By 
August 15th, 2022
Artemis I Rollout: August 16, 2022
Credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky
The rollout of NASA’s powerful Space Launch System, topped by the Orion capsule, is crawling testament to the space agency’s ambitious plan to “reboot” the Moon, and then push humans onward to Mars.
On this moonward and momentous occasion, I’m reminded of that quip during coverage by Chet Huntley/David Brinkley of a roaring Saturn V liftoff that it was hard to tell if the rocket was going up…or Florida was going down.
A projected 100,000 people are reportedly showing up to get an eye-full of the Space Launch System’s (SLS) ascension into Florida skies.
Long and winding road
For sure, it has been a long and winding road, and not without a lot of high-tech, dollar-fueled political hullabaloo.
Meanwhile, in the space community of chit-chat, there are those that rail against the SLS and even wish that this giant of a booster falls flat on its tail section at liftoff.
Personally, I can’t think of a Space Age time when there were those wishing NASA to fail.
Artist concept of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) 70-metric-ton configuration launching to space. SLS will be the most powerful rocket ever built for deep space missions, including to Mars.
Credit: NASA
For those hopeful for an SLS/Artemis 1 malfunction, a default position is reliance on Elon Musk and his Starship enterprise.
I asked several leading space policy experts to help scrutinize what’s afoot here.
Waste of money
“I don’t think it’s about ‘wanting NASA to fail.’ It’s about anger at NASA being forced to fail by Congress…because being forced to use SLS is another dead-end approach,” says Rand Simberg, an analyst and consultant in space policy, technology, and business.
From Simberg’s point of view, it’s infuriation at the waste of money. “It makes me angry as a taxpayer, but it makes me even angrier as a space enthusiast, that NASA is being forced by Congress to waste money on something that is not needed to get back to the Moon. It will be just as unsustainable as Apollo was, for the same reasons, while lying to us about how we can’t get back to the Moon without it, and all the while not spending money on things we actually do need to get back to the Moon in a sustainable way,” he adds.
Au natural: Earth’s Moon as seen from the International Space Station.
Credit: NASA/ESA
What SLS opponents want, such as Simberg, is for NASA to be allowed to get back to the Moon in a sustainable and scalable way, without Congress being involved in the design of the architecture, and this implies that neither SLS or Orion are necessary, he suggests.
“It should simply be allowed to purchase transportation services from the private sector, just as it is doing to get to and from low Earth orbit. Selecting Starship for the lander program was a good start, but the logical conclusion is that SpaceX should be used for all phases of the trip, and not just the landing,” believes Simberg.
“Using 1970s technology to send a handful of astronauts to the Moon a few times, at best, in this decade, at billions of dollars per flight,” Simberg concludes, “is a pathetic lack of vision compared to what the billionaires want to do, and will do.”
Illustration of NASA astronauts on the lunar south pole carrying out early work to establish an Artemis Base Camp. Will placing Artemis astronauts on the moon become a stepping stone to a sustained presence on Earth’s celestial next door neighbor? Credit: NASA
Trust in government
Space history expert, Roger Launius of Launius Historical Services, portrays SLS as no small part a reflection of a larger situation. And that is the U.S. Public trust in government in decline since the Nixon administration.
Launius spotlights public trust in government polling from 1958-2022 by the Pew Research Center that shows trust in government has been below 40 percent when asked the question if Washington would do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time” since the 1970s, and in the 21st century it has declined precipitously to the low 20th percentiles, he says.
“Conversely, there is a belief, buttressed by talking points from one of the major parties that has embraced neoliberalism, that the private sector may be relied on to accomplish all that is necessary,” Launius told Inside Outer Space. “Of course, it doesn’t help that NASA’s SLS program has been expensive and has yet to show much in the way of results,” he points out.
SpaceX Starship human lander design to carry NASA astronauts to the surface of the Moon under the Artemis program.
Credit: SpaceX
Shiny new thing
“I don’t think people want NASA to fail in the sense that SLS blows up. They just want SLS to go away because they think it’s a dinosaur and Starship is the shiny new thing,” responds Marcia Smith, Founder and Editor of Space Policy Online.
Critics skip over the fact that Starship didn’t exist when SLS began, Smith points out. “There was no SLS versus Starship contest. It was SLS or no “Moon rocket” at all because President Obama had just killed Ares V. Falcon 9 barely existed then, never mind Starship. It had one test flight in 2010, the year Congress directed NASA to build SLS. Demonstrating reusability was 7 years in the future.”
Smith adds that SLS critics talk as though Starship is an alternative to SLS right now. “Starship hasn’t flown either. And they ignore the fact that Starship can’t get to the Moon directly like SLS. It has to stop for fuel in Earth orbit at a fuel depot that doesn’t exist yet,” she explains.
“I think the antagonism to SLS is mostly from people who think Musk has all the answers,” says Smith. “They overlook Starship’s own schedule delays, cheerfully excusing Musk’s over-optimism…not to mention the lack of transparency about how much Starship costs. There are no budget requests to Congress to keep track. No NASA Inspector General or Government Accountability Office reports.”
Credit: NASA
Up in flames?
How can SLS costs be compared to Starship when Starship data is proprietary, questions Smith.
“One hopes it’s not as eye-poppingly expensive as SLS, but only Musk and his inner circle know,” Smith says. “How much did each of those Starship prototype failures cost? Musk supporters cheered when they blew up because he’s taking risks, but would they feel the same if it was their tax dollars going up in flames?”
It will be interesting to see if any attitudes change now that Musk is using $3 billion of our tax dollars for Starship development, Smith adds. “Small compared to the billions for SLS, but still a lot of money.”
Smith gives Musk a lot of credit for thanking NASA at every opportunity he gets for having faith in him and funding SpaceX especially in those difficult early years.
“It seems a lot of people don’t realize how much taxpayer money he’s gotten through NASA for development of Falcon, Dragon, and now the Human Landing System and in-space propellant transfer. Why his supporters often seem contemptuous of NASA is a mystery to me,” Smith says.
Having said all that, NASA doesn’t do itself any favors with unending cost overruns and schedule delays. And they certainly are behind the times when it comes to reusability, Smith adds.
NASA leaders have often said it is ‘and, not or’ SLS and Starship, and other new rockets, too, like Vulcan and Blue Origin’s New Glenn launcher, Smith concludes. “It is not one or the other. All of them will be needed to support sustainable lunar and Mars exploration. I think that’s right.”
Credit: NASA
Giant boondoggles
“I am rooting for NASA to succeed,” says Howard Bloom, founder and chair of the Space Development Steering Committee. “But its focus on the SLS and Orion has been killing NASA’s manned and womanned space program.”
In Bloom’s view, the SLS and Orion are giant boondoggles for the space military industrial complex. “A single launch of the SLS and Orion will cost $4.1 billion. For that price, you could buy as many as 2,000 launches of Elon Musk’s Starship. You could take 200,000 people to space,” he says.
The SLS is being advertised as the rocket that will return Americans to the Moon, Bloom notes.
“But the SLS and Orion can’t land on the Moon…they can simply orbit it and watch the Chinese and Russians build their research station where it counts, down below on the Moon’s surface. And even this Moon-gazing privilege will be for roughly three passengers. SpaceX’s starship can carry 100 passengers in luxury, can land on the Moon’s surface, then can take off and come back to Earth again…all things the SLS and Orion can’t do,” says Bloom.
NASA has to stop wasting $3 billion a year on a “frankenrocket,” buy launch services from private industry, Bloom suggests, and create the cargos the Starship and its competitors can take to destinations in space, 100 ton payloads in the case of the Starship, he says.
Credit: Aerospace Corporation
Bloom says that there’s desperate need to develop space infrastructure: Moon and Mars bases, construction equipment, robotic mining equipment for water, and on-the-spot hardware to turn lunar or Martian water into breathable oxygen and drinkable water. We need to make human homes on the Moon and Mars permanent.
“NASA could do that with the $3 billion it is wasting each year on the SLS and Orion…wasting on a rocket that can’t even land on the Moon, Mars, or back down here on Earth,” Bloom concludes.
Juicy target
Space historian John Logsdon is Professor Emeritus at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, where he was the founder and long-time director of GW’s Space Policy Institute. As for people hating the SLS, he can’t recall any space project that has generated that kind of emotion.
As for why, Logsdon suggests because “it is the epitome of the old style of doing things.”
“SLS was forced on NASA leadership by the Congress, reflecting the views of the heritage, traditional aerospace contractors and NASA workforce. All of that makes it a very juicy target for those that think the old way of doing business is wrong. It’s a way of bringing together a lot of critics of NASA focused on one thing,” Logsdon says.
Artemis 1 flight profile.
Credit: NASA
“We have never before had an alternative like the SpaceX Starship Heavy launcher to rally around. But it hasn’t worked yet. In the Artemis architecture, NASA is using the Starship upper stage for the lunar lander. It requires 5-6 launches to get enough fuel in the thing to operate. Kind of crazy,” Logsdon adds. “SLS may be far from ideal, but it’s about to be rolled out to the launch pad and hopefully is basically ready to go. To say ‘don’t do that’ and wait for Starship Heavy instead, too me, that doesn’t make sense. I think it’s prudent to take what you’ve got, not what you wish you had.”
The Artemis architecture, based on SLS, Orion, and Starship as the Moon lander, Logsdon feels that in an ideal world it’s not the way to reignite a humans-on-the Moon-and-beyond effort.
“But it is there and we’re pretty well down that route,” Logsdon adds. “The consequences of backing off now, if America cancels SLS, the thought of immediately transferring funds to Starship, I don’t think NASA would be allowed to do that. For the initial return to the Moon, it’s the Artemis architecture or nothing,” he feels.
Posted in Space News
There is no way that Americans will land on the Moon in this decade.
My money is on the next NASA crewed Lunar landing occuring on either 14 or 17 December, 2041.
Why the specificity? Well, the very, very first powered takeoff of a heavier than air vehicle took place on 14 December, 1903. Wilbur Wright took off, but stalled 3 seconds later, and…well, crashed. But the plane was repaired, and the Wrights made four sustained flights on 17 December 1903. On 14 December 1972, the very last human beings to walk on the Moon took off from the Lunar surface to come home. Exactly 69 years after Wilbur Wright’s 3 second flight, or three days short of 69 years after the generally recognized first powered flights. The dates in 2041 represent 69 more years after the LAST powered, crewed takeoff from the Lunar surface.
We’ve been “going back to the Moon” since 2004 (and should have arrived in 2020, according to George W. Bush), or 18 years elapsed time…which has gotten us almost no closer to the Moon than we were in 2004. So what’s another 19 years?
I notice that the basic structure of how the US *does*Space* is not mentioned, by either SLS supporters or detractors. The US does Space by the same means it has since the first draft of the NASA charter was written in LBJ’s office, when he was Senate Majority Leader. It is an exemplum of how the Senate and House have shaped US government agencies for 90 years. Their political needs for re-election come before all else.
*That* is what riles so many. The effort inside NASA was designed in the US Senate to keep their powerful selves in office, and had only the most secondary object of doing *anything* in Space. The cost of that since 2005 and the beginnings of Ares V has only multiplied, and all because of the continued opportunity cost of buying their re-election with the money supposedly put toward expanding humanity into the Solar System.
We have had 50 years by now, of 65 years of NASA as a political tool, while *we* are supposed to swallow the fable that it was to benefit the rest of the population, which it has done only in passing.
“But it is there and we’re pretty well down that route,” Logsdon adds. “The consequences of backing off now, if America cancels SLS, the thought of immediately transferring funds to Starship, I don’t think NASA would be allowed to do that….”
We *know* NASA won’t be allowed to do that, John!
That is what is infuriating!
It is the use of spaceflight for putting money in the hands of Senators’ vassal voters, which is the Senate’s major, open, and barely even winked at, use for spaceflight!