Experts tell House panel Artemis needs simpler lander, reusable lift and faster decisions to meet goals

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held a hearing on the Artemis program’s path to human exploration, where witnesses urged a simpler, more sustainable campaign architecture and faster decision‑making to meet ambitious lunar and Mars goals.

The subcommittee’s witnesses — Dr. Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, and Dr. Daniel Dunbacher, adjunct professor at Purdue University and former CEO of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics — told members that the program’s immediate tasks (Artemis 2 and Artemis 3) should proceed but that long‑term sustainability requires changes in launch and lander approaches.

“We need a more sustainable and credible approach to maintain the confidence of the White House, Congress, industry, and our international partners,” Dr. Scott Pace said, urging alternatives to the current Space Launch System (SLS) model and greater use of reusable heavy‑lift services where feasible. Pace told the committee the SLS is “expensive and not reusable” and noted it has had only one flight and trouble meeting congressional production targets.

Dr. Dunbacher warned that the current lunar landing architecture — which he and others said could require roughly 35 to 40 Starship launches to demonstrate and execute early landing missions — raises serious schedule risk. “Can 40 launches, development and demonstration of the undeveloped and undemonstrated on‑orbit rocket fuel station, and integration of a complex operational scenario across multiple systems all successfully occur by 2030? The probability of success for this plan is remote at best,” he said. He summarized his view of priorities succinctly: “Moon first, then Mars.”

Members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized two related themes: geopolitical competition and program sustainability. Several lawmakers cited China’s declared plans for crewed lunar missions and warned that presence on the Moon will shape future norms and influence. Pace told the subcommittee that space leadership today is as much about attracting partners as it is about being first: “Leadership is about having other countries wanting to work with you to be a partner in common endeavors.”

Both witnesses urged faster decision‑making and a practical near‑term plan. Pace suggested the new Moon‑to‑Mars program office created by Congress could help produce a set of design reference missions (DRMs) to organize a campaign plan and said the office could integrate architectures and options. “Design reference missions were created for the space shuttle… For the really immediate term, having a set of design reference missions to organize your campaign plan around, I think would be very helpful,” he said.

Dunbacher and Pace also recommended leaning into commercial capabilities where appropriate, cutting unnecessary regulatory and acquisition burdens that discourage small suppliers, and focusing NASA on tasks only government can do while buying other services from industry. Dunbacher said the program should “utilize flight‑tested existing systems such as the Space Launch System, Orion spacecraft, and existing international partnerships” for near‑term goals and, in parallel, plan a sustainable approach using private capabilities.

Witnesses and members discussed specific technical priorities — communications and navigation infrastructure around the Moon, on‑orbit refueling and a reusable transportation base — and repeatedly returned to workforce and funding constraints as critical dependencies. Pace told the committee that a short, focused review of campaign decisions and priorities would be useful: “Come up with an answer in about 60 days or less.”

The subcommittee heard bipartisan concerns about schedule, affordability and the need to preserve an experienced workforce. Members signaled intent to pursue continued oversight and possible legislative language to clarify priorities, funding and workforce policies. The hearing record will remain open for additional member questions and submissions.

Background: witnesses and many members referenced Space Policy Directive 1 (SPD‑1) and successive NASA authorization acts as providing a “step‑by‑step” policy direction toward a sustainable Moon‑to‑Mars campaign. The witnesses and members said those policy directions remain broadly sound but must be matched to a credible, executable architecture.

Next steps: several lawmakers said the subcommittee will seek additional briefings from agency officials and the Moon‑to‑Mars program office and may request more detailed campaign plans from a new NASA administrator or nominee.