Elon Musk Calls Out NASA’s Moon Ambitions: ‘We’re Going Straight to Mars’


Although SpaceX founder Elon Musk is known for outspokenness and controversial comments on his social media site X, he has been relatively restrained when it comes to US space policy in recent years.

For example, he has rarely criticized NASA or its overall goal to return humans to the moon through the Artemis program. Rather, Musk, who has long preferred Mars as a destination for humans, has more or less been a team player when it comes to the space agency’s lunar-focused plans.

This is understandable from a financial perspective, as SpaceX has contracts worth billions of dollars to not only build a Human Landing System as part of the Artemis program but also to supply food, cargo, and other logistics services to a planned Lunar Gateway in orbit around the moon.

But privately, Musk has been critical of NASA’s plans, suggesting that the Artemis Program has been moving too slowly and is too reliant on contractors who seek cost-plus government contracts and are less interested in delivering results.

Silent on Policy No Longer

During the past 10 days, Musk has begun airing some of these private thoughts publicly. On Christmas Day, for example, Musk wrote on X, “The Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient, as it is a jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program. Something entirely new is needed.”

Then, on Thursday evening, he added this: “No, we’re going straight to Mars. The moon is a distraction.”

These are definitive statements that directly contradict NASA’s plans to send a series of human missions to the lunar south pole later this decade and establish a sustainable base of operations there with the Artemis program.

It would be one thing if Musk was just expressing his opinion as a private citizen. But since playing a significant part in the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States last year, Musk has assumed an important advisory role for the incoming administration. He was also partly responsible for the expected nomination of private astronaut Jared Isaacman to become the next administrator of NASA. Although Musk is not directing US space policy, he certainly has a meaningful say in what happens.

So What Does This Mean for Artemis?

The fate of Artemis is an important question not just for NASA but for the US commercial space industry, the European Space Agency, and other international partners who have aligned with the return of humans to the moon. With Artemis, the United States is in competition with China to establish a meaningful presence on the surface of the moon.

Based upon conversations with people involved in developing space policy for the Trump administration, I can make some educated guesses about how to interpret Musk’s comments. None of these people, for example, would disagree with Musk’s assertion that “the Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient” and that some changes are warranted.

With that said, the Artemis program is probably not going away. After all, it was the first Trump administration that created the program about five years ago. However, it may be less well-remembered that the first Trump White House pushed for more significant changes, including a “major course correction” at NASA.

“I call on NASA to adopt new policies and embrace a new mindset,” then-vice president Mike Pence said in May 2019. “If our current contractors can’t meet this objective, then we’ll find ones that will.” (Speaking of the vice president, it’s unlikely that the National Space Council will be reconstituted under JD Vance).

NASA Postpones Return of Stranded Starliner Astronauts to March


NASA has again postponed the return to Earth of Barry Wilmore and Sunita Williams, the astronauts stranded on the International Space Station after Boeing’s Starliner capsule malfunctioned in the middle of this year.

The crew of the spacecraft arrived at the ISS in June. The objective was to test the Starliner’s comprehensive capabilities, including launch, docking, and return systems. The mission was scheduled to last one week. Five of the capsule’s 28 thrusters failed to function before docking with the ISS. Boeing claimed that its technology could guarantee the safe return of the astronauts. However, NASA expressed doubts and concluded that the risk was too high. The agency entrusted the task to SpaceX.

Elon Musk’s company launched the Crew-9 mission in September to, among other things, return Williams and Wilmore. Until now, the stalled astronauts were scheduled to return in February aboard the Crew Dragon rocket. However, NASA has announced that it expects the expedition to return to Earth’s surface after the arrival of Crew-10, which will be sent in late March 2025 at the earliest.

The adjustment will allow SpaceX and NASA engineers to finalize development of a new Dragon spacecraft, which will be shipped to the company’s Florida facility early next month.

“Fabrication, assembly, testing, and final integration of a new spacecraft is a painstaking endeavor that requires great attention to detail,” said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, in a statement. “We appreciate the hard work by the SpaceX team to expand the Dragon fleet in support of our missions and the flexibility of the station program and expedition crews as we work together to complete the new capsule’s readiness for flight.”

NASA said that Crew-9 and Crew-10 crews must complete a “handover period,” during which the ISS residents share experiences and knowledge with the new arrivals. This process ensures the proper performance of onboard science experiments and maintenance of the orbital complex.

NASA and SpaceX specialists evaluated several options for coordinating the next crewed delivery. They determined that the March launch for Crew-10 was the “best option for meeting NASA’s requirements and achieving space station objectives for 2025,” according to an agency press release.

A Long Haul

The ISS received two resupply flights in November, ensuring that the crew members have sufficient food, water, clothing, and oxygen. However, some experts have warned of potential health risks for Wilmore and Williams after spending more than nine months in space.

The scientific community has been studying the effects of spaceflight on the human body since the 1970s. In the years since the first lunar landing, it has identified conditions such as loss of bone mass, weakened heart function, visual problems, and the development of kidney stones.

A recent study from University College London reveals that the structure and function of the kidneys can also suffer permanent damage, although this is particularly aggressive in cases of astronauts who get too far away from Earth, which is not the case on the ISS.

NASA points out that the crews of expeditions to the ISS usually make extended stays, with an average duration of six months. It adds that some astronauts have carried out missions of up to one year to contribute to research on human adaptation to spaceflight, with a view to future lunar and Martian exploration.

This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

SpaceX facing FAA review for Starship launches from Kennedy


SpaceX's Starship rocket lifting off in November 2023.
SpaceX

SpaceX currently launches the Starship — the most powerful rocket ever built — from its Starbase facility in Boca Chica, Texas, but it also wants to launch it from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

For that to happen, its plans will first have to be cleared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by way of an environmental review, the agency announced on Friday.

NASA carried out a similar review five years ago and saw no issue with SpaceX launching the Starship from Kennedy, but since then the Elon Musk-led spaceflight company has adjusted its plans for the Starship and its associated infrastructure, prompting the FAA to announce its own review to assess the impact of the launches on the local environment.

Changes to SpaceX’s plan at Kennedy include a greater frequency of launches from 24 per year to as many as 44, and a slightly more powerful rocket design. SpaceX also wants to land the first-stage booster at Launch Complex 39A instead of at Landing Zone 1.

Pumping out a colossal 17 million pounds of thrust at launch — more than double that of the Saturn V rocket that powered the Apollo astronauts toward the moon from the same launch facility five decades ago, and almost twice that of NASA’s next-gen Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, which launched fro the first time in November 2022 — the Starship has a greater chance of disrupting the local environment than any other vehicle that’s launched from Florida’s Space Coast.

The maiden launch of the Starship, which has only flown three times to date, completely destroyed the Starbase launch pad when the force of the engines proved too great as the rocket lifted off. Debris was spread far and wide and into protected wildlife areas, causing consternation among environmentalists. SpaceX responded by building a more robust pad capable of handling subsequent launches.

These days, residents along the Space Coast are used to seeing launches involving SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, which spits out a mere 1.7 million pounds of thrust at launch, as well as the occasional mission by SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, which is three times more powerful. Starship launches, however, will be something else altogether.

Editors’ Recommendations