The Lunacy of Artemis

I recently read a great article breaking down the issues NASA is facing with its Artemis Program. I have known for a while now that this program has its issues which has been disheartening as a fan of space and human space exploration. I was originally going to post this as a note, but I realized I had more to say about it, so here goes.

But where Apollo 17 launched on a single rocket and cost $3.3 billion (in 2023 dollars), the first Artemis landing involves a dozen or two heavy rocket launches and costs so much that NASA refuses to give a figure (one veteran of NASA budgeting estimates it at $7-10 billion). The single-use lander for the mission will be the heaviest spacecraft ever flown, and yet the mission's scientific return—a small box of rocks—is less than what came home on Apollo 17. And the whole plan hinges on technologies that haven't been invented yet becoming reliable and practical within the next eighteen months.

I’ve been interested in space since I was a kid. I remember being in awe of the videos and photos from the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, the excitement seeing the Space Shuttle launches, and so much more. When it was announced that we were moving on from the Shuttle and towards returning to the moon, I was excited to see what we as a nation could do.

The jewel of Artemis is a big orange rocket with a flavorless name, the Space Launch System (SLS). SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter. There is the familiar orange tank, a big white pair of solid rocket boosters, but then the rocket just peters out in a 1960’s style stack of cones and cylinders. The best way to think of SLS is as a balding guy with a mullet: there are fireworks down below that are meant to distract you from a sad situation up top.

Needless to say, the main rocket sounds very familiar. The good news is that the foam falling off shouldn’t be an issue anymore as the manned craft is attached to the top rather than affixed tot the side.

Unfortunately, the problems don’t stop there.

To start with the obvious, HLS [Human Landing System] looks more likely to tip over than the last two spacecraft to land on the moon, which tipped over. It is a fifteen story tower that must land on its ass in terrible lighting conditions, on rubble of unknown composition, over a light-second from Earth. The crew are left suspended so high above the surface that they need a folding space elevator (not the cool kind) to get down. And yet in the end this single-use lander carries less payload (both up and down) than the tiny Lunar Module on Apollo 17. Using Starship to land two astronauts on the moon is like delivering a pizza with an aircraft carrier.

Look, space is hard. It is a completely inhospitable environment that constantly wants to kill everyone who ventures into it. I’m not trying to make light of the challenges NASA (or anyone else who wants to venture to the moon or the stars) has to face. I’m just wondering if NASA is going about this in the right way.

Costs on SLS have reached the point where private industry is now able to develop, test, and launch an entire rocket program for less than NASA spends on a single engine.

And as the article says, it’s not simply the cost. Space travel is expensive. I just think NASA could probably do better to spend their money differently. Instead of tying themselves to rocket technology that is 40 years old at its core, they might better spend the money innovating something new that might be more sustainable. And yes, I know some of this decision making is out of NASA’s hands as the U.S. Congress has stipulated (IMHO too much) rules for how to complete the mission ahead of them. So the blame doesn’t fall on NASA alone, but (surprise?) Congress as well.

Advocates for Artemis insist that the program is more than Apollo 2.0. But as we’ll see, Artemis can't even measure up to Apollo 1.0. It costs more, does less, flies less frequently, and exposes crews to risks that the steely-eyed missile men of the Apollo era found unacceptable. It's as if Ford in 2024 released a new model car that was slower, more accident-prone, and ten times more expensive than the Model T.