RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEW POLICY BRIEF ADMINISTRATION The Road Back to the

George W.S. Abbey, Senior Fellow in

This brief is part of a series of policy recommendations for the administration of President Joe Biden. Focusing on a range of important issues facing the country, the briefs are intended to provide decision-makers with relevant and effective ideas for addressing domestic and foreign policy priorities. View the entire series at www.bakerinstitute.org/recommendations-2021.

INTRODUCTION 1969

It has now been over fifty-one years since When first flew to the moon astronauts first walked on the moon and a half century ago, they used the lunar- almost forty-eight years since orbit-rendezvous concept. A V and Harrison (Jack) Schmidt became the launched two —the last humans to visit the moon. During the command and and the administration of former President Donald lunar module. The command module was Trump, NASA agreed to return to the moon attached to the service module containing by 2028. However, former Vice President the propulsion system, expendables, and , at a meeting of the National fuel cells, which were mounted atop the Space Council on March 26, 2019, ordered powerful booster. The lunar NASA to accelerate its plans for lunar module was mounted below the service return, and the new date was set for 2024. module within the spacecraft lunar module It has now been over This expedited timeline requires additional adapter (SLA). Below the lunar module was modules and capabilities and an accelerated the that controlled fifty-one years since mission sequence. The program also lacks the Saturn V rocket. The instrument unit astronauts first walked any realistic cost estimates (not to mention was atop the third stage of the Saturn on the moon and almost the program’s excessive development V. The third stage of the Saturn V rocket forty-eight years times and the significant cost overruns was launched into orbit, and the that have already occurred). Therefore, as engine was shut down upon reaching since Gene Cernan and the administration of President Joe Biden orbit. It was subsequently re-started to Harrison (Jack) Schmidt now takes control, a systematic review of perform the trans-lunar injection burn, became the last humans this accelerated plan is in order. It is crucial sending the third stage, the command and to visit the moon. that officials at NASA and the White House service module, and the lunar module on a review and adjust the current plans in order trajectory to the moon. The command and to ensure a successful return to the moon, service module then separated from the even if that means it won’t occur by 2024. SLA and performed a 180 degree turn to dock with the lunar module, separating the lunar module from the SLA and third stage of the Saturn V. RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // POLICY BRIEF

When the two docked spacecraft reached astronauts to return to Earth. The lunar the moon, the service module engine was orbital , referred to as the utilized to place the two spacecraft in orbit (or simply the Gateway), is around the moon. Two astronauts then a collection of modules that include living entered the lunar module, separated from the quarters, an air lock, and a power and command and service modules, which were propulsion module. left orbiting the moon with one , The origin of the lunar gateway concept and, using the descent stage engine of the goes back several years. It was conceived by lunar module, landed on the moon. After NASA during a previous administration that completing their activities on the lunar envisioned a grabbing service, they reentered the lunar module, a small, near-Earth asteroid and bringing which was a two-stage spacecraft, and it into an orbit around the moon, where it lifted off from the moon in the ascent stage would be visited by astronauts. There was to rendezvous and dock with the orbiting concern about the feasibility and costs of command and service module. The service such a mission, and it was never approved. module engine was then utilized to perform NASA maintained, however, that the burn needed to depart from human should utilize and place the command and service module a presence in cislunar space—the area on a trajectory to return to Earth. The lunar- between the Earth and the moon—to test The concept of building orbit-rendezvous approach was the subject technologies for future missions to a space station to orbit of much analysis and study before agreement and beyond. This evolved into a concept the moon (a God-given was finally reached to use this method called the Deep Space Gateway, a collection space station that nearly a year after President Kennedy’s of modules in a distant retrograde orbit already orbits Earth), announcement in May, 1961 to go to the around the moon. By the late 2020s, moon. It proved to be a very straightforward astronauts operating from the Gateway is also very costly and and fundamental approach that helped could begin assembling a separate potentially less safe to ensure the landing was successfully spacecraft, the , for than going directly completed before the end of the decade. long-duration missions to Mars. to the moon and The administration of President , in a December, 2017 space policy investing our resources NASA’S CURRENT PLAN: THE directive, refocused the U.S. space program in a . PROGRAM on human exploration and returning American astronauts to the moon.1 It called NASA’s current plan for sending astronauts for the use of commercial and international back to the moon is considerably more partnerships. It did not, however, specify an complex and challenging and will be much architecture for returning to the moon. NASA more costly. It is envisioned that proposed the Gateway, formally renaming purchased commercially will be utilized to it the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, and launch the components of a space station presenting it as a staging area for lunar that will be assembled in high lunar orbit. missions. The Gateway would be assembled Another rocket will launch an unmanned in a different orbit, a highly elliptical one lunar to dock with the lunar orbiting over the poles of the moon, called a near- space station. The System rectilinear halo orbit. Using the Lunar Orbital (SLS) rocket will then launch an astronaut- Platform-Gateway approach, NASA planned manned spacecraft to dock with a lunar landing in 2028. the space station orbiting the moon, and NASA also approached international astronauts will utilize the attached lander partners involved in the International Space to descend to the lunar surface. After Station (ISS). The completing their activities on the moon, (CSA), the (ESA), the crew will lift off from the moon to the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency rendezvous and dock with the orbiting (JAXA), and , the Russian Space station. The Orion spacecraft, docked with Agency, were all considering participating the orbiting station, will be utilized by the with NASA in the Gateway by early 2019. 2 THE ROAD BACK TO THE MOON

The vision changed dramatically when data-handling capabilities, energy storage, former Vice President Mike Pence, at a power distribution, thermal control, meeting of the on communications, and tracking capabilities. March 26, 2019, ordered NASA to accelerate It will have environmental control and its plans for lunar return. “At the direction life-support systems to augment the Orion of the president of the , it spacecraft and support crew members. is the stated policy of this administration It will also have several docking ports and the United States of America to return for visiting vehicles and future modules American astronauts to the moon within as well as room for science projects and the next five years.”2 stowage. Cargo deliveries, initially provided The program to land astronauts on the by SpaceX, will service the Gateway with moon was named the , pressurized and unpressurized cargo, and NASA announced it would be landing including food and water for crew, science both a man and a woman on the moon by instruments, and supplies for the Gateway the 2024 date. To achieve a lunar landing and lunar surface expeditions. by this earlier date, NASA modified its ISS partners are all considering providing plans relative to using the Gateway. The support to the Gateway. The CSA is proposing accelerated return to the moon required to provide robotics, and the ESA and JAXA the agency to minimize the number of have plans to provide support to the Gateway systems involved with landing humans on as well. Roscosmos has also expressed the surface. While future lunar landings interest in cooperating on the Gateway.5 will still use the Gateway as a staging NASA has selected three companies point in lunar orbit for missions to the to begin the development of the HLS that surface, NASA, in procuring a commercially will land astronauts on the moon and then provided Human Landing System (HLS), has safely return them to lunar orbit before considered proposals that don’t use the their return to Earth during the Artemis Gateway on early Artemis missions. missions. , , and SpaceX The Gateway, a key element of NASA’s offer distinct lander and mission designs. All long-term lunar operations, basically three will be designed to dock with Orion or represents the first two components the Gateway to receive crews in lunar orbit. of a space station orbiting the moon. In early 2021, NASA expects to determine NASA is proposing to launch the first two which commercial concepts are the elements of the Gateway—the Power mature to land astronauts on the moon for and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the the early Artemis surface expeditions.6 Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO)— Two flights of the Orion spacecraft together in 2023. They then propose to and the SLS are planned leading up to the have commercial launches provide logistic projected 2024 lunar landing: Artemis I support to the two modules. and Artemis II. is developing The Artemis I flight, scheduled to be the PPE.3 The spacecraft’s electric launched in 2021, will be an unmanned propulsion system provides the Gateway launch of the Orion spacecraft atop the SLS with electrical power, control, thrust, and into Earth orbit, placing it on a path toward communication capabilities. The PPE also a lunar distant retrograde orbit. It will then provides accommodations for science and travel 40,000 miles beyond the moon (a total technology demonstration . of about 280,000 miles from Earth) before is developing the returning home. This mission is planned as HALO, which will be the initial crew cabin a demonstration of both the performance for astronauts visiting the Gateway.4 Its of the SLS booster on its maiden flight and primary purpose is to provide basic life- a major test of the Orion spacecraft’s heat support needs for the visiting astronauts shield as it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere at after they arrive in the Orion spacecraft and 24,500 miles per hour. as they prepare for their trip to the lunar surface. It will provide command, control, 3 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // POLICY BRIEF

Artemis II, scheduled to be launched no later than 2023, will be the first manned COST ESTIMATES AND DEVELOPMENT launch of the Orion and the SLS. Orion PROBLEMS and four astronauts will make two orbits NASA’s approach to return to the moon around Earth before committing to the by 2024 will undoubtedly be a very costly trip to the moon. Orion will first reach an one. They are, in essence, planning to initial insertion orbit at an altitude of 115 by build a space station to orbit the moon, 1,800 miles, and the elliptical orbit will last the so-called Lunar Gateway. This is approximately 90 minutes with the perigee an approach based upon a number of adjusted via the rocket’s first firing of the separate modules that are being developed interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS). by different contractors, and it all must After the first orbit, the rocket’s ICPS will come together if they are to successfully again provide the thrust to raise Orion into achieve their objective. The management a high Earth orbit (HEO), flying in an ellipse of the program and its various critical for approximately 42 hours between 200 elements have also been assigned to all and 59,000 miles above Earth. the various NASA centers. Experience in After completing checkout procedures the management of complex programs has in HEO, the Orion will perform the clearly demonstrated that success requires translunar injection maneuver (TLI). The a strong and knowledgeable program Orion’s service module will send the management and effective program spacecraft on a path toward the moon with integration with clear lines of technical and a lunar, free-return trajectory. The TLI will budget authority. That does not appear send the crew on an outbound trip of about to be apparent in the Artemis Program as four days around the , presently defined. The concept of building where they will ultimately create a figure a space station to orbit the moon (a God- eight extending more than 230,000 miles given space station that already orbits from Earth as the Orion returns on another Earth), is also very costly and potentially four-day journey back home. less safe than going directly to the moon Artemis III, the third planned flight and investing our resources in a lunar of NASA's Orion spacecraft on the SLS, is outpost, the ultimate objective. scheduled for launch in October, 2024. A realistic cost estimate for the Artemis Artemis III will take the Orion and its crew Program has yet to be made. NASA, in their of four to the moon for a lunar landing. In Artemis plan—NASA’s Lunar Exploration order to attempt to return to the moon by Program Overview of September, 2020— the directed 2024 date, NASA has tried to shows a total cost for Phase I of the Artemis minimize the number of systems involved Program amounting to $27.971 billion.7 In with landing humans on the surface. So, the 1960’s the , flying two while future lunar landings will use the missions in Earth orbit and nine missions to Gateway as a staging point in lunar orbit for the moon, landing six times, came to $25 missions to the surface, NASA has allowed billion. That amount would equate to over commercially provided HLS bidders an $219 billion in today’s dollars—a far cry option that does not use the Gateway on from the $27 plus billion estimated by NASA early Artemis missions. However, for long- for Phase I of the Artemis Program. term lunar operations, NASA is planning The lack of realism in NASA cost to use the Gateway as a staging point for estimation for the Artemis Program has human and robotic lunar missions. already been demonstrated by the costs being incurred by the SLS—a major element of the Artemis Program that was not included in NASA’s $27 billion quote. The planning to be used, the SLS, has already suffered significant cost overruns and schedule delays. According 4 THE ROAD BACK TO THE MOON

to a 2020 Office of Inspector General (OIG) costs has hindered the overall transparency report, the cost of the booster had already of the vehicle's complete costs.13 grown by nearly 30% (or about $2 billion), A recent problem experienced with the and the first launch of the rocket, originally Orion as it progresses through processing planned for late 2017, would be delayed at the in to June 2021 or later.8 The OIG report also could further impact those costs. Although estimated that NASA would spend $17 billion NASA announced on December 17, 2020 on the SLS through the end of fiscal year that it will not repair a faulty electronics 2020, of which $5.9 billion was not included unit on the Orion spacecraft, if they were in its baseline commitment.9, 10 to proceed with repairs, it would require Another critical element in the Artemis months of work to replace and fix.14 The Program is the Orion spacecraft. NASA has failed component is within one of the been developing the Orion spacecraft for spacecraft’s eight power and data units, or over 14 years since 2006.The Orion is one PDUs. The PDUs are the main power/data of three capsules being developed by NASA. boxes for the Orion and are responsible for Space X’S Dragon capsule and ’s activating key flight systems. CST-100 Starship capsule are also both Replacing the PDU isn’t easy. The being funded by NASA. They are to be used component is difficult to replace as it’s to carry astronauts to the International located inside an adapter that connects the Space Station. SpaceX has already Orion to the service module that provides successfully flown the Dragon, but Boeing support, propulsion, and power for the has yet to fly their spacecraft. One might spacecraft. To get to the PDU, the Orion crew ask, why develop three capsules when capsule would have to be removed from its one would suffice for flying astronauts service module. This is a lengthy process to the ISS and for flights to the moon? that would take up to a year. As many as Unfortunately, none of the three capsules nine months would be needed to take the can accomplish spacewalks, also known as vehicle apart and put it back together again, extravehicular activities. They also cannot in addition to having to undergo three be used to construct large structures months of subsequent testing. in space, a capability that was given up Engineers have considered other when the Program ended. possible ways to replace the failed unit. At present, another international space One would involve tunneling through the station could not be built in Earth orbit as adapter’s exterior by removing some of the was accomplished by the Space Shuttle outer panels of the adapter to get to the Program, and building a space station in PDU. The panels weren’t designed to be lunar orbit, as is presently planned, will removed in this way. This approach would be a very challenging task. NASA hopes to still take up to four months to complete if it accomplish the construction automatically. even proves to be possible. The Orion and the SLS are scheduled to The PDU failed in such a way that it fly together for the first time in late 2021 lost redundancy within the unit, but it can on the Artemis I mission that will send an still function. Although NASA concluded unmanned Orion around the moon. NASA's that there was sufficient redundancy in OIG report determined report determined the overall system, flying without the that the Orion, under development for over designed redundancy is not exactly a a decade, has continued to experience cost prudent approach. Far more important is increases and schedule delays.11 Since a understanding the reason for the failure cost and schedule baseline was set in 2015, and determining if the other PDU’s are the program has experienced over $900 susceptible to the same failure. million in cost growth through 2019, a In any event, the problems faced by figure expected to rise to at least $1.4 billion both the Orion and the SLS raise concerns through 2023, the report concluded.12 The about a combined Orion-SLS flight even OIG report also found that NASA's exclusion occurring in 2021. of more than $17 billion in Orion-related 5 RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY // POLICY BRIEF

CONCLUSION ENDNOTES

If one were to look back at the . NASA, “New Space Policy Directive Program, every capability needed to perform Calls for Human Expansion Across Solar the mission to the moon, except for the System,” press release no. 17-097, actual landing, was proven in Earth orbit. The December 11, 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/ first manned flight, Apollo VII, was an Earth press-release/new-space-policy-directive- orbital flight of almost 11 days. The objectives calls-for-human-expansion-across-solar- of the mission were to demonstrate the system. performance of the command and service 2. Kenneth Chang, “The Trump module, the crew, the mission support Administration Wants Astronauts on Moon facilities, and the command and service by 2024. But What’s the Plan?” The New module’s rendezvous capability. A flight out York Times, March 26, 2019, https://www. of Earth orbit was not considered until those nytimes.com/2019/03/26/science/nasa- objectives were all satisfactorily met. A far moon-pence.html. more prudent approach, an extended Earth 3. NASA, “NASA Awards Artemis orbital flight of similar duration, should also Contract for Lunar Gateway Power, be considered for Artemis II, the first manned Propulsion,” press release no. 19-042, May flight of an Orion spacecraft. 23, 2019, https://www.nasa.gov/press- Two commercial companies, Space X release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract- and Blue Origin, have plans to fly to the for-lunar-gateway-power-propulsion. moon, and China just successfully landed on 4. Northrop Grumman, “Northrop the moon on December 1, 2020 on a lunar Grumman Awarded NASA Contract to sample return mission.15 Neither company Provide First Crew Module for Artemis plans to use a complex architecture with an Program Gateway,” news release, June orbiting space station to fly to the moon, 5, 2020, https://news.northropgrumman. and the Chinese chose a straightforward com/news/releases/northrop-grumman- approach to accomplish their landing. Rather awarded-nasa-contract-to-provide-first- than spend money on space stations to crew-module-for-artemis-program- orbit the moon, a more forthright approach, gateway. such as Apollo’s lunar-orbit-rendezvous 5. Jeff Foust, “ISS Partners Endorse concept, should be considered for achieving Modified Gateway Plans,” SpaceNews, a successful lunar landing, and the emphasis August 30, 2019, https://spacenews.com/ should be on building a permanent research iss-partners-endorse-modified-gateway- station on the moon. plans/. When considering the planned 6. Jeff Foust, “NASA selects three architecture, the Lunar Gateway concept, companies for human landing system the launch vehicle and spacecraft, the awards,” SpaceNews, April 30, 2020, additional modules and capabilities required https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects- with all their complexity, the presently three-companies-for-human-landing- planned mission sequence, the absence of system-awards/. any realistic cost estimates for the program 7. NASA, “The Artemis Plan: NASA’s (as well as excessive development times and Lunar Exploration Program Overview,” significant cost overruns that have already September, 2020, https://www.nasa.gov/ occurred), an overall review of the program sites/default/files/atoms/files/artemis_ and the presently planned approach to plan-20200921.pdf. return to the moon is very much in order. 8. Office of Inspector General, NASA’s The present plan of trying to meet a dictated Management of landing date of 2024 rather than proceeding Program Costs and Contracts, Report No. on an orderly planned sequence of missions IG-20-012, March 10, 2020, https://oig. leading up to a successful landing should also nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-012.pdf. be a part of that review. 9. Ibid. 6 THE ROAD BACK TO THE MOON

10. For more information about the cost overruns and schedule delays AUTHOR of the SLS, see, George W.S. Abbey, George W.S. Abbey is the senior fellow in NASA's Space Launch System, Policy space policy at the Baker Institute. From brief: Recommendations for the New 1996 to 2001, he served as the director Administration, 02.11.21, Rice University’s of NASA . Abbey Baker Institute for Public Policy, , has received numerous awards, including Texas, https://doi.org/10.25613/B64M- the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, the 2X51. NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal and 11. Office of Inspector General, NASA’s three NASA Distinguished Service Medals. Management of the Orion Multi-Purpose He was a member of the operations team Crew Vehicle Program, Report No. IG-20- presented with the Medal of Freedom, the 018, July 16, 2020, https://oig.nasa.gov/ nation’s highest civilian award, in 1970 docs/IG-20-018.pdf. by President Richard Nixon for its role in 12. Ibid. support of the mission. 13. Ibid. 14. Jeff Foust, “NASA to skip repair of Orion electronics unit,” SpaceNews, December 18, 2020, https://spacenews. com/nasa-to-skip-repair-of-orion- electronics-unit/. 15. Steven Lee Myers and Kenneth Chang, “China Lands Chang’e-5 Spacecraft on Moon to Gather Lunar Rocks and Soil,” See more policy briefs at: www.bakerinstitute.org/policy-briefs The New York Times, December 1, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/ This publication was written by a science/china-moon-landing.html. researcher (or researchers) who participated in a Baker Institute project. Wherever feasible, this research is reviewed by outside experts before it is released. However, the views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

© 2021 Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Cover image courtesy of NASA

Cite as: Abbey, George W.S. 2021. The Road Back to the Moon. Policy Brief: Recommendations for the New Administration. 02.19.21. Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, Texas.

https://doi.org/10.25613/TQEM-ES11

7