Skip to main content

Proposed House bill pushes NASA's crewed moon landing back to 2028

NASA's Artemis program currently aims to put people on the moon beginning in 2024. A House authorization bill could change that timeline, however.
NASA's Artemis program currently aims to put people on the moon beginning in 2024. A House authorization bill could change that timeline, however.
(Image: © NASA)

NASA should aim to put boots on the moon in 2028, not 2024, and achieve this goal explicitly to aid human Mars exploration in the 2030s, according to an authorization bill that was introduced Friday (Jan. 24) by the leadership of the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. 

Other major items on the bill's wish list include extending International Space Station (ISS) operations beyond 2024 to 2028; allowing NASA's proposed Gateway space station to be built in one of a variety of locations in Earth-moon space, not just lunar orbit; and launching the Artemis human moon lander in one piece instead of in multiple segments for assembly in space, as NASA proposes to do now. 

The bill — designated HR 5666 and introduced by Rep. Kendra Horn, D-Okla., chair of the committee's space subcommittee — stresses that a moon landing in 2028 should be put in the context of a larger moon-to-Mars program. This Red Planet program would put humans in Mars orbit by 2033, followed by surface missions. HR 5666 also calls for more flexibility in Gateway's location, opening up such possibilities as Earth-moon Lagrangian points (gravitationally stable locations between the two worlds). The small space station should "serve as a testbed for the systems and operational techniques" for Mars missions, the proposed bill states.

Related: NASA's Artemis crewed moon program

"The nation's human space exploration goal should be to send humans to the surface of Mars," reads a statement from the 102-page document.

"Reducing the risk and demonstrating the capabilities and operations needed to support a human mission to Mars may require human exploration of the cislunar vicinity and lunar surface," the document adds. 

HR 5666 further calls for a moon-to-Mars program office that would be established 60 days after the bill passes into law, with a program director who would report both to NASA's associate administrator and the agency's associate administrator of the Human Exploration and Operations mission directorate. 

This program office would be tasked with figuring out the requirements for astronaut flights to Mars orbit and the Red Planet's surface. An office-led Mars Enabling Technology Initiative would investigate matters such as radiation safety, the design of a spacecraft to bring humans safely to the Martian surface, a transport vehicle, propulsion technologies (such as nuclear thermal propulsion), habitats and Martian spacesuits

The transport vehicle appears to be a high priority, because HR 5666 calls for the first "preformulation activities" on the vehicle to be finished 180 days from when the legislation is enacted. The "overall architecture and plan" on Mars missions would be finished in 120 days, and funding estimates for the moon-to-Mars program would be due in 270 days.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine is also asked to, within 60 days, "develop a list of the remaining human health risk reduction research tasks" for Mars missions that would require testing during ISS missions. These tasks would be completed within five years.

In previous speeches, Bridenstine said that NASA is aiming to launch humans toward Mars in either 2033 or 2035, years when the orbits of Earth and Mars align properly for interplanetary missions. (Such alignments occur just once every 26 months.)

Some of the other notable requests of HR 5666 relating to NASA's crewed exploration programs include proposals to:

  • Call for NASA's "full ownership" of the moon-landing system (the agency has been planning to buy rides on private landers).
  • Land two human missions annually on the moon after the initial 2028 touchdown.
  • Initiate a plan to deorbit the ISS after the station's lifetime has expired.
  • Consider "the potential viability of commercial space stations" to test technologies instead of the ISS.
  • Furnish "upgraded and replacement" spacesuits for the ISS, including 12 spares, to "accommodate the diversity of the ISS crew." This appears to be a nod to a delay in the first all-woman spacewalk due to a lack of spare spacesuit parts; the spacesuits were originally designed for men.

HR 5666 also appears to acknowledge a NASA Office of the Inspector General report in November expressing concerns about how much access American astronauts will have to the ISS in light of several commercial crew vehicle delays. (NASA is counting on these private vehicles, which are being developed by SpaceX and Boeing, to end U.S. dependence on Russian Soyuz vehicles to get astronauts to and from the ISS.) 

The bill asks Bridenstine to "transmit to Congress a contingency plan, including an implementation timeline, for assured crew access to the International Space Station until certified commercial crew transportation services are taking place, in the event that the availability of those services is delayed or unavailable."

Related: Putting Astronauts on the Moon in 2024 Is a Tall Order, NASA Says

The bill includes discussion of numerous NASA missions outside of human exploration, asking for diverse items ranging from planetary defense programs to commercialization of Earth science missions to searching for "technosignatures" from alien civilizations. HR 5666 includes directions to move forward on several ongoing NASA science initiatives, such as the Europa Clipper mission; a Mars sample-return mission; a mission to test in-orbit refueling of the Landsat 7 spacecraft; and the Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program.

Other notable items include calling for continued development of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), which was almost canceled in previous budget requests in 2018 and 2019, and asking for "a report on the scientific program and operations of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy," which has had budgetary challenges in the past as well. 

Some space security matters are also addressed. HR 5666 requests a report from the National Space Council next year for "an interagency assessment of the space exploration capabilities of the People's Republic of China, including any threats to United States assets in space, as well as the impact of cooperation and participation of the People's Republic of China with other nations on space activities."

NASA would receive $22.6 billion under HR 5666 for fiscal year 2020. This would be a 5% increase over the Congress-approved allocation of $21.5 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2019. This bill, however, is by no means the final word on NASA's plans. The House space subcommittee is scheduled to mark up HR 5666 on Wednesday (Jan. 29) at 2:00 p.m. EST (1900 GMT). 

HR 5666 must also be reconciled with a separate bill going through the Senate. The version approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November has fewer changes to NASA's current human spaceflight plans than the House science committee's version to date, but the Senate committee does suggest a few modifications. Some of the major alterations include an ISS extension to 2030, and putting the moon landing in the context of a wider goal to land on Mars. 

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chair of the full Senate committee and a co-sponsor of the authorization act, has said the changes he oversaw are meant to support a moon landing in 2024. This is despite the fact that the 2024 moon-landing goal was not explicitly outlined in the Senate version of the bill, according to SpaceNews.

The 2024 deadline, which was announced by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence in March 2019, would put the moon landing within the second term of President Donald Trump (if he is reelected this November). 

Related: In Photos: President Trump Aims for the Moon with Space Policy Directive 1

The House subcommittee bill acknowledged that a 2028 deadline would push the moon landing into a new administration, but said that should not matter. "It is the further sense of Congress that constancy of purpose and the sustainability of the nation's human exploration goals and objectives should be an inherent principle of a long-term, deep-space human exploration program that spans several congresses and administrations," the bill states. 

Space policy experts have long stressed that it's tough for NASA to stay on target toward long-term exploration goals, given how often presidents and Congress change the agency's direction. For example, just in the last decade or so, the Trump administration canceled President Barack Obama's plans for a crewed mission to a captured asteroid, and the Obama administration nullified a previous moon-to-Mars program drawn up under President George W. Bush.

The Trump administration's 2024 moon-landing goal was a significant acceleration of NASA's previous plan to put humans on the lunar surface in 2028. The 2024 goal also impelled the agency to rocket through several significant milestones rapidly and safely. These include (but are not limited to) matters such as getting the huge Space Launch System rocket ready for its first flight to certify it to carry astronauts, making new spacesuits for the lunar surface, and building and launching Gateway (which, for now, is supposed to support a crewed lunar landing at the south pole).

Bridenstine has stressed that the agency is taking safety into account while tackling these large projects. But the accelerated pace is a challenge, some officials have said. 

"We're running really fast," Greg Chavers, acting deputy program manager, human landing system, at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, said during a panel discussion in September. "It's uncomfortable for many of us, but we're excited about it."

Follow Elizabeth Howell on Twitter @howellspace. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook

All About Space Holiday 2019

Need more space? Subscribe to our sister title "All About Space" Magazine for the latest amazing news from the final frontier! (Image credit: All About Space)

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

  • vance_lunn
    This is pure politics. The Democrats don't want Trump to have the "victory" of returning us to the Moon, so they want to postpone it until after his terms would be over. In addition, there are several other notably Democrat characteristics in this proposal. Full government ownership instead of using private rockets, and social engineering by overstocking the ISS with spacesuits for "diversity". And they want to delay our return in hopes that another country will beat us to it, because the Democrats don't want us to be the leader. Yes, I know there are risks with the current schedule, and there is no guarantee that we'll be able to get to the Moon by 2024, but that is no reason to deliberately delay it by 4 whole years. Bunch of children.
    Reply
  • Adarious
    What, if anything, can be done to combat this effort that they are pushing under the impeachment trial distraction?
    Reply
  • Admiral Lagrange
    Adarious said:
    What, if anything, can be done to combat this effort that they are pushing under the impeachment trial distraction?
    Reply
  • Admiral Lagrange
    The Senate will modify the bill before approving it. But you are right about 1 thing, NASA is subject to all kinds of politics. That's why we haven't been back to the moon or made a lot of progress landing humans on Mars.
    Reply
  • Spacetrooper
    John said:
    You narrow this scientific mission down to the lowest rung on the ladder, divisive politics. Science has no politics, but you certainly have spun your way into it. I have read the concerns voiced here and elsewhere, can NASA and it's collaborators realistically achieve the goal of landing on the moon by 2024? If you want to introduce politics, don't you think the current admin wants it done during Trump's second term so he can take credit for it? Knowing Trump's narcissistic style, he will take 100% credit and then in the same tweet, bad mouth his enemies, complete with misspelled words and acting like a spoiled 4th grader. That in itself is a huge assumption based on Trump's mob-run administration and penchant for habitual lying. One of the rare figures in the Trump orbit who has maintained a steady course and has stayed clear of being indicted is the chief of NASA.

    First and foremost is the safety of our astronauts. This will be a huge and complex project that dovetails with the ultimate goal, landing on Mars. Space is a very dangerous environment and putting a timeline on safety is stupid. I disagree with almost all of your assumptions that the change in timeline was totally politically motivated. What impulse gave you that idea? Have you read all the mission requirements and what gives you the facts to support your assumption we can even pull off landing on the moon by 2024? If it were a mission to land on the moon only, then I can see 2024, but again, this mission directorate involves much more than repeating 1969.

    I wouldn't read into it as you have done that NASA is taking over full ownership of rockets. Again, you are making hysterical political rants because without the collaboration of SpaceX and Boeing, that would be two fewer technology partners NASA has worked well with for a long time now. Without NASA, those two firms would be barely getting off the ground, NASA has shared as their own directorate dictates from the onset.

    Did you notice two female astronauts have been working in space doing repair work outside the ISS? How would you like it if you were ordered to work in the space environment wearing a woman's spacesuit? Or, are you the type that doesn't like highly qualified women doing a "man's job?"

    I love space exploration and my hobby related to that is astrophotography. I would be the type to provide space exploration with more financial support, but we have to maintain a sense of balance too. Exploration is a huge expense and a lot to ask of taxpayers who have their own reasons not to write NASA blank checks or support the fantasies of big egos and defense contractors who own many of our politicians. Our budget deficit is so far out of control I wonder what happened to all those Tea Party types who raised hell about it not long ago, now, crickets. 53% of our taxes are going to the military, I believe we spend more on that than any country on earth. I often wondered what is the purpose of all the expensive high technology weapons delivery systems when in the last 19 years we have been bogged down and the trillions of dollars spent, our adversaries used cheap IEDs against us, basically a pile of TNT or an old dumb bomb with a fuse We had better get a handle, but the way I see it those who are spending like drunk sailors don't give a damn anyway because they will be dead by the time our kids have to deal with it.
    The waxing and waning of NASA has put human space flight into limbo for 20 years. The only way to push a bureaucracy is to set an aggressive goal. The attitude of 10 year plans are paralysing to the mission to the moon and mars. IF we wait till its is affordable enough or safe enough our grandchildren will be wondering when the next humans will land on the moon.
    Reply
  • Jason K
    Spacetrooper said:
    The waxing and waning of NASA has put human space flight into limbo for 20 years. The only way to push a bureaucracy is to set an aggressive goal. The attitude of 10 year plans are paralysing to the mission to the moon and mars. IF we wait till its is affordable enough or safe enough our grandchildren will be wondering when the next humans will land on the moon.

    NASA's human space flight has been in limbo, it could be argued, since before Apollo successfully landed on the moon. The basic plans for STS (the Shuttle) were already laid in 1969, and that locked us into a trajectory for the next 40 years. And it didn't pan out the way the Shuttle concept designers had hoped. We didn't develop the easy, fast, relatively cheap method to access space the way it was believed the Shuttle would allow. Shuttle turned out to be WAY more expensive and extensive in its turn-around between flights, and was ultimately a more fragile craft than originally believed, as evidenced by the events of 34 years ago this very day.

    I do agree whole heartedly that aggressive goals are the only way to pressure the bureaucracy to continue development. But the 10-year plans exist purely because these ventures are huge enterprises that take a decade or longer to come to fruition. You need such a large roadmap-type plan in order to have any chance of successfully completing such projects. I'd argue that it's the changing priorities of the White House and Congress over the years as new members come and go, who rewrite the 10-year plans on the fly; that is the paralytic agent here. Just look at the current SLS: from what I've read, the design work on the Block 2 configuration with the Exploration Upper Stage was suspended indefinitely back in 2019. And now the House bill calls for a fully assembled Artemis module to be launched, rather than assembled on-orbit ... but of course the Block 2 SLS which MIGHT be up to the task is not on anyone's design table anymore. That might be a big part in the 2024 to 2028 timeline shift, I'm not sure (I need to finish reading the bill).

    (Side note: The article mentions the bill calls for exploring options for Gateway aside from lunar orbit, such as maybe at a LaGrange point. When did that plan change? I thought Gateway was always envisioned for L2? When did it get bumped to LLO?)

    Anyhow, I've not much faith in the Congress generally, and when it comes to science and NASA, even less so. I understand that congresspeople represent the tax-paying citizen's interests in federal spending and surely need to play a role in the decision making, but having Congress set the goals and the schedule for NASA just adds entirely too many cooks to the kitchen. It's messy and overly convoluted and complex. So basically, every date I read I tend to add 10 years to, and that's when I think we'll see something a whole lot less capable of what we were promised actually on the pad. I guess I'm cynical because I'm tired of waiting for those weekly Shuttle flights to an orbiting hotel, as I was promised, way back in the 80s.
    Reply
  • Macro
    Interesting will be to know how far competition is from landing on the Moon. Chinese, Russian government and private corporations like SpaceX are definitely able to land unmanned cargo missions .
    Rather then short term mission we should rather opt for permanent lunar base. Delivered and setup by robotic cargo ships.
    Reply
  • Truthseeker007
    Or maybe their is a reason we can't go back to the Moon and or not allowed. All they have to do is act like they are going to and just keep putting it off for any number of reasons.
    Reply