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.

Space Stories: Dragonfly Issues, NASA Under a Government Shutdown, and Threats from Venus

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Artist’s rendering of the Dragonfly on Titan. (NASA/Johns Hopkins APL)

Here are some recent space-related stories of interest.

—Physics World: “NASA Criticized Over its Management of $3.3bn Dragonfly Mission to Titan“

An internal audit has slammed NASA over its handling of the Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s largest moon, Titan. The drone-like rotorcraft, which is designed to land on and gather samples from Titan, has been hit by a two-year delay, with costs surging by $1bn to $3.3bn. NASA now envisions a launch date of July 2028 with Dragonfly arriving at Titan in 2034.

—USAToday: “Do Rockets Still Launch During a Government Shutdown? How NASA Could Feel the Effects“

NASA is far from immune to the effects of a looming government shutdown if congressional leaders fail to reach an agreement before midnight Oct. 1 to prevent one. At stake for the U.S. space agency if the federal government grinds to a halt? The progress of many of its science missions and access to its public outreach arm. NASA’s contingency plan for a shutdown, outlined in a guide from 2018, emphasizes that only “activities which are necessary to prevent harm to life or property” would be exempt from ceasing operations during a shutdown.

—Earth Sky: “‘Invisible’ Asteroids Near Venus: A New Danger to Earth?“

Astronomers across the globe are dedicated to identifying the near-Earth asteroids that could one day impact our planet. But there might be a group of potentially dangerous nearby asteroids that have remained invisible to astronomers so far. On September 24, 2025, an international team of researchers at the São Paulo State University (UNESP) in Brazil said that a group of asteroids sharing Venus’ orbit could have remained undetected so far due to their location in the sky. And they could pose a threat to Earth within a few thousand years.

The USAID OIG Review of Starlink

Posted on by onespaceman2000

While Elon Musk has done everything he can to make the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) disappear based upon fabricated tales, he has yet to eliminate USAID’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In fact, it is the OIG that may be real threat to Mr. Musk given that it initiated a review of Space’s Starlink program in Ukraine.

Back on May 14, 2024, the USAID OIG announced the following review – Inspection of USAID’s Oversight of Starlink Terminals Provided to the Government of Ukraine. The review is to determine how (1) the Government of Ukraine used the USAID-provided Starlink terminals, and (2) USAID monitored the Government of Ukraine’s use of USAID-provided Starlink terminals.

OIG’s perform a variety of reviews over high profile programs to ensure they are working as required. In this case, USAID and Starlink worked together to provide about 5,000 Starlink terminal to Ukraine during its war with Russia. A review does not mean there are problems with a program. Instead, it is simply a review to ensure all is well.

So far, while USAID has disappeared from the Internet, the USAID OIG site is still operating just fine. It should be noted that the IG at USAID has also avoided being unjustly fired by President Trump, something his peers in other agencies cannot say. So maybe things will work out.

Maybe, but when you have outlandish elimination of federal agencies based on fabricated stories, as well as the illegal firing of IGs across the government for no stated reason, I would not want to be the auditors on this team.

If this administration had any interest in improving the federal government, it would have seen the OIGs as an ally to identify fraud, waste, and abuse. That is why the OIGs were created back in the 1970s after the abuses of the Nixon Administration.

What we are seeing now is a whole different game that appears to have nothing to do with improving government. One can only wonder what fraud, waste, and abuse will occur under this administration now that the auditors have been eliminated or scared away.

Update: Well, that did not take long. On February 11, President Trump fired Paul Martin, the IG at USAID, after his office issued an audit critical of recent cuts at the agency. The audit report, Oversight of USAID-Funded Humanitarian Assistance Programming Impacted by Staffing Reductions and Pause on Foreign Assistance, concluded:

USAID OIG’s independent oversight of USAID’s humanitarian assistance programs over the years has identified significant challenges and offered recommendations to improve Agency programming to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Our longstanding concerns about existing USAID oversight mechanisms persist. However, recent widespread staffing reductions across the Agency, particularly within BHA, coupled with uncertainty about the scope of foreign assistance waivers and permissible communications with implementers, has degraded USAID’s ability to distribute and safeguard taxpayer-funded humanitarian assistance.

In other words, while Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) did not really detect any fraud, waste, or abuse in USAID’s programs, USAID is now exposed to an increased risk of rampant fraud, waste, and abuse because DOGE illegally shuttered the agency. Are U.S. taxpayers paying attention?

Note: I saved the report below just in case it disappears in the same way all of USAID has disappeared from the Internet.

USAID OIG – Oversight of USAID-Funded Humanitarian Assistance Programming 021025Download