launch the Starship lander ready on time. , and have suggested that NASA could change the Artemis 3 mission if Starship falls behind schedule. There are more recent reports that NASA is exploring options for Artemis 3 that would not be suitable for a crewed moon landing.
That issue came up during an online Lunar Surface Science Workshop session on May 23. “We are fundamentally focused on Artemis 3 being a human return mission to the moon,” said Mike Sarafin, NASA’s Artemis 3 mission manager, when asked about possible alternate mission profiles.
However, he acknowledged that the agency was working on alternative concepts. “If we encounter any problems, we can choose an exit,” he said. “We are doing what-if exercises internally,” but he did not reveal what could cause an off-ramp or what those alternatives would entail.
Sarafin did state that NASA was closely monitoring the upcoming “series of tests” for Starship, including one expected next year to demonstrate propellant transfer between two Starship vehicles, a key technology needed to power the Starship lunar lander to provide fuel. “Should any of these results be unsatisfactory,” he said of those tests, “we will absolutely need more time.”