As for what to do about it, Griffin said legislators should scrap the current plan.
“The Artemis III mission and beyond should be canceled and we should resume moving forward at full speed,” Griffin said. He included a link in his plan, not dissimilar to the “Apollo on steroids” architecture he had advocated two decades earlier, but later found unachievable within NASA’s existing budget.
“There will definitely be consequences.”
Other members of the panel offered more general advice.
Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said NASA must continue to serve as an engine for American success in space and science. He cited the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which has spurred a growing lunar industry. He also said that NASA’s spending on basic research and development is an important feedstock for American innovation, and a significant advantage over the People’s Republic of China.
“When you’re looking at NASA authorization legislation, look at it in a way where you are the origin of that innovation ecosystem, the flywheel that really powers U.S. national security and economic security, in a way the PRC can’t match,” Swope said. “Without science, we would never have had something like the Manhattan Project.”
Another witness, Dean Cheng of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, said that NASA, and by extension Congress, should do a better job of holding itself and its contractors accountable.
Many of NASA’s major exploration programs, including the Orion spacecraft, the Space Launch System rockets, and their ground systems, have been years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget over the past 15 years. NASA funds these programs with cost-plus contracts, so its ability to enforce deadlines with contractors is limited. Furthermore, Congress more or less politely delayed and continued funding the programs.
Whatever priorities policymakers set for NASA, there should be consequences for failing to achieve objectives, Cheng said.
“One, it needs to be bipartisan, to make it clear throughout our system that this is something that everyone is pushing for,” Cheng said about setting priorities for NASA. “And second, there are consequences, budgetary, legal and otherwise, for the agency and the supplying companies. If they fail to deliver on time and on budget, it won’t be like ‘Okay, well, let’s try again next year.’ There will definitely be consequences.”
<a href