Kendra Horn should be kept far away from space policy

The initial excitement is now falling apart thanks to the Administration’s appointments. America has not sent astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit since the Apollo program ended in 1972. NASA’s current Artemis program is set to reach the moon again with an unmanned test flight later this year. The big space policy question of our time is over how we will return to the moon and travel beyond: On overpriced rockets, spacecraft, and landing vehicles owned by NASA and designed by legacy aerospace contractors that have gouged the American taxpayer for decades? Or commercially, with new technology nimbly developed by entrepreneurial New Space companies and sold to NASA as a service?

The only way Artemis in particular and American space exploration programs in general will succeed is with the commercial model. The old-style Space Launch System, a $20 billion development program far over budget and behind schedule, will power the Artemis I mission at an additional cost of $2 billion for one launch. At such launch prices, we can go to space only rarely, and we can’t take much payload with us. However, using private launch services like SpaceX’s Starship offering, a larger payload can be taken with orders of magnitude lower cost, thanks to the aligned incentives of commercial program development.

The Biden Administration took a step in the wrong direction, if an understandable one, in the appointment of former Sen. Bill Nelson as NASA Administrator. Nelson has made a career of supporting programs that have been largely giveaways to the old prime contractors, provided that they spent a large chunk of the funds in his home state of Florida. The new commercial space industry didn’t like the nomination, but they were willing to chalk it up to the President’s friendship with an old Senate comrade.

Specifically, H.R. 5666 would have required Artemis to use the Space Launch System and the Exploration Upper Stage, both primarily developed by Boeing, and to create a government-owned lunar lander integrated into the Orion capsule, an expensive undertaking which only Boeing has proposed. It would have bypassed the in-development Lunar Gateway, on which Boeing is notably not a contractor. And it would have required an increase in production and crewed flight rate of the Space Launch System to two per year. No wonder that when Horn lost her re-election race in November, Boeing suggested her as a nominee for NASA Administrator.

Even Democratic members on the House Science Committee opposed H.R. 5666 moving to full committee markup unless she allowed significant changes to the anti-commercial provisions. She refused to compromise with members of her own party to improve the bill, which led to a year-long standoff and, ultimately, the bill’s death. Her take-it-or-leave approach to policy making demonstrates a lack of diplomatic and management skills required for the role of Executive Secretary.

With a growing backlash from the space industry, perhaps the Administration will reconsider appointing Kendra Horn. Under the Trump Administration, the Executive Secretary was Scott Pace, a widely respected academic. Biden would be wise to follow prior precedent and appoint a qualified non-politician friendly to the new entrepreneurial mode of making progress in space.

Related posts:

An organization that combats corporate fraud will issue guidance for firms using blockchain technology. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), commonly referred…

I have read from many supervisors, particularly those that are new to the role, about their numerous challenges with leading hourly employees, especially on issues ranging from commitment to the job…