On Dec. 5, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson held a press conference at the space agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and told the world that Project Artemis was yet again being delayed.
The delay, which to many in the space industry didn't come as a surprise, was due to flaws in the Orion spacecraft's heat shield. Now, NASA's mission to send four astronauts back to the Moon as part of Artemis II is pushed back until 2026. And the Artemis III mission, which will have astronauts step foot on the Moon's south pole, is delayed until mid-2027.
The harsh truth is that America's renewed Moonshot, which will send humans back to the Moon for the first time since 1972, should be halted altogether until the new administration takes the reins. This new space race, which pits the U.S. against China, is not simply about who gets there first. It's about who gets there best.
President-elect Donald Trump's decision to appoint American entrepreneur and billionaire Jared Isaacman as the new NASA administrator, coupled with Elon Musk's involvement with the new administration, has already raised speculation that the Space Launch System ("SLS") for Project Artemis will be canceled in favor of an alternate private-sector solution.
The rocket, which is being built to launch the Artemis astronauts to the Moon, has seen exorbitant costs (hundreds of millions of dollars over initial estimates) and constant schedule delays. Add that to the issues facing Lockheed Martin's Orion spacecraft, and the answer is clear: new minds must be the ones who decide the fate of Project Artemis.
Isaacman's experience in the private sector, and as an astronaut, will bring a fresh set of eyes to this worthwhile endeavor that, ultimately puts the lives of four humans at risk. Taking the time necessary to reconfigure Project Artemis and ensure we are sending a technologically superior machine into space will be worth the wait.
Unfortunately, NASA has already seen firsthand the cost of choosing expeditiousness over patience. Of course, the shuttle accidents, that killed the crews of Challenger in 1986, and Columbia in 2003, are the most recent examples. But it was the first leg of the 1960s space race that gives perhaps the best example of NASA's risky dance with what has been dubbed a "Go Fever" mentality that prioritizes schedule over safety.
On Jan. 27, 1967, a flash fire during a launchpad test killed the crew of what was supposed to be the space agency's first manned Apollo mission. Astronauts Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee made the ultimate sacrifice during a plugs-out test where NASA and its primary contractor, North American Aviation, used a pure oxygen environment in the spacecraft's command module that was riddled with flammable materials.
Some have looked at the tragedy, which marks one of NASA's most horrific days, a freak accident. Others have attempted to point the finger at a single party, like North American, or even NASA. But the reality is that the catastrophe was brought on by a combination of schedule pressures, mostly wrought by President John F. Kennedy's end-of-decade moon landing deadline, a constant directive to cut costs, and stringent technical requirements that demanded the contractor reduce the spacecraft's weight.
Even more troubling is the fact that the problems at issue were, or at a minimum should have been, glaringly apparent to those working on Project Apollo. But the forces driving it forward were too great. And despite the warning signs, tunnel vision crept in.
With Project Artemis, NASA again finds itself in the throes of a behemoth project that is facing issues with its cost, schedule and technology.
During his press conference, Nelson insistent that reaching the moon's south pole before China is "vital ...so that we do not cede portions of that lunar south pole to the Chinese."
When President Lyndon Johnson decided to press forward with America's space race ambitions after Kennedy's assassination, it wasn't just because he wanted to fulfill his predecessor's promise. Johnson saw the true power behind beating the Russians to the moon, and the message it sent to the world when the might of a democracy succeeded over a communist power.
Winning this new space race is just not the same. NASA, with Isaacman at the helm, must work to showcase the strength that America can produce in a different way: technological superiority.
The risk involved with rushing Project Artemis in order to beat China to the moon, despite fears of resource acquisition, is just not worth the potential consequences of a faulty launch vehicle.