NASA IG Applauds NASA Contracting for Artemis HLS, Raises Concerns About Crew Safety

NASA’s Office of Inspector General’s new report on development of Human Landing Systems for the Artemis program gives NASA credit for its contractual approach, but raises concerns about critical elements that could affect crew safety. Among them are that NASA is not adhering to “test like you fly” principles for the uncrewed demonstration flights or ensuring SpaceX’s Starship will meet the manual control requirement.

Today’s report was written before the significant changes announced by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman on February 27 that add an earth-orbital test flight before the first Artemis lunar landing, but the key points are unaffected.

While the OIG credits NASA with effective management of the Human Landing System (HLS) commercial contracts signed with SpaceX in 2021 and Blue Origin in 2023, the upshot is that SpaceX’s Starship HLS is well behind schedule and a number of concerns need to be addressed. The report addresses both HLS designs, but focuses more on Starship HLS. It was the intended vehicle for the first two landings at the time the report was written, with Blue Origin’s Blue Moon MK2 for the third.

Until recently those were Artemis III, IV, and V.  The date for Artemis III as a lunar landing mission slipped repeatedly.  Until a few weeks ago the target was sometime in 2028. Now Artemis III will be the earth-orbital test flight in 2027 and Artemis IV will be the first landing, still in 2028. In fact, Isaacman is planning two landings — Artemis IV and Artemis V — in 2028, using whichever lander(s) are available.

Among the OIG’s top concerns are that momentum from landing Starship HLS, with a height of 171 feet — the equivalent of a 14-story building — on the rugged terrain at the Moon’s South Pole could cause it to tip over. Blue Moon MK2 is only 53 feet tall by comparison, or 23 feet for the Apollo lunar landers.

In addition, the crew cabin is at the top and astronauts need to take an elevator to get down 115 feet to the surface.  “Currently there is no other method for the crew to enter the vehicle from the lunar surface in the event of an elevator failure.” SpaceX is focused on building a robust system, but NASA’s HLS program is tracking this as a “top risk.”

Furthermore, NASA requires that crew vehicles include the option of manual control, not just autonomous control, during all phases of flight. But NASA and SpaceX disagree on whether SpaceX is meeting that requirement and “NASA’s tracking of SpaceX’s manual control risk indicates a worsening trend.”

“If NASA and SpaceX do not reach a concrete solution prior to CDR [Critical Design Review], it may lock in automation as the only available landing method or result in significant late design changes and increased schedule risk. In our judgement, this further increases the potential that SpaceX could request a waiver to the manual control requirement to meet the schedule.”

The report notes that NASA gave SpaceX a manual control waiver for the Crew Dragon vehicles that ferry crews to the International Space Station, but the company had years of experience with the cargo version of Dragon before crew flights commenced. That won’t be the case with Starship HLS.  As for Blue Origin, “key decisions” on manual control haven’t been made yet.

Challenges for both SpaceX and Blue Origin in demonstrating in-space propellant transfer, NASA’s decision not to require in-space crew rescue capabilities, insufficient crew survival analyses, and not adhering to “Test Like You Fly” principles for the uncrewed demonstration missions are among the OIG’s other concerns.

Test Like You Fly means testing systems as close as possible to the actual configuration in which they will fly. NASA’s original contract with SpaceX required only a “skeleton” version of the vehicle for the uncrewed demonstration and no need for it to lift off the surface. NASA later added a requirement for Starship HLS to lift off as well as fire its engines, but not attain orbit. The OIG gives NASA credit for adding that requirement, while noting that Blue Origin’s ascent test does include getting into orbit.

But they express concern that the uncrewed demonstration flights do not have to include the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS), airlocks, or in SpaceX’s case, the elevator.

“[I]n our judgment, not including an elevator on Starship’s uncrewed demonstration mission eliminates the opportunity to test its ability to operate in the actual lunar environment under possible surface tilt conditions.

“…NASA [also] is forfeiting the opportunity to examine the effects of lunar dust on the ECLSS components. As experienced during the Apollo era, dust can degrade a system’s performance by adhering to seals and clogging filters. NASA officials told us the decision to exclude ECLSS was a careful choice based on risk, cost, and schedule.”

It also means the weight of the vehicles won’t be the same as the actual landers used by the crews. And they’ll need less propellant to get to the Moon so fewer launches to fill the in-space tankers for propellant transfer and “end-to-end propellant aggregation will not be fully flight tested.”

While SpaceX now must show Starship HLS can lift off and fire its engines, and Blue Origin will prove Blue Moon MK2 can reach orbit, NASA still is not requiring them to demonstrate end-to-end ascent, return, and docking with either Orion or the lunar Gateway space station, another OIG concern.

Three of the OIG’s five recommendations address contract management. Despite the extensive attention paid to crew safety, only two focus on those issues. One calls on NASA to review the manual control waiver for Crew Dragon in the Commercial Crew Program to see if there are lessons applicable to HLS, and the other to update the crew survival analyses.

In their response, published at the end of the report, NASA concurred with both. The only disagreement concerned a recommendation that NASA update the Use of Government Resources clause in the SpaceX and Blue Origin contracts. The agency agreed only to take a look at it.

 

This article has been updated.