Satellite communications systems aren't as easy of a jobs program as giant outdated rockets, thus they'll only allocate funding to SLS at the cost of everything else.
If they can't make space-internet sexy, then they should hire a marketing firm. Heck, insurance companies (insurance!!!) are able to raise millions from VC firms, then space-internet should be able to raise something from Congress.
My belief is that it's not really important to NASA, and they aren't really trying to sell it to congress. My bet at this point is that the Chinese have internet access on the moon before we do (albeit they're firewalled version).
It's the system needed to talk to specifically deep space satellites and space probes. It's the thing talking to the Voyager probes all the way out past the heliosphere. It has trouble raising funding because it has to be spread around the world and thus doesn't result in as many jobs across different states.
Such a system doesn't really have commercial value (yet) because there aren't really any deep space privately operated probes. Privately owned things are close enough that they can either talk directly to the ground using their own much smaller base stations, or hitchhike on other networks (eg TDRSS, geostationary relay sats or Starlink).
The problem is also especially bad with these small satellites. The big crewed vehicles would be less problematic since they can have larger more powerful transmitters, which therefore won't require as much DSN attention.
If there were a long term plan (which I simplistically termed "space internet"), then there would be a way to address this. Instead, it appears as if they are trying to keep old equipment going rather than investing in a new, upgraded communication system that could be leveraged not only by future missions, but also added to by private companies in the future.
Congress would much prefer that NASA ask for money to fund a new system that creates new technologies than just fund old dilapidated tech. That's the issue, and NASA doesn't seem to get it. Is it dumb? Sure. But that's politics, and as a government entity (my personal favorite, in fact) they just aren't doing a good job here.
One last thought...I envision 100 years into the future that there are communication nodes all over the place, such as a big transmit/receive array physically on the moon, at various lagrange points across the solar system, all based on lasers, quantum tech, or whatever the futuristic long-term thing needs to be. Frankly, my concern is that we'll still be doing the same old thing 100 years from now. And while you may scoff at that (and I hope you're right!), remember that NASA does not currently have the technology to do something we last did 50 years ago (put a man on the moon). So I think those fears of a stale and stagnant NASA not knowing how to move forward are at least somewhat valid (even if I can't express it as well as I'd like).
Where are you getting all this? Surely not from this little Ars Technica article.
NASA started way after artemis, which strongly suggests this is an afterthought. The documents are design and planning of the architecture, - nowhere near rollout.
Further, STMD doesn't even mention anything close to communications on it's home page (correct me if I missed it). It's also not listed on their Spacetech page [0]. Also, teh LNSS project only goes so far as a demonstration scheduled for 2028 that will test whether they can pick up earth-GPS signals on the moon. [1]
Communications is essential to growing work outside of earth orbit. Nowhere do I see that NASA has this as a "priority".
Now, it's possible that NASA has 1,000 priorities, but that just means they have none.
I appreciate the ESA link - glad to see they are doing something about this, but I was referring to the article about NASA and NASA priorities. I get that we share things, but really, there is nothing significantly there regarding NASA.
[0] - https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/programs [1] - https://www.gps.gov/cgsic/meetings/2022/murata.pdf
Satellites have limited lifespans. You can build them bigger, better, stronger, to last longer, but inevitably they break down and cannot be serviced. One micrometeorite in the wrong place, and the entire investment is gone. Even the day to day wear and tear from the radiation of space slowly breaks them down.
What's more, they can't change orbit once launched. If you lose one, you can't reposition another to make up the difference. It's just a gap, so you need high redundancy.
You would need very well-built satellites (expensive) with high powered transmitters (expensive because they need lots of power/solar panels) in a large network (lots of them) to provide high redundancy. They'd also each need to be launched with an expensive rocket (maybe when Starship is operating?).
The DSN using dishes on the ground on earth is the cheaper option, because you can fix things that break. It's maintainable with a low ongoing cost instead of a super high up-front cost.
Also, satellites can last a long time. There are GPS satellites that are a quarter of a century old and still functioning [0]. I didn't check about other satellites, but I'm sure there are older ones.
If we are to become a space-faring species, then we will need to learn how to do this. Original sea-faring peoples did this millenia ago, and today we ship all sorts of things to every corner of the globe.
Building a shared communication infrastructure is a logical next step. Otherwise we are going to build oversized devices with larger batteries almost like making a walkie-talkie trying to communicate between countries - it's not a good approach. Build out the infrastructure and then the devices (probes/satellites/spacecraft/etc) can leverage the shared infrastructure.
It's the other way around, actually. JPL and others, including Vint Cerf, have been working on the blueprint for a couple of decades, and the spacecraft in orbit around Mars have been acting as relays for the landers (e.g., Perseverence) for years. It's a question of bringing something similar to the Moon.
I truly believe that NASA would fare much better if they focused on regulation, deep space research, and communication. They already do the first 2, but for some reason, they neglect communication.
They build these fantastic probes, but then don't build out a communication network. This *despite the fact that they have people like Vint Cerf at their disposal !! This just boggles my mind.
Once they build out for the moon, they could have a blueprint for deep space, while still being easy enough to iterate on designs (the moon being a much closer and easier to reach target, thereby reducing the development/test/feedback loop, as they wouldn't have to wait 6+ months for travel time.