Crisis at NASA: more than 80% of the agency’s facilities are outdated, and this threatens the exploration of the Moon and Mars

An independent commission of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented a report on the state of NASA, and the conclusions were disappointing: 83% of the agency’s facilities were outdated. It costs $3.3 billion to close the technology gap. Experts warn that NASA risks losing engineering competencies to the private sector and lacks a clear strategy, threatening the space agency’s ambitious plans to explore the Moon and Mars.

Image source: NASA

Norm Augustine, chairman of the commission, noted: “NASA always has $3 billion more programs than it has funds.” This problem has persisted since 1990, when Augustine conducted the first analysis of NASA’s space programs, and it was confirmed again in 2009 with a re-analysis. According to a new report, 83% of NASA facilities are operating beyond their design life, and the accumulated maintenance backlog has reached an astronomical $3.3 billion. With annual maintenance costs of $250 million, eliminating this backlog in 10 years would require an annual increase of $600 million in NASA’s infrastructure budget .

Politicians prefer to fund new missions instead of maintaining old infrastructure. Projects like the Artemis lunar program or the space telescope to explore the depths of the Universe attract media attention and create jobs here and now. Meanwhile, according to Erik Weiser, NASA’s director of facilities and real estate, most of the agency’s facilities are in “mediocre or poor” condition. The commission in its report emphasized: “The tendency to prioritize new missions at the expense of maintaining existing assets has led to the creation of infrastructure that is unacceptable by most industry standards.” The commission members called some NASA objects “the worst ever seen.”

Augustine cited statistics: since 2010, NASA’s mission budget has increased by 8%, while mission support funding has decreased by 33%. As a result, every dollar allocated to support missions should generate 50% more activity than in 2010. NASA faces infrastructure challenges as it undertakes some of the most challenging missions in its 66-year history. Augustine noted, “The Artemis lunar landing program poses challenges that are far beyond the complexity of the Apollo mission.”

Chart of the state of NASA facilities by center and discipline. A red circle means poor condition, yellow means fair to mediocre, and green means meeting standards. The size of the circle corresponds to the number of objects in each center. Image source: Ars Technica

Space Center named after Johnson (JSC) in Houston, which is responsible for training astronauts and managing flights of the ISS and future lunar missions, has the worst infrastructure indicators. Only the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, which develops robotic interplanetary probes, and the Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Mississippi, which tests rocket engines, did not receive a failure.

Experts recommended that Congress direct NASA to create an annual revolving fund to finance infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Jill Dahlburg, a member of the commission, noted that federal legislation is needed to implement this idea. Similar funds are already used by other government agencies.

The commission found that NASA lacks a clear long-term strategy for developing technologies for future missions. Experts have urged the agency to set dates for critical technologies and prioritize their development. The discrepancy between federal annual budget cycles and NASA’s 10-year mission timeframes exacerbates the planning problem. “We often heard in meetings with agency staff that there was no point in trying to do long-term planning in an organization like NASA,” Augustine said.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor Ed Crawley has identified 10 key technologies for a sustainable human presence on the Moon and future expeditions to Mars. He called critical the energy supply and propulsion systems in space for moving large masses around the Earth, the Moon and Mars, technologies for entering the atmosphere, descent and landing for spacecraft heading to the Red Planet, as well as protecting people from radiation.

The James Webb Space Telescope mirror is placed in a vacuum test chamber at NASA’s NASA Space Center. Johnson in 2017

The commission also noted concerns among NASA employees that increasing dependence on commercial partners could lead to a decline in personnel qualifications. The committee acknowledged the success of NASA’s commercial programs for transporting cargo and crews under service contracts, but warned that overuse of them forces agency staff into supervisory roles rather than engineering work.

Kathy Sullivan, a former astronaut and ex-administrator of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), expressed the commission’s view: “The United States will be better prepared for the future by retaining engineering expertise at NASA, rather than turning the agency into a funding or controller.”

For now, NASA’s commercial partners still often rely on the agency’s technical expertise and facilities. SpaceX launches rockets from a NASA site, tests Crew Dragon in NASA’s vacuum chamber and relies on agency experts to develop the vehicle and astronaut training program. NASA has many agreements with other companies to provide expertise. SpaceX’s Hans Koenigsmann said NASA’s service contracts have led to “amazing progress” but have raised concerns among NASA employees about the future scope of hands-on work at the agency.