Sign up to see the future, today<\/p>\n
Can\u2019t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech<\/p>\n
Late last month, NASA administrator Jared Isaacman announced during a livestreamed press conference that the space agency would be making major changes to its Artemis program<\/a>, downgrading its third mission from a human landing attempt to a test of its Human Landing Systems partners\u2019 SpaceX and Blue Origin\u2019s spacecraft sometime next year.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to chunk it into achievable objectives,\u201d Isaacman told reporters during the announcement, to increase \u201creliability and standardization\u201d over several missions instead of jumping straight from a crewed trip around the Moon<\/a> to a landing attempt.<\/p>\n That\u2019s easier said than done. According to a new report<\/a> about the human landing systems by the agency\u2019s watchdog, the NASA Office of Inspector General \u2014 which, per Spaceflight Now<\/a>, was completed before the latest changes to the Artemis program were announced \u2014 the missions will still suffer from the risks associated with extreme exploration.<\/p>\n For instance, while it\u2019s \u201ctaking steps to prevent catastrophic events from occurring,\u201d NASA \u201cdoes not have the capability to rescue the stranded crew\u201d from the lunar surface in case astronauts were to \u201cencounter a life-threatening emergency.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s historical precedent as well. In a document dated July 18, 1969, presidential speechwriter and columnist William Safire drafted a speech for president Richard Nixon, which was intended to be read on TV \u201cin the event of a Moon disaster<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFate has ordained that the men who went to the Moon to explore in peace will stay on the Moon to rest in peace,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThese brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.\u201d<\/p>\n Fortunately, of course, both men made it back safely making it a notable \u201cspeech that never was<\/a>\u201d \u2014 but the letter goes to show that NASA had no backup plan in case the astronauts were stranded.<\/p>\n In all, despite the agency\u2019s efforts to \u201cmitigate and prevent hazards associated with the landers,\u201d the report reads, \u201cgaps still exist in the Agency\u2019s risk reduction methodology.\u201d<\/p>\n The OIG also noted that questions remain over SpaceX and Blue Origin\u2019s manual control design, allowing crew members to take over in case of an emergency, which it framed as a \u201ckey element of HLS\u2019s human-rating certification and part of an essential crew survival strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n While NASA paints its new approach to getting back to the Moon as a more careful and iterative approach, it remains ambitious. The agency is planning to launch not one but two lunar landing missions in 2028, using one or both landers, depending on whether they\u2019re ready.<\/p>\n In a letter appended to the report, NASA\u2019s acting associate administrator for exploration systems development, Lori Glaze, admitted that its partners \u201chave experienced delays.\u201d She argued that NASA is \u201cactively implementing mitigation measures, such as increased collaboration with experts to monitor and manage the partners\u2019 lander development while implementing lessons learned to minimize further impact.\u201d<\/p>\n Whether SpaceX and Blue Origin can deliver remains a contentious issue<\/a>. According to the OIG, getting SpaceX\u2019s enormous 171-foot Starship to the Moon will need copious amounts of fuel, requiring the use of a \u201cStarship tanker\u201d that will \u201cdeliver propellant to low Earth orbit where it will be stored in the Starship storage depot before being distributed to the Starship lander.\u201d<\/p>\n It will take a minimum of a staggering ten Starship tankers to fill the depot, at least 200 days ahead of NASA\u2019s planned mission to the Moon. A lander will then launch from the Kennedy Space Center, rendezvous, refuel, and finally leave for the Moon.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an enormous ask. SpaceX has yet to successfully launch its Starship into space and land it<\/a>, let alone enter a stable orbit or be refueled once there.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Blue Origin is planning to similarly launch a propellant depot for its lander before traveling to the Moon.<\/p>\n Well before any astronauts\u2019 lives are put on the line, NASA is planning to run both landers through extensive tests in lunar orbit.<\/p>\n Touching down on the surface will pose additional challenges, with the OIG explaining that the agency requires a \u201ctilt tolerance\u201d of just eight degrees at the landing spot on the Moon to ensure that a Starship, which is the same height as a \u201c14-story tall commercial building,\u201d won\u2019t \u201ctip over.\u201d<\/p>\n While shorter at just 53 feet, the Blue Moon lander still \u201cfaces landing risks,\u201d the OIG noted, \u201cincluding exceeding the lander\u2019s tilt tolerance for safe and effective execution of critical crew functions.\u201d<\/p>\n To put that into perspective, the tallest lunar module NASA sent to the Moon as part of its Apollo program was less than half the height of the Blue Moon lander \u2014 and a fraction of Starship\u2019s towering spacecraft \u2014 at just 23 feet.<\/p>\n Even NASA\u2019s much shorter 14-foot lunar lander, which was built and operated by Houston-based company Intuitive Machines, toppled over after attempting to land in February 2024<\/a>, highlighting a very real risk.<\/p>\n Finally, Starship will need to provide an elevator to get the crew down to the surface \u2014 which could make for both an awkward and extremely dangerous conundrum.<\/p>\n \u201cCurrently, there is no other method for the crew to enter the vehicle from the lunar surface in the event of an elevator failure,\u201d the OIG noted in its report.<\/p>\n