Michael Griffin is Wrong about Artemis
Want space insights like these in your inbox? Subscribe for weekly analysis.
It’s been a tough start to the year for lunar landers, a reminder of how far we have yet to go. First Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander failed to make it to the lunar surface due to a faulty valve causing propulsion leak. Then JAXA’s Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM) soft landed on the surface of the Moon – a great achievement – but its fate is uncertain due to a failure to charge its solar cell.
With multiple cislunar and lunar surface missions planned for this year, these initial challenges highlights that we should not assume future successes or take future successes for granted.
And yet we also cannot assume that future Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) missions will also fail and dismiss the program prematurely. I have great hope that Astrobotic will learn from this mission to iterate and improve for next time. Intuitive Machines, Firefly, ispace, and others will learn as well.
Astralytical is a leader among consulting companies in lunar and cislunar operational analysis and market potential. We will continue to keep you informed with up-to-date, hype-free analysis and insights to help your business grow.
All the best,
Laura Forczyk, Executive Director
Credit: Michael Griffin
Michael Griffin is Wrong about Artemis
The US House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held a hearing on January 17 titled Returning to the Moon: Keeping Artemis on Track.
A play on that title, former NASA Administrator and former Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Michael Griffin, stated in his oral testimony, "We should restart [Artemis], not keep it on track."
Is he right? Not if we want to create a sustainable human lunar exploration program with astronauts setting foot on the Moon before 2030. In much the same previous NASA human spaceflight restarts have set NASA’s goals back years at a time, so would a reset this far into the Artemis program.
Griffin largely argues for a return to the way human spaceflight contracting was done and mission architecture was envisioned under the George W. Bush Administration’s Constellation Program, which Griffin championed when he led NASA from 2005 to 2009. Turning back the clock would resurrect old problems without the benefit of commercial and international spaceflight advances over the past 15 years.
Follow the Money
Griffin makes a case in his written testimony that NASA’s budget for Artemis is inadequate. He states that Artemis is attempting to accomplish its goals for 1.5% of Apollo’s cost, a highly inaccurate figure neither supported by the budgetary numbers he quotes in his testimony nor in NASA’s own budget tables.
He writes in his testimony, “The existing contracts should be terminated for the convenience of the government and a new program. … A new program, architected and managed by people who are clearly qualified for the job, should be initiated and executed with funding adequate to carry out this urgent and important national mission.”
One might ask who invited a former NASA leader who has not been involved in NASA’s programmatic decisions for the past 15 years to give testimony at the hearing. Someone has the ability to gain from the cancellation of Artemis’ existing contracts and the resurrection of Constellation Program-like contracts “managed by people who are clearly qualified for the job” who he will no doubt recommend.
Griffin’s suggested concept of operations from his written testimony suggests the use of the Orion capsule, which originated under Constellation, built by Lockheed Martin. He also suggests the use of the Space Launch System, built by Boeing, who was also one of the contractors for the Ares I and V rockets under Constellation along with Lockheed Martin.
We can deduce that Boeing and Lockheed Martin are exempt from the “existing contracts” he recommends canceling.
Artemis’ existing lunar lander contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin are specifically targeted in Griffin’s testimony as he recommends NASA build a lunar lander “yet to be designed.” He goes on to criticize SpaceX’s and Blue Origin’s respective human landing system (HLS) technical goals. No doubt a competitor to SpaceX and Blue Origin would stand to benefit from the cancellation of the HLS contracts and an in-house NASA lunar lander similar to Constellation’s Altair.
Pre-Commercial Space Days
Griffin’s written testimony states, “The fundamental flaw in the Artemis acquisition approach is the assumption that the U.S. government can and should leverage so-called ‘commercial space’ for national purposes, and that this paradigm is applicable to human spaceflight.”
Since 2020, SpaceX has launched 8 NASA crews to the International Space Station (ISS). SpaceX has also launched 3 commercial missions to the ISS and 1 free-flying Crew Dragon mission.
Since 2021, Blue Origin has launched 6 suborbital commercial missions.
Where has Griffin been?
“Space Race” with China
Much of Griffin’s oral testimony focused on a supposed US race with China to the surface of the Moon.
While this positioning is convenient for giving members of Congress a motivation for increasing the budgets for NASA and the DOD, it’s not entirely accurate, nor is it the main goal of NASA’s Artemis program.
According to NASA’s website:
“With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars.
“We’re going back to the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation of explorers: the Artemis Generation. While maintaining American leadership in exploration, we will build a global alliance and explore deep space for the benefit of all.”
Griffin’s written testimony states, “But to continue programs that we know will not achieve our goals distracts us from what must be done ... Sustainability of our future space architecture does matter.”
Indeed, architecture does matter, and sustainability has been emphasized by NASA leadership. NASA believes the current program will achieve its goals as stated above. Canceling Artemis to reinstate Constellation would be a distraction we should strive to avoid.
Astralytical Analysis
Turning back the clock to pre-“newspace” successes and ignoring recent spaceflight advances is not the way to move forward to the Moon and beyond.
Artemis mission architecture may not be sustainable relying on expensive and slow hardware. Doubling down on expensive and slow hardware is not the way to make Artemis more sustainable.
More established players are feeling threatened by relative newcomers SpaceX and Blue Origin (established in 2001 and 2000, respectively) and are willing to attempt to distract legislators and NASA from carrying out the Artemis program as currently designed.
Recent Astralytical Insights
Credit: NASA
Mars Polling Archive Demographic Analysis: Part I
By Patrick Chase
Mars is omnipresent when it comes to space exploration. Mesmerizing our night skies since the dimmest days of prehistory, it now occupies an outsized center of gravity in our modern space consciousness.
The American public holds fluid views of Mars exploration, often indifferent yet with hardcore supporters and opponents. Overall, exploring Mars appears to be becoming increasingly popular. Rising intensity in public support for Mars exploration could have transformational impacts for support in Congress and the wider American space policy-making agenda.
This Astralytical polling analysis is intended to be useful for legislators, policy advocates, and private businesses that are involved in Mars related research and investment.
Astralytical in the News
Peregrine, a Private U.S. Moon Lander, Burns Up in Earth’s Atmosphere
“They have flawlessly updated us when they did not need to on a mission that is otherwise a failure,” adds Laura Forczyk, founder and executive director of the space industry consulting firm Astralytical. “They made us rally around a lunar lander that was never going to land. Because of their frequent updates, they made us care.”
Unlike the relatively brief crewed lunar forays of NASA’s Apollo program in 1960s and 1970s, the space agency envisions Artemis as a long-term effort that will see astronauts and robots visiting the moon for years, if not decades, to come. “We are trying hard to return to the surface of the moon sustainably,” Forczyk says. “It all ties together.”
China and the US: Who will win Moon race in new space era?
Laura Forczyk, author and founder of space consulting firm Astralytical, said the Artemis mission delays were expected and that timelines could "inevitably slip" because new technology ensuring crew safety takes time to develop.
She said Nasa was in a transition period where it is relying on contractors, including buying services at a fixed price.
"These companies have never before provided lunar services such as landers, rovers, infrastructure and spacesuits, so we can expect delays," she said.
"Nasa established the Commercial Lunar Payload Services programme to land commercial landers and rovers on the Moon with the expectation that half would fail. We all learn from these setbacks."
Thank you for being part of the Astralytical community! If we can help you grow your business in space, please reach out. We’re happy to discuss your situation and goals.