KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. NASA’s majestic new rocket soared into space for the first time on Wednesday, lighting up the night sky and accelerating on a journey that will take an astronautless capsule around the moon and back.
Evoking the bygone Apollo era, this flight is a crucial test for NASA’s Artemis program that aims to return astronauts to the moon after five decades of loitering in low-Earth orbit.
“We’re all part of something incredibly special,” Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, the launch director, told her team at Kennedy Space Center after launch. “The first launch of Artemis. The first step to take our country back to the moon and on to Mars.”
For NASA, the mission ushers in a new era of lunar exploration, one that seeks to unravel scientific mysteries in the shadows of polar craters, test technologies for dream trips to Mars, and spur private companies to further explore new entrepreneurial frontiers. out in the solar system.
As China and other countries compete to explore space, Wednesday’s launch also points to a growing philosophical tension over how America should pursue its space ambitions. NASA has so far spent more than $40 billion to get Artemis off the ground. The spending illustrates how the space program continues to resemble the way the Pentagon builds aircraft carriers and F-35 fighters — expensive and slow, but mostly controlled by the federal government because a commercial market for the kind of big rockets and deep missiles doesn’t yet exist. space transports that NASA deems necessary for its lunar exploration program.
The alternative approach, where NASA would be a customer or passenger of commercial spacecraft, could be cheaper and faster, relying on innovative spacecraft built by entrepreneurial companies like SpaceX, led by Elon Musk.
“If you were serious about going back to the moon, you’d just go all in on commercial approaches,” says Charles Miller, who worked at NASA from 2009 to 2012 as a senior adviser on commercial space operations.
But the commercial approach may not provide exactly what NASA and other government decision makers want, and companies can often change plans or go out of business.
While it may not have appeased critics, the 1,000-foot-tall rocket known as the Space Launch System, or SLS, was an impressive sight on the launch pad. However, with the launch time being in the middle of the night, the Florida Space Coast was not as packed with spectators as previous launch attempts.
Wednesday’s launch attempt followed two scrubbed launch attempts in August and September, one stopped by an engine that appeared to be too hot, and the other with a hydrogen leak in a fuel line. Hurricane Ian caused NASA to skip another launch window in late September and early October, and Hurricane Nicole caused a few days delay before Wednesday’s launch.
The countdown went smoothly until a hydrogen leak turned up at a new location around 9:15 p.m.
A faulty Ethernet switch also disrupted the countdown, cutting off data from a radar needed to track the missile. The US Space Force, which ensures the safety of rocket launches from the Kennedy Space Center, replaced the equipment and the countdown resumed.
A final poll by Ms Blackwell-Thompson confirmed that the rocket was ready to go into space.
At 01:47, the four engines on the rocket’s core stage ignited, along with two thinner side boosters. When the countdown reached zero, the clamps holding the rocket released and the vehicle slid out of the earth.
At launch, the flames from the engines were incredibly bright, like giant welding torches.
“I’m telling you we’ve never seen such a tail of fire,” said Mr. Nelson.
As the rocket lifted off, it produced a loud rumble that rolled through the space center.
A few minutes later, the side amps and then the giant core stage separated. The rocket’s upper engine was then ignited to launch the Orion spacecraft, where astronauts will sit on later missions, to orbit.
Less than two hours after launch, the upper stage fired one last time to send Orion on a path to the moon. On Monday, Orion will pass within about 80 miles of the lunar surface. After circling the moon for a few weeks, Orion will return to Earth and crash into the Pacific Ocean about 60 miles off the California coast on Dec. 11.
“We laid the foundations for the Artemis program and many generations to come,” John Honeycutt, the program manager for the Space Launch System rocket, said at a post-launch press conference on Wednesday.
The next Artemis mission, which should take four astronauts on a trip around the moon but not to the surface, will launch no earlier than 2024. Artemis III, which will see two astronauts land near the moon’s south pole, is currently slated for 2025, though that date is very likely to slip further into the future.
In a report last year, the NASA Inspector General estimated that by the time Artemis III returned from the moon, NASA would have spent $93 billion on the program, and each launch of the Space Launch System and Orion would have exceeded $93 billion. would cost 4 billion. The cost overruns were caused in part by technical issues, mismanagement, and NASA’s changing plans and schedules. And like the old Saturn V, the expensive Space Launch System rocket is used only once before falling into the ocean.
By streamlining production, “We’re hoping to get it to about $2 billion,” Sharon Cobb, NASA’s associate program manager for the Space Launch System, said during an August interview.
In contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, while not as powerful as SLS, costs $90 million per launch. And SpaceX’s Starship, a giant next-generation rocket currently under development that is also central to NASA’s moon landing plans for astronauts, must be fully reusable. $10 million.
For Artemis, NASA took a mix-and-match approach: a traditional rocket and crew capsule program and a commercial strategy for the lunar module. NASA will buy a Starship flight from SpaceX for a fixed price to serve as a lander for the Artemis III mission later in the decade. The Starship is to dock with Orion in lunar orbit and bring two astronauts to the surface near the lunar south pole.
SLS and Orion’s delays and cost overruns highlight the shortcomings of how NASA has managed its programs, but for all the impressive technological leaps it has made to date, Mr. Musk’s company also cannot guarantee that it will meet all of the development challenges of Starship as fast as Mr. Musk hopes.
His company has been fantastically successful with its Falcon 9 rocket, after NASA’s investment to carry cargo and later astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The cargo contract provided a major cash injection to Mr. Musk’s company and granted NASA’s imprimatur of approval when SpaceX was still little known and largely unproven. It now dominates satellite launches.
For NASA, this was also a big win. Because NASA is just one of SpaceX’s many customers, SpaceX can offer a much lower cost.
However, those successes do not guarantee that Starship will succeed. If SpaceX stumbles, NASA’s gamble on the company’s new spacecraft risks the United States wasting its investment while still waiting for a lunar lander for Artemis III.
Still, the huge cost of Artemis may be the cost of maintaining political support for a space program in a federal democracy, said Casey Dreier, the chief policy advisor for the Planetary Society, a nonprofit organization that promotes space exploration. Even if Artemis isn’t the best or most efficient design, it provides jobs for NASA and aerospace company employees across the country, he said. That ensures lasting political support for the lunar program.
“Congress has done nothing but add more money to Artemis every year,” said Mr. Dreier.
Politicians have so far encountered little or no public outcry in voting to fund the Artemis missions. Even if it saved NASA money, the commercial approach could attract more opposition, creating the impression that the agency has outsourced its space program to billionaires like Mr. Musk; Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon who founded the rocket company Blue Origin; and Richard Branson, whose Virgin Galactic flies tourists on short suborbital flights.
Think of the anger of many people towards Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson last year when they took suborbital trips to space built by the companies that started their wealth. That Mr. Branson and Mr. Bezos did not rely on federal funding to launch their space-tourism ventures failed to allay the anger that space seemed to be turning into the playground of the super-rich.
So a decision to turn to companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin could spark criticism that NASA was merely adding to the wealth of billionaires who would one day escape worldly troubles to private space stations and alien colonies.
“Aligning our space program with very famous, idiosyncratic individuals could potentially be the greater political risk for me,” said Mr. Dreier.
Commercial space proponents argue that history does not support this dystopian view. Rather, they point to entrepreneurs who, a century ago, transformed aviation from a luxury available to the few to safe, affordable transportation for nearly everyone.
While proponents of private spaceflight believe their approach will prevail, no one in Congress has yet pushed for SLS or Orion to be canceled. The CHIPS and Science Act, signed by President Biden, calls for NASA to include the vehicles in plans to send astronauts to Mars and directs the agency to launch SLS at least once a year.
NASA is currently negotiating with the rocket’s manufacturers for up to 20 more launches.
“I think the program itself is going to be politically very sustainable,” said Mr. Dreier. “I defy people to show me the public anger at the SLS program and how it translates into political pressure to cancel it. And I just don’t see it.”
