Latest news with #Apollo-style
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - What a commercial crewed moon mission could look like
Sometime in the near future, if all goes well, a billion or more video screens will show the image of a stainless-steel tower on the lunar surface, the Starship Human Landing System. Then, a close-up of the elevator will follow, bearing two space-suited astronauts from the crew compartment to the base of the lander. The two astronauts will discuss the landscape before them and the condition of the lander, especially the landing legs. Then will come the big moment. One of the astronauts will put boots on the lunar surface and will say something profound for the billions watching. For the first time since Apollo 17 in December 1972, humans from the planet Earth will walk on the moon. It will be the beginning of an era of lunar exploration. But, as a recent piece in Ars Technica suggests, it will be the end of an era of Apollo-style voyages of exploration. It will be the last mission of the heavy lift, uber-expensive Space Launch System and (at least in its current form) the Orion spacecraft, flying in lunar orbit as the scene we just presented takes place. The Artemis IV mission will be the first of what can best be called Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services. Just as travel to and from low Earth orbit has gone commercial, so will voyages to and from the moon. According to Ars Technica, 'Under the [Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services] model, NASA provides funding and guidance to private companies to develop their own spacecraft, rockets, and services, and then buys those at a 'market' rate.' The Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services would be far more complex than the original commercial crew. 'Sources indicate NASA would go to industry and seek an 'end-to-end' solution for lunar missions. That is, an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth.' SpaceX is an obvious contender for a Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services contract. In the scenario we have presented, the Starship Human Landing System will already have been proven. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, with its Blue Moon lunar lander under development and the heavy-lift New Glenn, would be another. Other companies will no doubt step forward. The advantage of going the commercial route is that it makes lunar exploration, especially the creation of a lunar base, sustainable. Commercial Orbital Transfer Services and Commercial Crew have reduced the cost of operating the International Space Station and promise to enable the creation of commercial space stations that are planned to replace the ISS. The same applies to the moon. Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services will likely allow visits of private astronauts to the moon, just as Commercial Crew (like Jared Isaacman's Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn flights) enabled private visits to low Earth orbit. The disadvantage of the commercial approach is entirely political. Progressive politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have occupied a lot of breath and bandwidth slamming tech billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos for spending money on space exploration. A few years ago, Sanders declared, 'I am concerned that NASA has become little more than an ATM machine to fuel a space race not between the U.S. and other countries, but between the two wealthiest men in America — Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.' The senator went on to decry the very idea of mining asteroids for their vast mineral wealth. He suggested that commercializing space exploration would allow people like Musk and Bezos to hoard that wealth, displaying a misunderstanding of how free-market capitalism works. If Artemis III takes place in the waning days of the second Trump administration, the first commercial crewed lunar flight will likely take place in the early days of the next presidency. Considering that the Democrats are talking about running Sanders's protégé, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), for president in 2028, Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services may become an issue in that election. Vice President JD Vance, or whoever the Republicans run in that year, had best be ready. Jared Isaacman, the moment he is sworn in as NASA administrator, should get the ball rolling for Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services. The commercial lunar program is vital for the establishment of a lunar base, an immediate priority for NASA and its commercial and international partners. The process of commercializing travel to the moon and back could be a lengthy one. Commercial Crew took 10 years between the first proposals in 2011 and the first flight of the Crew Dragon in 2021. Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services should not take that long, four or five years at most, if everything goes right. Thus, human civilization will extend across space to the surface of the moon. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond'and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
What a commercial crewed moon mission could look like
Sometime in the near future, if all goes well, a billion or more video screens will show the image of a stainless-steel tower on the lunar surface, the Starship Human Landing System. Then, a close-up of the elevator will follow, bearing two space-suited astronauts from the crew compartment to the base of the lander. The two astronauts will discuss the landscape before them and the condition of the lander, especially the landing legs. Then will come the big moment. One of the astronauts will put boots on the lunar surface and will say something profound for the billions watching. For the first time since Apollo 17 in December 1972, humans from the planet Earth will walk on the moon. It will be the beginning of an era of lunar exploration. But, as a recent piece in Ars Technica suggests, it will be the end of an era of Apollo-style voyages of exploration. It will be the last mission of the heavy lift, uber-expensive Space Launch System and (at least in its current form) the Orion spacecraft, flying in lunar orbit as the scene we just presented takes place. The Artemis IV mission will be the first of what can best be called Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services. Just as travel to and from low Earth orbit has gone commercial, so will voyages to and from the moon. According to Ars Technica, 'Under the [Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services] model, NASA provides funding and guidance to private companies to develop their own spacecraft, rockets, and services, and then buys those at a 'market' rate.' The Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services would be far more complex than the original commercial crew. 'Sources indicate NASA would go to industry and seek an 'end-to-end' solution for lunar missions. That is, an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth.' SpaceX is an obvious contender for a Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services contract. In the scenario we have presented, the Starship Human Landing System will already have been proven. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, with its Blue Moon lunar lander under development and the heavy-lift New Glenn, would be another. Other companies will no doubt step forward. The advantage of going the commercial route is that it makes lunar exploration, especially the creation of a lunar base, sustainable. Commercial Orbital Transfer Services and Commercial Crew have reduced the cost of operating the International Space Station and promise to enable the creation of commercial space stations that are planned to replace the ISS. The same applies to the moon. Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services will likely allow visits of private astronauts to the moon, just as Commercial Crew (like Jared Isaacman's Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn flights) enabled private visits to low Earth orbit. The disadvantage of the commercial approach is entirely political. Progressive politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have occupied a lot of breath and bandwidth slamming tech billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos for spending money on space exploration. A few years ago, Sanders declared, 'I am concerned that NASA has become little more than an ATM machine to fuel a space race not between the U.S. and other countries, but between the two wealthiest men in America — Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.' The senator went on to decry the very idea of mining asteroids for their vast mineral wealth. He suggested that commercializing space exploration would allow people like Musk and Bezos to hoard that wealth, displaying a misunderstanding of how free-market capitalism works. If Artemis III takes place in the waning days of the second Trump administration, the first commercial crewed lunar flight will likely take place in the early days of the next presidency. Considering that the Democrats are talking about running Sanders's protégé, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), for president in 2028, Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services may become an issue in that election. Vice President JD Vance, or whoever the Republicans run in that year, had best be ready. Jared Isaacman, the moment he is sworn in as NASA administrator, should get the ball rolling for Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services. The commercial lunar program is vital for the establishment of a lunar base, an immediate priority for NASA and its commercial and international partners. The process of commercializing travel to the moon and back could be a lengthy one. Commercial Crew took 10 years between the first proposals in 2011 and the first flight of the Crew Dragon in 2021. Lunar Commercial Orbital Transfer Services should not take that long, four or five years at most, if everything goes right. Thus, human civilization will extend across space to the surface of the moon. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond'and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
New York Post
03-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Now is the time for NASA to blast into a new future — after slowing to a crawl
To ensure the future of spaceflight, NASA must stop building rockets. That counterintuitive notion is borne out by the agency's sad post-Apollo history. For the past 50 years, America's dreams of space exploration have been stymied by NASA's failure to build an affordable, reliable launch system. Today, the private sector builds rockets faster, cheaper, and better. Advertisement 5 Getty Images Ending the agency's sclerotic rocket-building program will be the first of many challenges facing Jared Isaacman, President Trump's nominee to be NASA administrator, who is expected to be confirmed. America's space program has slowed to a crawl in recent decades, hobbled by cost overruns and lax management. This is a bad time for US space policy to stumble. China is launching missions at a record pace and vows to put its taikonauts on the moon by 2030. If China beats the US back to the moon, 'they are going to write the rules of the road up there,' warned Texas Congressman Brian Babin in January. Advertisement NASA's biggest obstacle to progress is its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and conjoined Orion capsule. This huge, Apollo-style program was intended to carry US astronauts back to the moon. Unfortunately, the SLS rocket is years behind schedule and billions over budget. Unlike the reusable rockets being pioneered by SpaceX and other private-sector companies, the SLS is entirely expendable, meaning all the rocket's components must be discarded during each flight, at enormous expense. NASA's inspector general estimates each SLS/Orion mission will cost over $4 billion. 5 If China beats the US back to the moon, 'they are going to write the rules of the road up there,' warned Texas Congressman Brian Babin. Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press Wire / Advertisement No wonder space analysts call the program 'a national disgrace.' There's got to be a better way to get US astronauts to the moon and beyond. And there is. Two decades ago, innovative NASA leaders quietly launched a program that pays private space companies, principally SpaceX, so far, to ferry US astronauts and cargo into orbit using their own space vehicles. In essence, NASA's commercial program allows the agency to hire space vehicles much the way a sports team might charter a bus. Congress went along with the commercial plan only grudgingly. The House and Senate insisted that NASA invest much more in the SLS/Orion project, whose enormous workforces just happen to be located in powerful lawmakers' home states. 5 Jared Isaacman, a former Polaris space mission commander, is set to be approved as the next leader of NASA. REUTERS Advertisement NASA's commercial experiment, meanwhile, has largely been a success; SpaceX rockets carry astronauts to the International Space Station like clockwork, saving US taxpayers billions. And by giving private launch companies an initial market, NASA's commercial space program helped spawn a promising private spaceflight industry. Congress should stop fighting over SLS pork and let NASA embrace the capabilities these revolutionary vendors offer. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Isaacman said he wouldn't shut down the SLS program overnight, but warned that the overpriced rocket is not the best 'long-term way to get to and from the moon and Mars.' He said the SLS should be allowed to fly its next two planned missions, including a moon landing. That's the right call. It is unlikely NASA and its private partners could cobble together an alternative lunar plan in the short term. 5 NASA's Nova-C lunar lander launching from a SpaceX rocket in February 2025. NASA's reliance on private rocket launchers makes sense for the cost-challenged agency. CRISTOBAL HERRERA-ULASHKEVICH/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock But once US boots touch lunar soil again, the agency should get out of the rocket-building business for good. SpaceX and other vendors will be able to send crews and supplies to the moon — and eventually to Mars — for a fraction of what NASA would spend using its own equipment. Freed from the need to build expensive space vehicles, the agency will have more resources to devote to genuine exploration and technological research. Then, NASA should be restructured to focus on what it does best: basic R&D, mission planning, and space science. To achieve all this, the new administrator will have to win over skittish NASA staffers, convince Congress to stop micromanaging NASA programs, and cope with curveballs from the White House. Apparently, without consulting their nominee, the Trump administration recently proposed 50% cuts in NASA's robotic science missions. 5 Thanks to developments such as the Tiangong Space Station, China's space sector is emerging as a rival to NASA. Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0 Advertisement Those programs need more budget discipline, but not a meat-axe. Isaacman told the Senate that such indiscriminate cuts would not be 'an optimal outcome.' It won't be easy, but Isaacman has the right skill set to turn this legendary agency around. No other country can match what the US will accomplish in space if it combines the best of what NASA can offer with the genius of private enterprise. The new administration has a golden opportunity to make that uniquely American formula work. James B. Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the former editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. This article is based on his Manhattan Institute report, 'U.S. Space Policy: The Next Frontier.'
