In my typical week, I spend a fair amount of bandwidth just deflecting the overwhelming volume of pixels gushing into my inbox and news feeds. By necessity and in the interest of survival, I skip past much of it.
We are in a space race for the high ground and the public has yet to really understand what is at stake yet. China’s space program is moving extremely rapidly. Heck, they put up their own space station in just a couple of years and have already brought back moon rocks using robotic systems. Their rate of orbital rocket launches has increased exponentially. China recently stated that it plans to overtake NASA in the exploration of the moon and Mars. They are well on their way to doing just that and in doing so, achieving dominance of the high ground.
Hi Paul! Love the columns you publish here.
I’d like to leave some thoughts and comments on your SLS column.
NASA was tasked to build a successor to the Shuttle, which was Constellation. No matter anyone’s politics, it was cancelled due to its costs. The task wasn’t, so NASA had no choice but to see what was on the shelf. That’s how we got Artemis, but that’s not NASA’s fault. It’s our political system.
At the same time, the nation has decided that a space program that includes human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars is necessary. This mandate has been upheld by successive Administrations. One big reason is that the nation needs to maintain the core of experienced people who know how to build heavy lift vehicles. That knowledge is perishable, as we learned with Apollo.
Another reason is that as successful as SpaceX has been, Starship has yet to be flown into LEO, much less to the Moon. Until it has many successful flights (including carrying humans) to the Moon at least, there are no guarantees that it can do the job. What if after all the money and effort, it can’t live up to its promise? It wouldn’t be the first program that has happened to over the years. I’d love to see it succeed, but Starship might not. We just don’t know yet. Besides, looking at Elon Musk and his recent debacle at Twitter, I’m not sure I have full confidence in him. At the risk of a bad pun, he’s mercurial. “Moving fast and breaking things” isn’t a great philosophy when human lives are at stake.
Whether we like it or not, NASA does have the core capabilities in building human rated boosters and spacecraft. The “belt and suspenders” approach is expensive, but I think it’s warranted with NASA and SpaceX for now.
Thank the Catholic Church for not only preseving great knowledge through the dark ages, the scientist priests, the teaching hospitals through the last centuries, but also the Catholic named Gallileo for his work.
For perspective, in the last few years we’ve seen “the science” willing to persecute any and all non-believers, LOL. Eventually the truth stands on it’s own and “deniers” can take solace in being right.
Hi Paul,
I Love and follow everything SpaceX. But . . . There’s a human factors issue that may be much bigger than they realize. Their dependence upon a Starship retro rocket landing. Whole bunch of folks onboard sans wings or parachutes. All streaking toward the ground with fingers n toes crossed hoping a Raptor or two lights up at the last instant. Perhaps like base jumping with a parachute? Likely only a few folks are gonna sign up for that. Not hearing many talk about this.
Four days into a PB story and only four comments … WOW! THIS is a record in the wrong direction!!
“Four days into a PB story and only four comments … WOW! THIS is a record in the wrong direction!!”
Only bubbled up for me today - 24th
–
LOFTID - I saw that - looks great. Didn’t background read this. What’s the benefit? I’m assuming it is lighter for diameter than lugging a lump of resin or tiles into space? So it improves payload.
Now - you landed on Mars using a LOFTID and want to come home. Do you repack the LOFTID for reuse? Where do you find a qualified rigger on Mars to repack it? Will there be a certificated repair kit to fix any minor damage before repacking? Will there be a reserve? 
One variation on the inflatable heat-shield was used in the movie 2010 (sequel to 2001 - actually released in 1984) - used for aerobraking rather than re-entry, but the principle is the same. If you read “Escaping Gravity” by Lori Garver, it will confirm your assertion as to why SLS is what it is. The replacement value of one of the RS-25 engines is about the same as an entire Falcon Heavy launch - but the SLS is a political vehicle more than it is a space vehicle.
I have made this comment before, especially to younger colleagues. Back when Kennedy made his famous speech, few believed it could really be done, especially on that timeline. In 1969, when I watched Armstrong make his historic first step, few believed we wouldn’t soon have permanent colonies on the moon. Now, more than 50 years later, … well, we are a strange species. I hope this time, the adventure truly continues.
Well done NASA.
I wonder if the irony of using the worlds first throttleable, relightable, and reusable rocket engines in a totally disposable booster is lost on anyone?
As successful as SLS has been, it has yet to be flown into LLO, much less to Mars. Until it has many successful flights (including carrying humans) to Lunar orbit at least, there are no guarantees that it can do the job. What if after all the money and effort, it can’t live up to its promise? It wouldn’t be the first program that has happened to over the years. I’d love to see it succeed, but it might not. We just don’t know yet.
Whether we like it or not, SpaceX does have the core capabilities in building human rated boosters and spacecraft.
Wow! A typical “Techie” Bertorelli essay. Loved it all. Best statement: “…money well spent…”
Tough holidays. ?
Throw that kind of cash at private enterprise, and all of you will be able to book a flight to take your shovel and bucket to collect your own Martian dust!