NASA's majestic new rocket soared into space for the first time in the early hours of Wednesday, lighting up the night sky and speeding on a journey that will take an astronauts-less capsule around the moon and back
This flight is a crucial test for NASA's Artemis program that aims to put astronauts back on the moon.
The team at the Kennedy Space Center was told after the launch that they were all part of something special. It was the first launch of Artemis. The first step in getting our country back to the moon.
The mission will lead to a new era of lunar exploration, one that seeks to uncover scientific mysteries in the shadows of craters in the polar regions, test technologies for dreamed-of journeys to Mars and spur private enterprise to chase new entrepreneurial frontiers farther out in the solar system.
Wednesday's launch highlights a growing tension about how America should pursue its space ambitions as China and other countries are vying to explore space. NASA has spent tens of billions of dollars to get Artemis off the ground. The space program is similar to the way the Pentagon builds aircraft carriers and F-35 fighters because there is no commercial market for the kinds of large rockets and deep-space transports that NASA considers to be necessary.
The alternative approach, where NASA would be a customer or passenger on a commercial spaceship, could be cheaper and quicker.
Charles Miller, who worked at NASA from 2009 to 2012 as a senior adviser for commercial space activities, said that if you were serious about going back to the moon, you would just go all-in.
The commercial approach may not provide what NASA and other government decision makers want, and companies can often change their plans.
The 322-foot- tall rocket, known as the Space Launch System, or S.L.S., was an imposing sight on the launch pad. The Florida Space Coast wasn't as crowded with spectators as it had been for previous launches.
There were two scrubbed launch attempts in August and September, one of which was halted by an engine that appeared to be too warm. Hurricane Ian caused NASA to skip another launch window in late September and early October, and Hurricane Nicole delayed the launch by a few days.
There was a hydrogen leak in a new location that happened at about 9:00 p.m. Two technicians and a safety officer went to the launch pad to tighten bolts on a valve that was leaking.
Data from a radar needed to track the rocket was cut off due to a faulty switch. The Kennedy Space Center's safety equipment was replaced by the U.S. Space Force, which ensured the safety of the launches.
The rocket was ready to go to space, according to a final poll.
Four engines on the rocket's core stage and two skinnier side boosters exploded at 1:45 a.m. The vehicle slipped Earth's bonds as the clamps held the rocket down.
The engines were on fire at liftoff.
The NASA administrator said that they had never seen such a tail of flame.
The sound of the rocket hitting the ground was heard across the space center.
The side boosters and the giant core stage separated. The upper engine of the rocket started to burn up as it was being used to carry the capsule to its final destination.
Less than two hours after the launch, the upper stage fired one last time to send the spaceship on its way to the moon. The moon will be within 60 miles on Monday. After going around the moon for a couple of weeks, Orion will return to Earth on December 11 in the Pacific Ocean.
John Honeycutt, the program manager for the Space Launch System rocket, spoke at a news conference after the launch.
The Artemis mission, which is to take four astronauts on a journey around the moon but not to the surface, will launch no earlier than 24 years from now. Artemis III, in which two astronauts will land near the moon's south pole, is currently scheduled for 2025.
NASA would have spent more than $90 billion on the program by the time Artemis III returned from the moon, and each launch of the Space Launch System would cost more than $4 billion, according to a report by the NASA inspector general. Technical problems, mismanagement and NASA's changing plans and schedules are to blame for the cost overruns. The Space Launch System rocket is only used once before it falls into the ocean.
The associate program manager at NASA for the Space Launch System said during an interview in August that they hoped to get it to a cost of $2 billion per launch.
The S.L.S. costs $90 million per launch, while the Falcon Heavy costs $90 million per launch. Mr. Musk has said that a launch could cost as little as $10 million.
NASA has taken a mix and match approach for Artemis, with a traditional program for the rocket and crew capsule and a commercial strategy for the lunar landers. NASA is buying a flight of Starship from SpaceX at a fixed price to be used in the Artemis III mission. Two astronauts are to be taken to the surface near the moon's south pole by the spaceship.
The delays and cost overruns of S.L.S. highlight the weaknesses of how NASA has managed its programs, but Mr. Musk's company, for all of the impressive technological leaps it has made so far, is not guaranteed to solve all the development challenges of Starship.
NASA invested in his company to take cargo and astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The cargo contract gave a key boost to Mr. Musk's company and gave NASA's approval when it was still relatively unknown. Satellite-launching is now dominated by it.
This was a huge victory for NASA. NASA is just one of many customers for the company.
It is not certain that Starship will succeed. NASA risks leaving the U.S. if it stumbles on its gamble on the company's new spaceship.
The Planetary Society, a nonprofit that promotes exploration of space, believes that the cost of Artemis may be the cost of political support for a space program in a federal democracy. If Artemis is not the best design, it still provides jobs to employees of NASA and other companies. Political support for the moon program is still provided by that.
The congress has added more money to Artemis every year since it was founded.
When politicians vote to finance Artemis missions, there has been little or no public uproar. Even if it saved NASA money, the commercial approach could provoke greater opposition because of the perception that the agency has outsourced its space program to billionaires.
Consider the ire of many people towards Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson when they made suborbital trips to space. The anger that space seemed to be turning into was not soothed by the fact that space tourism businesses were not reliant on federal financing.
It could be argued that NASA was just adding to the wealth of billionaires who would one day escape from worldly troubles to private space stations and off-world colonies.
It could be the bigger political risk if we align our space program with very famous individuals.
Commercial space advocates don't think history backs up this view. They point to entrepreneurs a century ago who changed aviation from a luxury to a safe, affordable transportation option for everyone.
Congress has yet to push for the cancellation of S.L.S. The law signed by President Biden called for NASA to include vehicles in its plans to send astronauts to Mars and to launch S.L.S. at least once a year.
Up to 20 more launches are being negotiated by NASA.
The program is likely to be politically sustainable according to Mr. Dreier. People are challenged to show me the public anger about the S.L.S. program and how it affects politics. I don't think it's right.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
