When NASA really wants to make a statement, it does not kid around. By choosing SpaceX as the sole contractor for the lunar Human Landing System, NASA proclaimed that it is serious about returning astronauts to the lunar surface for the first time in about 50 years — and the sooner, the better.
NASA would have preferred to choose two contractors, much as it did in the previous commercial space partnerships, the Commercial Orbital Transport System and the Commercial Crew. However, by being stingy with money appropriated to the HLS project, Congress forced NASA’s hand. NASA asked for $3.3 billion for the current fiscal year. Congress responded by appropriating just $850 million.
SpaceX, which offered a lunar lander version of its Starship rocket, won the NASA contract because the space agency felt that it had the superior design over those of its rivals, Dynetics and a team led by Blue Origin. Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, has proven that he is capable of delivering hardware in a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable budget. SpaceX rockets are delivering both cargo and crew to the International Space Station. Both of the rival companies filed protests with the Government Accountability Office.
Despite Congress’s role in the NASA decision, the legislative body will likely be less than pleased. Indeed, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat, has expressed her displeasure:
The objection is a little disingenuous. Doubtless, NASA consulted with former Sen. Bill Nelson and former astronaut Pamela Melroy, nominees for administrator and deputy administer, respectively, or at least told them in advance. The policy mandating that the HLS be commercial and the decision to award the contract to SpaceX have the approval of the Biden administration, above the pay grade of the NASA administrator.
In any case, Johnson has always been a skeptic of NASA’s commercial space partnership. In a NASA authorization bill, HR 5666, she and then-Rep. Kendra Horn, an Oklahoma Democrat, attempted, among other things, to end the commercial HLS program. Instead, the legislation would have acquired a crewed lunar lander in the traditional way, as a cost-plus contract with NASA “owning” the vehicle. The bill went nowhere after nearly every space stakeholder, including then-NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, objected to the language.
While other members of Congress may have signed on to a commercial HLS, some are likely unhappy that only SpaceX got the contract to take people back to the lunar surface. Similar to NASA, some in Congress will point out that two lunar landers provide insurance that if one fails, the other will be available. Unspoken is the fact that more than one commercial HLS will provide more jobs in certain congressional districts and more money to important campaign contributors.
NASA is well aware of the need some in Congress have to “wet their beaks.” But the space agency is also anxious to get moving on the task of returning to the moon. With the money Congress has granted it, selecting SpaceX was the only way that could happen in a reasonable time.
If Congress doesn’t like it, one solution is within its gift. The legislators can appropriate enough money for two lunar landers instead of just one. Congress will get a chance under the NASA plan when the competition for lunar landers will be reopened for moon voyages after the first crewed landing of the 21st century.
Both the aerospace industry and its friends in Congress should beware. SpaceX is going to provide some formidable competition. They should proceed accordingly.
Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space and politics, has published a political study of space exploration titled Why is it So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? as well as The Moon, Mars, and Beyond. He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
