The Shift to Commercial Human Lunar Landers

Last week, NASA awarded three initial contracts to commercial teams to develop human lunar lander systems for NASA’s Artemis program. The awards are in response to the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) H solicitation. Five commercial teams submitted proposals. Of the three selected for 10-month development awards, up to two are expected to be selected to develop human landers to return astronauts to the Moon. 

NASA’s embrace of public-private partnerships in its Artemis program is a new approach. Previous NASA human lunar programs contracted companies to build NASA-owned hardware and systems. The willingness to purchase commercially-acquired systems is a newer way of operating for NASA.

This shift in thinking began with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to contract commercial companies to deliver cargo and crew to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2006. However, fixed-price commercial contracting to the ISS has not been without controversy. Some key politicians have criticized program delays and the perceived unreliability of commercial companies to do what NASA has always done during the space shuttle program. We previously analyzed the delays in NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

The first Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission by SpaceX flew in 2012 to deliver cargo to the ISS. Since then, SpaceX and Northrop Grumman (previously Orbital ATK) have flown several missions delivering cargo to the ISS, most recently on March 7. Later this month, SpaceX and NASA hope to see the first Crew Dragon mission to deliver astronauts to the ISS. 

Historic Human Lunar Landers

Fixed-price commercial contracting of lunar lander systems is a newer development. The Apollo Lunar Module (LM), designed by Grumman (which became Northrop Grumman in 1994), was NASA hardware wholly owned by the US government. At the time, commercial hardware and operations on the Moon was considered only in science fiction.

President George H. W. Bush proposed the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) in 1989 to initiate a return to the Moon program. This concept called for a piloted lander with a crew of two launched on a modified space shuttle for a two-week stay on the lunar surface. A commercial lander was never envisioned.

The first commercial initiative (to this author’s knowledge) to build, launch, and operate a robotic lunar lander was by the Blastoff! Corporation in 1999, around the beginning of the “NewSpace” movement. Located in Pasadena, California, the company only operated for two years before financial constraints ended the project. 

President George W. Bush initiated the Constellation program in 2005 to return humans to the Moon. The Altair lunar lander was envisioned as a NASA-owned system. Most of Altair’s development was internal to NASA assisted by outside contractors such as Northrop Grumman.

Although Altair was a government-owned system, we begin to see a shift in thinking. In 2009, the report Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation (commonly known as the Augustine report) stated, “There is now a burgeoning commercial space industry. If we craft a space architecture to provide opportunities to this industry, there is potential – not without risk – that the costs to the government will be reduced.”

The Augustine report offered a Flexible Path that allowed for a commercially-acquired lunar descent stage operating with a NASA ascent stage, “building on the growing industrial capability pursuing NASA’s Lunar Lander Challenge and the Google Lunar X-Prize.” The report evaluated the potential use of a commercially-developed lunar lander descent stage to be more financially economical. However, this option was not chosen for Altair. The Constellation program, and Altair with it, was canceled in 2010.

The Lunar Lander Challenge, a competition by NASA’s Centennial Challenges program and the X-Prize Foundation and sponsored by Northrop Grumman, was won by Masten Space Systems and Armadillo Aerospace in 2009. These companies competed to develop robotic vertical take off vertical landing (VTVL) rocket systems. Although these systems were uncrewed, some hoped the same technology could be applied to crewed lunar lander systems.

The Google Lunar X-Prize, initiated in 2007, was a competition for privately-funded teams to a land robotic spacecraft and rover on the Moon. Although several teams competed and one team, SpaceIL, nearly successfully landed on the Moon in 2019, the program ended without a winner.

In 2010, Golden Spike Company was established in Colorado to provide private commercial space transportation services to the surface of the Moon. In 2013, Northrop Grumman completed the initial design for Golden Spike’s lunar lander Pumpkin. The company went into hiatus shortly afterward.

Artemis Generation Lunar Landers

In 2015, NexGen Space published a report partly funded by NASA which compared potential lunar architectures. The report proposed a lunar architecture option in which NASA would fund two commercial lunar landers under a COTS/CRS model. Two providers were recommended for “dissimilar redundancy and competition.” We see a similar line of thinking in NASA’s current plans to select two commercial lunar lander systems for the Artemis program.

Although the concepts for NASA’s Artemis program existed earlier, on March 26, 2019, Vice President Mike Pence gave NASA a directive to return astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024. This deadline accelerated NASA’s efforts and increased their willingness to partner with commercial industry to complete this goal.

In April 2018, NASA issued a draft solicitation for the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program to contract commercial robotic transportation to the surface of the Moon. NASA issued awards to several companies in May and November 2019 and April 2020.

On April 8, 2019, NASA published an initial notice for a solicitation for a human lander system, specifically the ascent element to provide powered ascent to safely transport astronauts off the lunar surface. The notice was quickly revised to solicit an integrated lander system which includes a descent element, an ascent element, and a transfer vehicle. The solicitation was issued on September 30, 2019.

On April 30, NASA issued initial 10-month awards to three teams headed by Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX to develop human lunar lander systems for a 2024 Artemis crewed landing and subsequent landings. 

Political Considerations

Concurrently, the new Chair of the US House of Representatives’ Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK-5), was questioning the public-private partnership approach to a human lunar lander system.

Five space-related House hearings took place from May to November 2019 which touched upon the issues of NASA’s Artemis program and commercial involvement. We previously analyzed the content of these hearings and the resulting NASA authorization bill HR 5666 released on January 24, 2020. The bill directed the US government to retain full ownership of the human lunar landing system. The bill passed markup by the House Science Committee on January 29 but has not yet been taken up for a vote.

On May 1, the day after NASA’s announcement of awards, Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30) and Horn issued a statement expressing concern over the awards. Rep. Johnson’s statement includes concern over an “arbitrary 2024 lunar landing deadline” and a concern over “privatizing” the Artemis program that would be costly to US taxpayers. 

Rep. Horn’s statement expressed concern that NASA’s decision to move forward with the contract awards “starkly contrasts the bipartisan House NASA authorization bill [HR 5666] and the advice of experts on minimizing risk and ensuring the highest likelihood of success in landing humans on the Moon.”

Rep. Johnson’s concern over the cost and public-private partnership approach is particularly puzzling given the government-owned alternative and her previous support for commercial space activity. A government-owned human lunar lander system would be paid for 100% by the taxpayers. Previous efforts were either successful and very expensive (the Apollo LM) or projected to be so expensive they were canceled before becoming a reality. A public-private partnership approach has the opportunity for cost-sharing.

Rep. Johnson has previously expressed support for commercial space activity, including supporting the COTS approach to ISS crew and cargo delivery. In a hearing on September 7, 2017, she stated, “While not a substitute for our governmental space programs, there are many innovative ideas for potential non-governmental roles in space emerging. Private sector innovation can capture the spirit of opportunity and engage and inspire the development of scientific and technical talent. It has the capacity to support commercial interests as well as governmental space activities, where appropriate.”

In various hearings and statements in 2019, Rep. Johnson did not express concerns or ask questions concerning a commercial human lunar lander approach. The May 1 statement was her first on record questioning this approach.

Rep. Horn’s statement on May 1 echoes her previous concerns regarding a human lunar lander approach. The “advice of experts” she cites in the statement was, in fact, the advice of only one expert: former NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Director Thomas Young. In a November 13, 2019 House hearing, he stated, “I personally think that these should be government-acquired assets under the leadership and direction of NASA with industry having a full capability of implementation.”

Several other expert witnesses advocated for a commercial approach. Even former NASA Associate Administrator Doug Cooke, who wrote a 2019 op-ed in The Hill criticizing NASA’s consideration of using commercial launch vehicles in addition to NASA-owned Space Launch System (SLS) in Artemis plans, did not speak out against the commercial human lunar lander approach.

Rep. Horn’s perspective may also stem from her earlier work in the Space Foundation prior to being elected to Congress and assuming office in January 2019. In a speech she gave at the Commercial Space Transportation Conference in February 2019, she named oversight of non-traditional space activities, including commercial lunar lander missions, as an issue she wanted to focus on.

No other member of the House has spoken out against a commercial human lunar lander approach.

NASA authorization bill HR 5666 is not yet law and is unlikely to be voted on to become law. NASA is under no obligation to change its approach based on recommendations within HR 5666.

One reason HR 5666 is unlikely to become law is differing opinions in the Senate. NASA authorization bill S 2800 released on November 6, 2019 sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) states, “commercial entities in the United States have made significant investment and progress toward the development of human-class lunar landers,” and, “the Administrator shall foster the development of not more than 2 human-class lunar lander designs through public-private partnerships.”

The Senate Commerce Committee approved S 2800 on November 13, 2019. The bill has not yet been taken up for a vote. 

Key senators expressed support for the commercial human lunar approach prior to and immediately after NASA announced the contract awards in April. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on April 15 in support of the Human Lander System (HLS) program. They wrote, “NASA’s competitive, industry-led acquisition strategy for the HLS program recognizes that when industry and government work together, they produce the best results for the nation. This approach wisely couples private investment and technological advancement with the expertise, capabilities, and workforce of NASA.” 

On April 30, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, stated, “Our country is going back to the Moon, and lunar landers built in Washington state will play a key role,” referring to contract winner Blue Origin headquartered in Kent, Washington.

On April 30, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, stated, “Making good use of commercial partnerships lowers the long-term cost of space exploration, and it allows the American aerospace industry to do what it does best – innovate. These competitors’ designs will play a major role in producing a brand-new human lander that will enable our astronauts to access important areas of the Moon’s surface and sustain our nation’s deep space exploration efforts.”

What’s Next

Due to the global pandemic and other concerns within Congress, it is becoming less likely either NASA authorization bill will be considered for a vote in 2020 prior to the November 3 elections. 

The public-private partnership approach has momentum. Expect to see NASA’s commercial human lunar lander awards move forward with three competing teams. If Congress is willing to continue to fund Artemis at realistic levels needed for success, NASA will issue additional awards in the coming years, eventually down-selecing to one or two commercial human lunar lander providers. Which team or teams will be selected is anyone’s guess.

Blog article originally posted at Astralytical.