Space Stories: Starliner Beats SpaceX on Costs, NASA Administrator Ignores Regulators, and Blue Origin Rebuilding Beyond Impressive

Posted on by onespaceman2000

Here are some recent NASA-related stories of interest.

—Florida Sentinel: “Boeing Starliner Costly But Cheaper for NASA Than SpaceX Switch, Audit Says“

Boeing’ Starliner costs and delays remain the target of the latest audit from NASA’s Office of the Inspector General, but remains a cheaper option for the agency than relying solely on SpaceX for its commercial crew needs. The audit releasedJune 30 dinged the beleaguered spacecraft’s tumultuous and still uncertain path toward certification and wars that the timetable for its use to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station is running short.

—Newser: “NASA Chief Defies FAA With ‘High-Risk’ Flight“

NASA chief Jared Isaacman took to the skies over Washington in a vintage fighter jet on July 4, even after federal regulators flagged the plan as too risky. The Federal Aviation Administration rejected a request on June 30 to let four 1970s-era Northrop F-5 Tiger II jets participate in the National Mall flyover for America’s 250th birthday, calling the aircraft “very high-risk” and citing concerns about flight controls, ejection scenarios, and past crashes, the Wall Street Journal reports.

—Benzinga: “NASA’s Jared Isaacman Says Blue Origin’s New Glenn Recovery Is ‘Beyond Impressive’“

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said Blue Origin has devoted significant resources to cleaning up and rebuilding its launch pad after a late-May explosion of a New Glenn rocket, as the agency weighs how the setback could affect lunar missions tied to the Artemis program. “Blue Origin’s response to the situation is almost beyond impressive, and that’s not just a NASA assessment,” Isaacman told reporters Wednesday afternoon, according to Ars Technica. He said U.S. Space Force officials also have been deeply involved in Blue Origin’s planning since the May 28 test anomaly damaged New Glenn’s only operational launch pad.

Note: Here is the podcast version of this post.

Audit Report: NASA Launch Facilities in Need of Repair and Sustainable Financing

Posted on by onespaceman2000

First, let’s note the good news. NASA has more and more launches on its current launch pads (see figure above). Now, the bad news. NASA is running out of functioning launch pads.

That’s the story from NASA’s Office of Inspector General in its latest audit report, NASA’s Launch Infrastructure. The June 22nd audit report concludes that:

NASA’s launch infrastructure is dated and lacks the capacity to meet the growing demands of the Agency and government and commercial partners. The number of launches supported by Kennedy and Wallops has increased dramatically since 2020 and is projected to grow even further by 2030 due to a surge in commercial launches. The growing number of projected launches from Kennedy and Wallops could eventually outpace each site’s capacity to support the launches. Based on current launch projections, Kennedy and Wallops are expected to operate near capacity in the 2028 to 2029 time frame.

The report also notes that the Kennedy Space Center is in tough shape (see figure below). For example, the auditors stated:

Kennedy’s roadway and bridge infrastructure was largely constructed in the 1960s and was not designed to accommodate the volume, frequency, and weight of modern heavy transport operations. Roadways and bridges are in marginal to poor condition and are expected to receive further strain as launch rates increase and generate approximately 19,000 additional truck trips annually to transport flight hardware, propellants, and related materials.

Why is this the situation in a nation that seems to want a strong space program? The report highlights a number of causes, including budget cuts and NASA’s inability to seek sufficient reimbursement from commercial users. It seems we want the private sector to be involved, but we are subsidizing all of the infrastructure, thereby not showing the true cost of these missions. The auditors noted that Congress is aware of this problem, but still unable to pass legislation to correct this reimbursement issue.

The report has a number of recommendations addressed to NASA, which is the auditee. Yet a few recommendations are also needed for Congress. My first recommendation would be for Congress to get off its butt and put legislation in place to ensure the commercial sector is reimbursing the government for the services it is using. That seems easy enough with a serious Congress, and NASA certainly has enough bipartisan support to make this happen.

Note: Figure 4 shows that the vast majority of the launches from Florida are for commercial purposes and not government launches. For instance, 101 of the 109 launches in 2025 related to SpaceX, and most of those launches pertained to Starlink, a commercial enterprise. Maybe it is time to ask the world’s only trillionaire to kick in a litte more for space infrastructure.

Audit Report: Will the Artemis Astronauts Have Spacesuits?

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Credit: NASA OIG

A new audit report from NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) expressed some concerns about whether the contractor, Axiom Space, will have spacesuits ready in time for the planned lunar landing.

The audit report, NASA’s Acquisition of Next-Generation Spacesuit Services, states:

NASA faces challenges in ensuring next-generation spacesuits are available to meet the Agency’s current schedules for the Artemis lunar landing mission in 2028 and prior to the ISS’s decommissioning in 2030. NASA’s original schedules to demonstrate the lunar and microgravity spacesuits in 2025 and 2026, respectively, were overly optimistic and ultimately proved unachievable, as evidenced by delays of at least a year and a half for both spacesuits. Based on our analysis, if Axiom experiences design and testing delays in line with the historical average for recent space programs, the Artemis and ISS demonstrations may not occur until 2031.

That is a damning conclusion at a time NASA is struggling with other Artemis timetables. All of the pieces need to come together soon, including the necessary equipment for the lunar surface. It also does not help that NASA is completely reliant on one contractor for these spacesuits. Even the lunar lander has two competing contractors.

NASA Administrator Isaacman has one more item now keeping him awake at night.

Audit Report: Questions about the Human Landing System

Posted on by onespaceman2000

Auditors with NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated three aspects of the Human Landing System (HLS) to be used with the Artemis Moon landing: (1) the extent to which the HLS providers are meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals; (2) the HLS Program’s implementation of the insight/oversight model; and (3) the Program’s identification and mitigation of risks to astronaut safety.

In its report, NASA’s Management of the Human Landing System Contracts, the auditors found issues in all three areas. In particular, the report stated:

…both SpaceX and Blue Origin have experienced schedule delays and face technical and integration challenges that have the potential to further impact lander costs and delivery schedules. In particular, SpaceX’s lander will not be ready for a June 2027 lunar landing.

It is possible that the draft version of this audit report was already the desk of NASA Administrator Isaacman right before he decided to move the Moon landing date again. Pending audit reports have a tendency to stir action.

Yet, even once we get to the moon, the auditors identified some safety issues. Specifically, the auditors stated:

We also observed limitations in the Agency’s approach to crew survival analyses—the evaluation of available crew survival capabilities to counter a catastrophic event—due to functional constraints and the availability of resources…While NASA is taking steps to prevent catastrophic events from occurring, ultimately, should the astronauts encounter a life-threatening emergency in space or on the lunar surface, NASA does not have the capability to rescue the stranded crew.

None of this is too surprising with a new approach like this one. Delays are inevitable, and even the best of plans cannot account for everything, as Apollo 13 demonstrated. It also shows that NASA has a tough balancing act, with the need for speed weighed against the mechanisms to ensure the safety of the astronauts.

One of the safety concerns stated later in the report really should have been its own report. It discussed the height of the HLS. As shown in the image above, the Starship Lander is huge compared to the Apollo lander and even Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Lander. Here are the dimensions per the report:

Landers may also encounter hazards such as boulders or mounds that are too large or depressions that are too deep for the landing legs and stability design. For example, steep slopes of up to 20 degrees on the lunar South Pole present navigation and landing challenges. Given Starship’s height of 171 feet— about the equivalent of a 14-story tall commercial building—there is a risk that its momentum will continue after landing causing it to tip over. Blue Moon—standing at 53 feet tall—also faces landing risks, including exceeding the lander’s tilt tolerance for safe and effective execution of critical crew functions. Surpassing the tilt tolerance for either lander, which NASA established as not to exceed 8 degrees to support all post-landing crew activities, could impact the operation of equipment such as the hatch used by the crew to exit and enter the vehicle. By comparison, the Apollo Lunar Module stood 23 feet tall.

This is scary given the multiple spacecraft we have already witness toppling over onto the lunar surface just last year. Why would we ever want to land a 14-story tall rocket with an elevator on the Moon as our first attempt after 50 years? I can understand Elon Musk proposing this ridiculous idea, but it is not clear how the original planners could have gone along with it. This is a “catastrophic event” waiting to happen.

The auditors also added a Apollo 15 Lunar Module story (shown below) to the report. After reading this report and the Apollo 15 clip, I think I will also have trouble sleeping tonight due to an uncomfortable feeling that the current Artemis approach was a mess (if not doomed) from the start.

Audit Report: ISS Spacesuit Issues

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Figure from the NASA OIG audit report, NASA’s Management of ISS Extravehicular Activity Spacesuits. (NASA OIG)

NASA has spent a significant amount of money on the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuits used during spacewalks on the International Space Station (ISS). Even so, these suits have ongoing problems that need to be resolved given that they will be critical to the ISS mission until the decommissioning of the station in 2030.

The NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has reported on issues with these spacesuits in the past and recently issued a new report on the status of the spacesuits. In its September 30th report, NASA’s Management of ISS Extravehicular Activity Spacesuit, the auditors noted that the contractor maintaining the spacesuits, Collins Aerospace, is having problems, including:

…considerable schedule delays, cost overruns, and quality issues that significantly increase the risk to maintaining NASA’s spacewalking capability.

The auditors stated that lack of competition for these spacesuit services as well as ineffective contract incentives are making the problems a permanent part of the program. While NASA has promoted competition for many years, these spacesuits designed 50 years ago have not benefited from this new approach, in part because the companies that feed into the supply line are slowly disappearing.

It seems dual-use rockets are much more in demand than antique spacesuits, potentially making spacesuits one of the weaker links in the space industry.

Note: Collins Aerospace ended a separate contract with NASA last year to develop a new ISS EMU. Collins continues with its contract to maintain the current EMU.