NASA recently announced that the “national team,” led by Blue Origin and including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Astrobotic and Honeybee Robotics, will construct and operate the second human landing system (HLS), according to Ars Technica. The Blue Moon, as the new HLS is called, is slated to serve on the Artemis V mission, scheduled for the late 2020s or early 2030s.
Just by looking at the new version of the Blue Moon lunar lander, it is clear that Blue Origin, having lost its attempt to wage lawfare against the SpaceX Starship’s selection as the first HLS, has buckled down and redesigned the vehicle to something that would impress NASA. According to Space News, a number of strengths, including lower costs, technical strengths and an aggressive test schedule leading up to the Artemis V mission led to the space agency’s selection of the Blue Moon.
Blue Moon is divided into two parts. The first part is the actual lander, which will carry Artemis astronauts to the lunar surface. The second part is a refueling module that will carry propellant from Earth orbit to lunar orbit to top off the lander between missions. Both are reusable. Blue Moon is smaller than Starship but will still sustain four astronauts on the lunar surface for up to 30 days.
The selection of the second human landing system sets up a contest between the two most famous billionaires on the planet, SpaceX’s Elon Musk and Blue Origin’s Jeff Bezos. As the Daily Mail reports, the rivalry between the two men goes beyond business considerations to the deeply personal. Both men will be driven to succeed, lest they be shown up by the other. NASA is counting on that spirit of competition to lower costs and ensure that Artemis returns humans to the moon sooner rather than later.
Besides the immense technical problems of developing a reusable lunar landing system, both SpaceX and Blue Origin face a number of fiscal and political minefields that must be crossed before humans return to the moon.
The current battle over raising the debt limit is a huge shadow over not only NASA but the rest of the federal government. If the United States defaults on its debts, derailing the Artemis program will be the least of its worries. If the White House and Congress strike a deal that cuts NASA spending, the date of the first human lunar landing in over 50 years recedes into the future. Recently, NASA trotted out the Artemis II astronauts to buttress support for its budget in Washington.
SpaceX still faces litigation by environmentalists seeking to halt launches of the Starship from the Boca Chica Star Base launch site. A new study delving into possible safety issues for rocket engines that run on liquid oxygen/methane is another possible curveball. Starship uses Raptor engines that use LOX/methane fuel.
Blue Origin also faced a potential political pitfall. Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-Vt.) attempted to cut funding for the second HLS from the NASA authorization bill. His incorrect theory was that the money constituted a “bailout” to Jeff Bezos, a man Sanders has branded as a billionaire who needs to pay his “fair share” of taxes and “use his own money, not U.S. taxpayers,” on space projects. He conveniently ignored that the funding is part of a public/private partnership designed to encourage private-sector partners to devote substantial funding to space commercialization.
Sanders’ amendment failed overwhelmingly. Now, that Bezos’ Blue Origin has actually won the second HLS contract, Sanders may be moved to try again. Presumably, any second attempt he might mount will have the same results as the first.
Artemis will certainly be very different than Apollo. Apollo was a neck-or-nothing race to the moon with the Soviets, the prize being bragging rights about which country landed human beings first. Artemis is a more deliberate program, designed to open the moon to exploration and, eventually, economic development. NASA also says that the return to the moon is a practice run for a human-piloted Mars expedition.
Speaking of space races, NASA and the people in Congress who pay its bills, are aware that China also harbors lunar ambitions. The China threat should prove a sufficient incentive to not falter this time in the drive to return to the moon. Whether the “Artemis Alliance” of nations and commercial companies led by NASA or China succeeds in expanding their influence to the Moon, Mars and beyond will determine the shape of the future.
Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? as well as The Moon, Mars and Beyond, and, most recently, Why is America Going Back to the Moon? He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, among other venues.