Ars Technica recently had the opportunity to speak with NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, who has now led the US space agency for more than three years. We spoke about budget issues, Artemis program timelines, and NASA's role as a soft power in global diplomacy. What follows is a very lightly edited transcript of the conversation between Senior Space Editor Eric Berger and Nelson.
Ars Technica: I wanted to start with NASA's budget for next year. We've now seen the numbers from the House and Senate, and NASA is once again facing some cuts. And I'm just wondering, what are your big concerns as we get into the final budgeting process this fall?
Administrator Bill Nelson: Well, the big concern is that you can't put 10 pounds of potatoes in a five-pound sack. When you get cut $4.7 billion over two years, and when $2 billion of that over two years is just in science, then you have to start making some hard choices. Now, I understand the reasons for the cuts. Had I still been a member of the Senate I would've voted for it simply because they were held hostage by a small group in the House to get what they wanted. Which was reduced appropriations in order to raise the artificial, statutory budget debt ceiling in order for the government not to go into default. That's part of the legislative process. It's part of the compromises that go on. It happened over a year ago, and it was called the Fiscal Responsibility Act. The price for doing that wasn't cuts across the entire budget. Remember, two-thirds of the budget is entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and it certainly wasn't in defense. So, all the cuts came out of everything left over, including NASA. I'm hoping that we're going to get a reprieve come fiscal year '26 when we will not be in the budgetary constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. But who knows? Because lo and behold, they've got another artificial debt ceiling they're going to have to raise next January.
Ars: What would you say to scientists who are concerned about Chandra, the cancellation of Viper, and Mars Sample Return, who see the budget for Artemis program holding steady or even going up? It seems to me those of us who lived through Constellation saw this unfolding 15 to 20 years ago. Is the same thing happening with Artemis, is science being cannibalized to pay for human exploration?Nelson: My response to the scientists is, I feel your pain. But, when I am faced with $2 billion of cuts over two years just in Science, I can't go and print the dollars. And so, we have to make hard choices. Now, let's go through those ones that you mentioned. Mars Sample Return. This was getting way out of control. It was going up to $11 billion, and we weren't even going to get a sample return until 2040. And that's the decade that we're going to land astronauts on Mars. So, something had to be done.
I convinced the budget director, Shalanda Young (director of the US Office of Management and Budget), and she was a partner in this, that we need to get those samples back. And so we pulled the plug on it. We said, "We're going to start over, and we're going to go out to all the NASA centers and to private industry, and we're going to solicit and give some incentive money for their studies. And those studies will come back in, and by the end of the year, we will make a decision." I'm hopeful that we are going to find such creativity and fiscal discipline that we're going to end up with a much cheaper Mars sample return that will come back in the mid-30s, instead of all the way to 2040. So, if that's what happens, and every indication I get is we're getting some really creative proposals, if that's what happens, then it's a win-win. It's a win for the taxpayer clearly. It's a win for NASA because we didn't have the money to spend $11 billion on it.
So, that's one example. Another one that you used is Viper. Viper was running 40 percent over budget. Now, there comes a limit, and when you have to take a $2 billion hit just to science, you have to make tough choices. And so, that decision was made. We're still getting (to the Moon) with Intuitive Machines at the end of the year. We are getting a lander that is going to drill to see if there is water underneath the surface. Understand that Viper was a much bigger rover, and it was going to rove around, but it was also 40 percent over budget. And so, these are the choices that you have to make.
You mentioned Chandra. By the way, I think we've worked Chandra out. Although it's not going to have the funding way up there at the top funding. What we have worked out is, we are going from what we requested, which was $41 million, it's going to be some amount in excess of that. Although there will be some layoffs, not nearly as many, and all of the science will be protected. There will not be any diminution of the science.
Ars: How confident are you in the launch date next year for Artemis II? Can you tell me how the heat shield issue is being resolved?
Nelson: They are still deciding. I'm very confident (in a launch date of September 2025), unless there is the problem with the heat shield. Obviously, that would be a big hit. But I have no indication at this point that the final recommendation is going to be to go with another heat shield.
Ars: And what about Artemis III? I know the public date is September 2026, but we know how these things go, and there's a lot of work to be done. How should we be thinking about the projected launch date for Artemis III?Nelson: The contractual date is as advertised, September of 2026. And that's going to depend on SpaceX. And thus far, SpaceX has hit all of its milestones. You know the details of this stuff better than I do, but I'm the one that's responsible. And so, I constantly go around and check through all these people. And that last (Starship) test, which was the fourth try, was a phenomenal success.
Ars: How about alternative architectures for Artemis III? I wrote a story about this and then I recall seeing you asked in Congress about it. You talked about how, as conceived right now, Artemis III combines Apollo 9, 10, and 11 into a single mission. Do you think it is possible that Artemis III gets redesigned to buy down some of the risk for an eventual lunar landing? Or do you think that the current plan NASA has is the right one?Nelson: If SpaceX is successful on the lander, and at this point, as I just said, we have every reason to believe that it is on track, then I don't see a changing of the mission of Artemis III.
Ars: One of the things I wanted to ask you about, administrator, was the Lunar Gateway. Can you talk to me about why that's an essential part of Artemis, which really is a program to put humans on the surface of the Moon and put up a sustainable program to eventually build a base at the South Pole?Nelson: You are going to have not only a way station for astronauts, you are going to have an ability to do science around the year, even when astronauts are not on the Gateway. And, if you want a more detailed answer than that, we'll get you the scientists and talk about the science.
Ars: It just seems like that is a pretty big piece of the budget. I mean, there's certainly larger pieces of the budget, but that's a big piece of the budget that doesn't advance the fundamental aim of the program to have surface activity and to explore the surface for resources, such as water, ice, etc.Nelson: Well, remember, this is a stepping off point eventually to Mars. And it comes after we have, as you just said, the primary objective to getting boots on the surface. And so, I think it gives you a further flexibility in the future on what you want to do. We're going back to the Moon, not just to go to the Moon. We've been there. We're going to try to figure out all the things we need to develop in order to go to Mars. And this is a part of it, including new science.
Ars: How do you explain to your former colleagues in Congress that what NASA is trying to do is really fundamentally different to what Apollo was and what China is doing, which is a lot like Apollo? It seems to me like China is doing this for geopolitical reasons, and NASA certainly can't escape geopolitics. But it's a different plan. You're trying to be more sustainable. Are you able to communicate that to people and just explain why NASA's approach looks different this time?Nelson: Generally, I have had no problem with Congress on our exploration program of going to the Moon and then to Mars. We've had tremendous support there.
Ars: I must say that the support for Artemis at this point is remarkable in the sense that you have buy-in from the White House, Congress, international partners, traditional space, commercial space, and the space community. It does seem like for the first time in a super long time, you have all stakeholders generally supportive of this idea.Nelson: Do you know anything else on planet Earth that has that unity?
Ars: Maybe apple pie.Nelson: How about just boiling it down to R's and D's? Have you ever seen such unity?Ars: No, not really. It's pretty impressive. Speaking of politics, I want to ask you—when we talked before, you explained that President Biden came to you and asked you to serve as NASA administrator. He obviously has made the decision to step down after one term, and there's going to be an election this fall. I'm wondering what you're thinking about the future. Would you like to stay on as NASA administrator? Or are you going to follow the president's example?Nelson: I serve at the pleasure of the president. And that will be the case whoever is the next president.
Ars: How are you finding the job? You've been doing it for about three years now.Nelson: It's never a dull day, just like with this Starliner situation. It's some fairly consequential decisions. And yet, I can tell you, what do you think it's like being the head of the government agency that has been voted for the last 11 years is the best place to work in the federal government?
Ars: Probably pretty great.Nelson: You've heard me say this before. It is just amazing to me the capability of these people at NASA. I call them wizards. And I'm just trying to offer some leadership for all these people. And they do remarkable things. There's a new element that's crept in, and you've read about this, and you've probably already written about it, and that is space diplomacy. Because of the magic of NASA, we are greeted hugely enthusiastically when we go abroad. To me, going abroad is doing what I've been doing for the last 20-plus years in the Senate, then for a different reason. A head of state is very picky in choosing who they want to see, but they are generally welcoming with open arms for NASA to come and visit. And often, it's because we can offer something.
So, for example, President [Luiz Inácio] Lula [da Silva] of Brazil, who is very discretionary in who he sees, he spent an hour and a half with us. And in the course of that, I'm telling him about all the information that we can give him about the upper Amazon region. We can even see through the canopy of trees to see where they are burning underneath to basically destroy the rainforest that they can't detect otherwise. We can see that from our instrument on our couple of dozen spacecrafts that we have. So, too, with President [Gustavo] Petro in Colombia. Another one, the president of Mexico, we spent two hours with him. I can go around the world and I can tell you examples of this. So, NASA has become an element of soft power for the United States government.
Ars: India, obviously, is a very important nation. They're sort of balanced diplomatically between Russia and China on one hand and then on the United States on the other hand. And so, I know you've been to India. I know there have been some agreements signed between NASA and ISRO. I'm just wondering how you think the soft power of NASA has helped with the relationship between the United States and India?Nelson: The United States government interest is to strengthen both our military and diplomatic ties in the Indo-Pacific. With Japan, it goes without saying, the relationship that we have. So, in the prime minister's state visit with the president about a year ago [Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Biden], in the preliminaries to the state visit, headed by one of their top government officials, specifically their national security adviser, NASA was a part of all of that because of how the Indian government values the civilian space program.
And then, in the prime minister's visit, NASA was very much a part of that, including the meeting in the White House with the prime minister and president, of which NASA had a speaking role in that meeting. And, as part of that agreement, in a joint statement issued by the president and prime minister of some 30 paragraphs, paragraph seven was [about] space. And the agreement was that we would continue doing a lot of the things that we've already done but that we would enhance that, and we would proceed with training an Indian astronaut and flying them to the space station. And, naturally, that was a part of the discussions of my visit to India when I went there late last year. So, that's a very good example that you bring up of the use of space diplomacy.
