It has been some time since NASA began a profound transition. Since the start of this new space race, this monolithic institution which has long brought rain and shine to Earth’s neighborhood has changed its status. Over the years, it has transformed into coordinator. It is now a hub whose main mission is to outsource a growing part of its activities. For example, all of its space vehicles are built entirely by third parties such as SpaceX or Boeing.
It is a more modern and pragmatic approach which has undoubtedly benefited American aerospace as a whole. This new ecosystem makes it possible to consider missions that are more ambitious than ever, such as the famous Artemis program. But this type of partnership also includes many risks.
Indeed, from the point of view of a service provider, being selected by NASA has many advantages. We can cite the image, since being associated with such a prestigious institution is obviously rewarding. But there is also a financial aspect: working with a government company with a well-defined budget is real security.
Consequently, service providers have every interest in seducing NASA with very ambitious proposals, even if it means smoothing things over later once the contract is signed. But when their eyes are bigger than their stomachs, it can lead to bitter failures with serious consequences. And we have had a particularly egregious new example of this with the design of the next generation of spacesuits.
NASA is waiting for its suits
This series started in 2022, when NASA announced its intention to modernize this equipment. Indeed, the spacesuits currently used by astronauts to work around the ISS are of real antiques. The design dates back more than forty years, and these human-shaped spaceships are too bulky and not very mobile to meet the expectations of modern aerospace.
Beyond this performance problem, they are also starting to represent a real security problem. In 2022, for example, they were shelved for the duration of an investigation into water leaks that occurred during spacewalks – events which could have had absolutely dramatic consequences.
And it’s even worse for suits compatible with planetary exploration. The Apollo missions’ spacesuits have all been out of service for a long time, and at present, the agency does not have a single suit that would allow astronauts to walk on the Moon in good conditions. Bad news for the Artemis 3 mission, which must bring astronauts back to our satellite for the first time since 1972 within a few years.
Following a call for projects, NASA selected two companies to modernize its equipment: the young startup Axiom et Collins Aerospace, a subunit of military industry giant Raytheon. Axiom inherited the lunar portion of the program, while Collins was tasked with designing the suits specialized in orbital operations.
Collins Aerospace heading for the exit?
As a subsidiary of Raytheon, Collins is a very experienced industry player — and that pedigree played an important role in this deal. Indeed, the firm proposed a very ambitious program which was largely based on cutting-edge technologies that were not yet completely mature. According to Ars Technicathe agency initially issued serious doubts regarding Collins’ ability to validate all these technologies on time. If this proposal came from a less reputable entity, it would undoubtedly have been rejected fairly quickly. But NASA was convinced by Collins’ impressive record; she ended up signing the contract citing a “ high degree of trust ».
But unfortunately, it was actually a very, very big error in judgment. Always according to Ars TechnicaCollins a chained technical setbacks and completely dynamited its budgetince 2022. The situation is apparently so dramatic that the firm is now looking for a way out. According to the sources of Eric Berger, one of the most renowned insiders in the industry, the company’s staff is currently seeking to renegotiate the entire contract… or even get out of it completely.
If so, this would leave NASA in a very complicated situation. In essence, it would be back to square one after losing two precious years, in a context where it is becoming extremely urgent to replace the current suits.
The whole question is therefore who will take over Collins’ responsibilities if the company actually ends up withdrawing. The most obvious path would be to rely entirely on Axiom, which has presented significantly more encouraging results so far.
But this is a slippery slope. After all, this is a young company that is relatively inexperienced in this extremely demanding engineering exercise. Does it make sense to ask her for even more, knowing she already has a lot to do with her own specifications? The question is worth asking, because that would at least avoid starting from scratch. But on the other hand, NASA could also look for a new, experienced partner. At present, no one seems to know what the agency intends to do.
Industry, a double-edged sword
We see this with Collins, but it is not the only company concerned. Boeing is also a glaring example of this. Since 2021, the American giant has encountered a lot of difficulties in the design of the Space Launch System (SLS). The budget for the huge rocket supposed to be a cornerstone of the Artemis program exploded and delays piled up, forcing NASA to look for an alternative.
And this bad dynamic is still continuing at the moment with the capsule Starlineranother Boeing vehicle designed to carry a crew into low Earth orbit.
Here again, development is years behind schedule. And when he finally set off for his first test on June 5 after a postponement due to helium leaks, the struggles continued. Once in orbit, five of its thrusters encountered difficulties… and four additional leaks were identified ! As a result, the machine found itself stuck in contact with the ISS. For the moment, the two astronauts who arrived on board still do not know when they will be allowed to return to Earth.
To a lesser extent, we can also cite SpaceX. The Starship will also be a central element of the Artemis program. But it has also accumulated a certain delay which has raised serious concerns on the part of NASA.
Certainly, the recent successes of the vehicle allow us to remain optimistic. But in all cases, the conclusion is the same: these partnerships with industry are always risky for NASA. Collins’ new example should serve as a lesson. The agency may need to request more guarantees from service providers and be more demanding about the selection process.
It remains to be seen whether this will be enough to put the Artemis program back on track, because under these conditions, the schedule simply seems untenable.
-
-
