Why did NASA's chief just shake up the agency's plans to land on the Moon?:
NASA acting Administrator Sean Duffy made two television appearances on Monday morning in which he shook up the space agency's plans to return humans to the Moon.
Speaking on Fox News, where the secretary of transportation frequently appears in his acting role as NASA chief, Duffy said SpaceX has fallen behind in its efforts to develop the Starship vehicle as a lunar lander. Duffy also indirectly acknowledged that NASA's projected target of a 2027 crewed lunar landing is no longer achievable. Accordingly, he said he intended to expand the competition to develop a lander capable of carrying humans down to the Moon from lunar orbit and back.
"They're behind schedule, and so the President wants to make sure we beat the Chinese," Duffy said of SpaceX. "He wants to get there in his term. So I'm in the process of opening that contract up. I think we'll see companies like Blue [Origin] get involved, and maybe others. We're going to have a space race in regard to American companies competing to see who can actually lead us back to the Moon first."
There are a couple of significant takeaways from this interview. First is the public acknowledgement by a senior NASA official that the space agency's current timeline of a 2027 landing is completely untenable. And secondly, the timing of Duffy's public appearances on Monday morning seems tailored to influence a fierce, behind-the-scenes battle to hold onto the NASA leadership position.
SpaceX won a contract from NASA, worth $2.9 billion, in April 2021 to develop and modify its ambitious Starship rocket to serve as a "human landing system" (HLS). This rocket would work in concert with NASA's Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft to get humans from Earth, to the lunar surface, and back. Two years later Blue Origin, a rocket company founded by Jeff Bezos, won a second contract, worth $3.4 billion, to develop a second lander.
Duffy is correct that SpaceX is moving slower than anticipated. The company must still cross several technical hurdles before it can provide landing services to NASA. In their funded contracts for reusable landers, SpaceX and Blue Origin must refuel their vehicles in low-Earth orbit, something that has never been done before on a large scale.
When Duffy says "companies like Blue" may get involved, he is not referring to the existing contract, in which Blue Origin will not deliver a ready-to-go lunar lander until the 2030s. Rather he is almost certainly referring to a plan developed by Blue Origin that uses multiple Mk 1 landers, a smaller vehicle originally designed for cargo only. Ars reported on this new lunar architecture three weeks ago, which company engineers have been quietly developing. This plan would not require in-space refueling, and the Mk 1 vehicle is nearing its debut flight early next year.
Duffy also cites "maybe others" getting involved. This refers to a third option. In recent weeks, officials from traditional space companies have been telling Duffy and the chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, Pete Meachum, that they can build an Apollo Lunar Module-like lander within 30 months. Amit Kshatriya, NASA's associate administrator, favors this government-led approach, sources said.
On Monday, in a statement to Ars, a Lockheed Martin official confirmed that the company was ready if NASA called upon them.
"Throughout this year, Lockheed Martin has been performing significant technical and programmatic analysis for human lunar landers that would provide options to NASA for a safe solution to return humans to the Moon as quickly as possible," said Bob Behnken, vice president of Exploration and Technology Strategy at Lockheed Martin Space. "We have been working with a cross-industry team of companies and together we are looking forward to addressing Secretary Duffy's request to meet our country's lunar objectives."
NASA would not easily be able to rip up its existing HLS contracts with SpaceX and Blue Origin, as, especially with the former, much of the funding has already been awarded for milestone payments. Rather, Duffy would likely have to find new funding from Congress. And it would not be cheap. This NASA analysis from 2017 estimates that a cost-plus, sole-source lunar lander would cost $20 billion to $30 billion, or nearly 10 times what NASA awarded to SpaceX in 2021.
SpaceX founder Elon Musk, responding to Duffy's comments, seemed to relish the challenge posed by industry competitors.
"SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry," Musk said on the social media site he owns, X. "Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words."
Duffy's remarks on television on Monday morning, although significant for the broader space community, also seemed intended for an audience of one—President Trump.
The president appointed Duffy, already leading the Department of Transportation, to lead NASA on an interim basis in July. This came six weeks after the president rescinded his nomination of billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacman, for political reasons, to lead the space agency.
Trump was under the impression that Duffy would use this time to shore up NASA's leadership while also looking for a permanent chief of the space agency. However, Duffy appears to have not paid more than lip service to finding a successor.
Since late summer there has been a groundswell of support for Isaacman in the White House, and among some members of Congress. The billionaire has met with Trump several times, both at the White House and Mar-a-Lago, and sources report that the two have a good rapport. There has been some momentum toward the president re-nominating Isaacman, with Trump potentially making a decision soon. Duffy's TV appearances on Monday morning appear to be part of an effort to forestall this momentum by showing Trump he is actively working toward a lunar landing during his second term, which ends in January 2029.
Duffy has appeared to enjoy the limelight that comes with leading NASA. In the future, one source said, "Duffy wants to be president." The NASA position has afforded him greater visibility, including television appearances, to expand his profile in a positive way. "He doesn't want to give up the job," the source added.
A Republican advisor to the White House told Ars that it is good that Duffy has moved beyond his rhetoric about NASA beating China to the Moon and to look for creative tactics to land there. But, this person said, the mandate from the Trump administration is to dominate the emerging commercial space industry, not hand out large cost-plus contracts.
"Duffy hasn't implemented any of the strategic reforms of Artemis that the president proposed this spring," the Republican source said. "He has the perfect opportunity during the current shutdown, but there is no sign of any real reform under his leadership. Instead, Duffy is being co-opted by the deep state at NASA."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday October 23, @11:08PM (4 children)
Musk pissed Trump off a few months back. Not smart when a good chunk of your change is government contracts. Trump just reminded Musk of that.
Trump has decided to rename California's San Andreas fault. He's calling it Biden's fault.
(Score: 5, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 24, @12:04AM
> NASA's projected target of a 2027 crewed lunar landing is no longer achievable.
And now it's Musk's fault: political genius. Right up until the Chinese nuke us from the moon and return 2 years later when the Neutron bomb toxicity has dissipated.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by PiMuNu on Friday October 24, @08:06AM (1 child)
Trump putting politics before delivery. Again. What a d**k.
(Score: 1, Troll) by OrugTor on Friday October 24, @05:51PM
The Trump crony running NASA made it quite clear the motivation for a moon landing is the aggrandisement of Trump. Imagine what that must feel like for NASA's career scientists.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Friday October 24, @10:15PM
I don't think we have the drive to do that anymore.
I remember how the whole nation was space-themed in the 60's. "Telstar" by The Ventures ( one of about a dozen records I had as a teenager ). Fly Me To The Moon - didn't have it but still remember it.
Every toy store was full of space exploration. Star Trek.
And the flip side, the terror of knowing we now have the physical power to destroy our planet many times over - controlled by politicians.
That fad has come and gone. For me, sad to say, as I lived space exploration and, as a kid, had really high hopes. We saw Canals on Mars! Were there people living there too?
We all became obsolete.
Now it's Bitcoin, AI, and world control.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Funny) by fen on Thursday October 23, @11:55PM
It gets Elon farther away from us!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24, @12:46AM (3 children)
Going to the moon is utterly pointless. This is straight up vanity - it's not even science. Pleasing the Big Guy to make him look good "to China". Who the fuck is "China" anyway and why does looking good to him matter in the slightest? Let's do science that is led by the people with their hands in the dirt - look in the text books, it's full of people who actually did it. That's how you do it, not with 79 year old Leadership impressing a 72 year old by showing how much he can spaff up the wall before breakfast.
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Friday October 24, @07:07AM
It's OK, when the US finally returns to the moon they'll be able to enjoy a selection of Peking duck, Hot pot, Ma Po tofu, and Xiaolongbao, as long as their preferred establishment there isn't Alipay only.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday October 24, @12:32PM (1 child)
Going to the moon is not pointless. Last space race was about military capacity and ICBM tech. This time is actually about mining rights and infrastructure. The economics of space mining being profitable seem absurdly far, like almost a century far, but right now it's the time for countries to prove they can do it with full "affordable" round trip logistics, and permanent lunar infrastructure.
We put a really big gamble on SpaceX and the economics of private space travel being the way to secure that future. I'm really not sure what giving up means for the next century of American progress.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 24, @07:01PM
If you can overcome the sharp dust electrostatically floating above the surface, and probably a million similar but as yet unknown unknowns, the Mun is an excellent candidate for https://www.spinlaunch.com/ [spinlaunch.com] and similar zero-propellant tech. I'm not sure if the Mun will ever have anything worth returning in bulk to the Earth, but if it does, I really like the idea of crash landing the payload in the Australian outback for earth-side recovery.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Troll) by Frosty Piss on Friday October 24, @01:26AM (1 child)
Blue Origin? Their amazing giant Space Penis is nothing more than a Billionaire Toy. As much as I dislike them. Boeing and their associates are the only realistic alternative. Unless this is simply an excuse for the King to give Jeff Bezo a big pile of cash to play with.
(Score: 2) by corey on Saturday October 25, @12:32AM
> traditional space companies have been telling Duffy and the chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, Pete Meachum, that they can build an Apollo Lunar Module-like lander within 30 months.
🤣
(Or, if that emoji doesn’t work on your device, it was this: ROFL)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 24, @02:25AM (6 children)
So, first DOGE cuts NASA funding, then they shut down the government. How exactly is NASA to get people to the moon again? Rent a ride on a billionaire's private space ship, if there are any which can make the trip?
There's no point in sending people to the moon. We lack the technology and knowledge to build a sustainable lunar colony. Maybe in a century or two, we'll be able. For now, all we can do is explore, and for that, much more cost effective to send autonomous rovers and the like.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday October 24, @08:10AM (3 children)
> shut down the government.
Many of my colleagues in the US academia are screwed. First Trump puts a dagger into NSF budget, then a dagger into DoE budget (which funds science muchly), then shuts down the government.
Trump failing on delivery *again*.
At least he has delivered military action on US citizens, a great success.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 24, @05:36PM
Casting research as somehow being linked to security can get you military funding. That can solve the money problems, but then you will be hobbled with their restrictions. Which can be so severe as to be crippling, and you would have been better off not angling for defense monies after all. For instance, they might decide everything you do and have done is now a national secret, and inform you there will be no collaboration with foreigners. They can easily scare themselves, get paranoid, and start treating you as if they suspect you of treason. Kinda hard to concentrate on research when you have that hanging over you.
Perhaps a better approach is to scare the politicians, and the public, by showing them that the US is falling behind. Show them that China is now the world leader in technology. Sputnik is what spurred the launch of the Space Race, and a golden age of American science. If, say, the first practical quantum computer were to be designed and built in China....
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DadaDoofy on Saturday October 25, @02:02AM (1 child)
"Trump ... then shuts down the government."
Trump couldn't shut down the government even if he wanted to. That's entirely up to Congress.
The Rupublicans keep voting to open it. Chuck Schumer's Democrats keep voting to keep it closed, until they collect a $1.5 trillion ransom to keep it open for another month. Good luck. Not a snowball's chance in hell that will ever happen.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25, @08:01PM
All they need to do is tax all the bribe money solicited by Trump for pardons, removing crypto oversight, etc., and you'll have plenty of money to cover the budget. And it only needs to be, what, maybe 10%?
Remember all that Hunter Biden outrage? When do you think the Repubs will begin the many many weeks long oversight hearings this year? (serious question)
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday October 25, @03:45PM
So, first DOGE cuts NASA funding, then they shut down the government. How exactly is NASA to get people to the moon again?
The Elbonian method?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25, @06:08PM
The idea is to give money to Leadership and have the peons run around "fulfilling expectations". Because we all know that Leadership has the Greatest Ideas and the Biggliest Words.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Friday October 24, @07:15AM
So that's another decade (to add to the previous...6?) until we go back outside the Earth's influence.
And people still believe the bullshit about going to Mars (1-2 orders of magnitude further away than the Moon, which is 4 orders of magnitude further away than the ISS).
We've never fed a person for even a single day on food grown exclusively outside of Earth. Not one person for one day. But we're all going to live on Mars, right? Where it take MONTHS for something to arrive from Earth and if it doesn't arrive... it takes MONTHS to send more.
Honestly, either actually just start launching stuff, or shut the hell up about humans on the Moon / Earth and concentrate on unmanned missions. Like we've done for my entire lifetime.
Another few years and there won't be a human left alive who has set foot outside the Earth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tom2tec on Friday October 24, @02:06PM (1 child)
Sadly, NASA has just become a bloated and useless bureaucracy that's outlived its usefulness and should be downsized. They had their chance and they squandered it on remote controls toys built by rich kids and funded by poor taxpayers. We need boots in space, not an earthbound bureaucracy. Let private companies find a way to make a profit in space or forget about it. We have far more pressing concerns to resolve without wasting public taxes being used to put privileged people in orbit for headlines.
What we really needed was a real rotating space station, orbital assembly platforms and a moonbase. We didn't need all the probes which accomplished very little but generated glory and publicity for the senior people at NASA.
Words to men as air to birds.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25, @06:10PM
And *drumroll* how did it get to be like that....? Those greedy lazy scientists with their tenure, I bet. That's why we need more administrative oversight, in fact we need so much oversight they need a brand new Executive building with mirror glass and a ballroom.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday October 24, @10:00PM (2 children)
Don't worry: just before the Chinese land on the moon again, Trump will post an AI video of his self flying a rocket, dumping some brown stuff on the Chinese and then walking on the moon himself.
And if you say it's a fake video, he'll send ICE and the National Guard up your ass and he'll send Vance over to your house to cozy up with your couch. And he'll tariff your penis because it's bigger than his.
The world to Trump: "You sir, are no Jack Kennedy!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25, @06:13PM (1 child)
Fire anyone who says otherwise, stop collecting data, shut down the government. Problems solved.
Face it, the only thing going on in America now is a MASSIVE grift to load up on debt, strip the assets and go bankrupt. Classic Trump!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday October 25, @08:41PM
Yeah, he sure is loading up debt: but the cultists only see how much money he is 'saving' the tax payer. Dum de dum dum. He is making himself richer and they seem to be getting dumber.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --