Ted Cruz: Isaacman in interview commits NASA to getting Americans to Moon fast
In a tweet posted yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) revealed that in his private interview with Jared Isaacman, nominee for the post of NASA administrator, Isaacman “committed to having American astronauts return to the lunar surface ASAP.”
During our meeting, Mr. Isaacman committed to having American astronauts return to the lunar surface ASAP so we can develop the technologies needed to go on to Mars.
The moon mission MUST happen in President Trump’s term or else China will beat us there and build the first moonbase.
Artemis and the Moon-to-Mars Program are critical for American leadership in space!
It appears Cruz is trying to apply pressure on Isaacman and the Trump administration to not cancel SLS, as has been rumored for months. Though SLS and Orion have numerous issues, being too costly and cumbersome with risky designs that threaten the lives of any astronauts on board, cancelling them would likely delay any American manned mission to the Moon for several years, possibly allowing China to get there first.
We shall get a better idea of this situation at Isaacman’s nomination hearing, scheduled for tomorrow.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
In a tweet posted yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) revealed that in his private interview with Jared Isaacman, nominee for the post of NASA administrator, Isaacman “committed to having American astronauts return to the lunar surface ASAP.”
During our meeting, Mr. Isaacman committed to having American astronauts return to the lunar surface ASAP so we can develop the technologies needed to go on to Mars.
The moon mission MUST happen in President Trump’s term or else China will beat us there and build the first moonbase.
Artemis and the Moon-to-Mars Program are critical for American leadership in space!
It appears Cruz is trying to apply pressure on Isaacman and the Trump administration to not cancel SLS, as has been rumored for months. Though SLS and Orion have numerous issues, being too costly and cumbersome with risky designs that threaten the lives of any astronauts on board, cancelling them would likely delay any American manned mission to the Moon for several years, possibly allowing China to get there first.
We shall get a better idea of this situation at Isaacman’s nomination hearing, scheduled for tomorrow.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Yes, increasingly, I think Artemis II and Artemis III, at least, are going to be saved in their present form (i.e., with SLS and Orion). I think this is a terrible idea, but the Starship flight setbacks, and the political dynamic on the Hill (evidenced yet again in the tweet you link), make this more and more likely.
Maybe the best we can hope for is that they get killed after Artemis III.
It leaves open the question as to whether we can return to the Moon “fast” without needing the SLS.
We can’t return to the Moon without the lander and propellant depot. So, given that, is there a way of returning to the Moon without using the SLS? We can safely launch the crew to LEO in a Dragon capsule. Dock that with fully refueled Starship and that vehicle could transport the crew to another fully fueled HLS at NHRO or equal. Transfer the crew. Do Artemis 2 or 3. Ascend back up and transfer the crew into the first Starship and propulsively return crew to LEO. From there they can return to Earth in the Dragon.
The bigger question- to me – is how fast we can get to the moon WITH SLS?
Is there any amount of money that can be thrown at SLS that would get us there before the early 2030’s?
And today, Katie Britt (R-AL), former chief of staff to Richard Shelby, carried on his proud Alabama tradition in her meeting with Isaacman:
https://twitter.com/SenKatieBritt/status/1909733030568284388
”The bigger question- to me – is how fast we can get to the moon WITH SLS? Is there any amount of money that can be thrown at SLS that would get us there before the early 2030’s?”
SLS is not the holdup for returning to the moon.
There’s an SLS stacked on the MLP waiting for its payload. SLS is not the holdup for Artemis II. Orion is.
The engines, SRBs, and upper stage for the next SLS are done, and the next core stage will be done by the end of this year if NASA doesn’t slow it down. SLS is not the holdup for Artemis III. Starship is.
This hateful obsession over SLS is not helping anything.
Gary – I would suggest that it is not just large sums of money that has to be added to the budget to try to get us to the moon before the early (or late) 2030’s. The other element that has to be addressed is risk tolerance. Any chance to get us to the moon by approximately 2030 (much less than 5 years away!) needs to adjust the risk dial up substantially.
I’ve said this on this site in a few posts, at a minimum we need to dial up our risk tolerance to Gemini or Apollo program and if we really want to get to the moon BY or BEFORE 2030, we need to set the dial to Mercury program risk levels.
While I agree with mkent that SLS hardware is at the Cape ready to stack, it is less clear to me the status of the Orion system and I am very skeptical that there is any hardware for a lander (except vaguely Starship) that is beyond the industry trade show model phase. Any hope for a Lander to appear, again, requires dialing up the risk dial significantly, along with the standard cry of “more money!”.
Of course, we could move the dial way up and do the modern equivalent of this idea:
https://www.wired.com/2012/04/one-way-space-man-1962/
Robert – Along with my comments to Gary and mkent about risk tolerance and going to the moon, I would add this as another exhibit of higher risk tolerance which was explored in the past:
Lunar Gemini: http://www.astronautix.com/g/geminilunargemini.html
Along this line, I propose Lunar Dragon which, I believe, could be very similar to Red Dragon that was toyed with for an (unmanned) Mars Lander.
Considering that DOGE has already recommended an early shuttering of ISS but has not yet made any recommendations regarding SLS, Orion, or Artemis, I think we would be right to consider that SLS is likely to survive at least through the next manned landing on the Moon.
mkent’s point is correct. Orion is the long pole holding up this circus-clown show, at least this time. SLS is merely the expensive portion of the show. Some people may be conflating the two vehicles, then using the term “SLS” instead of “Orion-SLS.” I’m not sure that the obsession with SLS is hateful, but those who prefer its cancellation want to save the good money that is following the bad money already spent on it.
Gary asked: “The bigger question- to me – is how fast we can get to the moon WITH SLS?”
Near the end of last year, Robert Zimmerman made the point that America should stop fixating on returning man to the Moon and work harder on long-term goals that explore the solar system and expand us into it.
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/part-2-of-2-de-emphasize-a-fast-moon-landing-and-build-a-real-american-space-industry-instead/
We have already put man on the Moon, so do we have to do it again as another space race (which we already won) or do we want any manned lunar base that we make to be a part of a larger plan and strategy for exploring and spreading out into the solar system? There is already one company that is determined to put man on Mars, and at least one other company seriously interested in mining asteroids. Perhaps mining on the Moon will help with one or both of these companies’ goals, and if so, then maybe another company should begin finding ways to mine the Moon.
How much do we really need another government project for landing a man on the Moon?
Realistically, it seems that Congress still wants to spend money on the SLS rocket, which they designed, so we may be stuck with this boondoggle for the next few years. They are, after all, the ones who decide how the U.S. government (mis)spends our tax money, and the Supreme Court ruled that the president is required to spend the money as Congress’s budget/spending-plan directs, without modification.
”Along this line, I propose Lunar Dragon which, I believe, could be very similar to Red Dragon that was toyed with for an (unmanned) Mars Lander.”
About the time SpaceX was pitching Red Dragon there was also talk of a so-called Silver Dragon for lunar landings. I’m not sure the numbers add up for using a Dragon as a lunar lander, but I’d support using it for an Earth-to-Gateway vehicle. That would enable us to eliminate both SLS and Orion in the mid term by replacing them with something better, not by destacking an existing vehicle.
The reason to get rid of SLS is because it’s too expensive for what it does, not because it won’t work or won’t be ready on time.
Edward: Thank you for mentioning my essay from the fall. It seems like always that that essay has been forgotten.
I am reading this thread with increasing frustration. Why are my very intelligent readers spending time trying to improvise a stunt-like return to the Moon that will do little good in the long run for the American space effort, and is also very likely to be stupidly risky?
Watching a bit of the Isaacman hearing this morning, and it’s profoundly depressing listening to Ted Cruz flogging the idea of a stunt-like return to the Moon — because we gotta beat the Chinese. He tried hard to beat full agreement out of poor Jared.
Ted even had his staff whip up an AI poster of Chinese taikonauts standing on the Moon. Quelle horreur! Ted was born 30 years too late.
Under pressure from Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jared basically endorses the Artemis II mission, as is, so it sounds like he’s willing to support at least one or two more SLS/Orion missions. But then he adds a stab: “Why did it take so long and why does it cost so much?”
Jared is better at dancing around the questions than I expected. I expect he’s been heavily coached, but he’s clearly quick on his feet.
Robert – I am hurt (no not really) that you say I have embraced stunts. Please hear me out.
First – Edward, Gary, mkent (everyone really) this has been an excellent conversation. Thank you.
Especially Edward for the great summary of the conversation and his reference to Robert’s excellent essay(that I have NOT forgotten). To those of us that have been raised on Heinlein, Clarke, Clement & Caidin, who want to “make humans interplanetary”, the long term way IS the way to go.
We are in agreement dear, generous host. Still, I see the sands remaining in the hour glass to be fewer and seeming to run faster. You must understand my impatience.
But the conversation kicked off with Richard M observing that it seemed unlikely that SLS would be killed until after Artemis III. Then Doug wondered about getting to the moon without SLS & Orion. Finally Gary’s question about “How fast to the moon WITH SLS & Orion and that kicked off my comments.
NASA says in the website: “SLS is the only rocket that can send Orion, astronauts, and cargo directly to the Moon in a single launch.” That is not wrong but somewhat of an artifice.
SLS Block I carries the interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS). With ICPS and the stages below, Orion can reach a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO). It could not, as I understand and have done simple DeltaV calculations enter an Apollo type LLO orbit and it certainly does not have sufficient payload to boost a Lander and Orion as Apollo did. Hence, Gateway. Someday in the future (we’re spending money!) there will be an SLS Block II with an Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) to replace the ICPS. Development and testing is moving glacially but money is burning voraciously.
All that and SLS is still a dead end to major “make humanity interplanetary (MHI)” operations no matter how NASA puffs.
Starship is moving very fast but still has to prove many more steps to make it ready to take material (much less humans) beyond LEO.
.
So how to answer Gary’s question? My answer: Money and turn up the risk dial and get hardware faster.
That approach could be taken on Starship as well. I think if you did that to Starship, it would be less of a stunt and more of an early demonstration of the MHI system. But if I said that I would not be answering Gary’s question and some on the site would accuse me of being a “Starship fan boy”. Hence my observations.
I walked my grandchildren on the decks of the Mayflower II in Plymouth a few weeks ago and walked through the recreated colony street. Those were brave, tough people, I have consistently said here that for humans to go into space permanently: WE MUST BE BRAVER.
Beat the Chinese” ? Heck we may need to beat the Indians, I like their approach. It is MUCH more sensible than Artemis architecture Do we need to beat anybody? Maybe not. I refer to Caidin’s book: No Man’s World which shows one fictional scenario where it mattered in an alternate Apollo world. Check it out.
In any case, that darn hour glass won’t stop dropping sand.
Thanks for everything and everybody.
Cruz is just campaigning for Houston area NASA jobs. He doesn’t have some intellectual or philosophical commitment to SLS/Artemis. Just another unipartybjovs program.
DT,
Just to clarify (and I may have misread you): The reason why the Orion cannot insert into (or back out of) a low lunar orbit (LLO) is not because of SLS limitations, but the limited delta-v of its own service module. Orion is a remarkably underpowered spacecraft, with only an AJ10 engine and only 8,600kg of N2O4 / Aerozine 50 propellant. I am afraid that the outsized mass of the command module (which has half again the habitable volume of the Apollo CSM!) dictated that. In the original context of Constellation, it would have been bearable, because the Altair lunar lander would have supplied the necessary delta-v to insert into lunar orbit (LOI). So once thoughts turned once again to sending Orion to lunar orbit in the late 2010’s, they ended up looking at higher, lower energy orbits, and they settled on this Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit. The upside of NRHO is that it is nearly always line of sight with both the South Pole and Earth and requires very little orbital correction maneuvering; the downside is that the orbital period lasts almost a week, so any crew on the surface has only one window every 6-7 days to rendezvous with their ride home. That, and any lander obviously needs more delta-v to get to and from the surface from NRHO than LLO.
The reason, therefore, why the SLS is being upgraded with the more powerful Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) is that…well, it was a capability mandated by Congress, but more specifically it would allow co-manifesting some other payload with the Orion. Specifically, various modules for the Gateway station. That and the fact that ULA no longer even manufactures Delta IV upper stages (which is what the ICPS really is). So SLS needs a new upper stage after Artemis III no matter what, because NASA only acquired 3 ICPS stages.
Starship, of course, suffers from none of these limitations. Unfortunately, as we saw in today’s hearing, SLS still has a bigger fan club in the United States Senate than Starship does.
More specifically, he’s campaigning to protect JSC’s Mission Control (MCC-H), which would have nothing to do if it did not have a space station in continuous operation. Thus, why Cruz has been so fierce in advocacy for ISS, and ISS mission extensions out to 2030; and likewise, why he sticks up for Gateway, which even though it will only be man-tended, would still entail Mission Control oversight.
(Yes, it is also true that the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility would get some action out of Artemis Moon missions, too; but presumably they’d get some role in handling any samples we got back from Mars missions, too.)
But I think there is some sincere “national greatness” motivation at work for his constant talk about beating the Chinese back to the Moon. I think he actually believes in that, but he also believes it plays well on the road.
Richard M – My investigation was to take the data that I could find at NASA & Contractor websites and on sites like Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Astronautix. I admit that I kept Orion capability fixed and looked at final DV of the ICPS needed to get to LLO. I agree that the Orion SM is underperforming.
Your observations about Cruz (my Senator) are true IMO.
My main hope remains that somebody, probably Musk, can bring the cost of placing large payloads into LEO to a low enough price that it enables someone or some consortiums, besides the government, to sponsor exploration and that these consortiums or individuals can make their own decisions about the risk that they will assume.
Great discussion.
Robert Zimmerman,
“Thank you for mentioning my essay from the fall. It seems like always that that essay has been forgotten.”
You are welcome. You had promised that we would be surprised by your conclusion, and you were correct. It is a fascinating essay that points in a new direction. Unfortunately, we are not yet exploring that direction.
The second part of your essay recommends that Artemis focus on a more general topic: competition and free enterprise. This is a difficult topic for us to discuss. It is a general topic and is more for a readership of entrepreneurs. What is it that We the People want from our space exploration, and how can free enterprise supply for a profit what We will buy? A fascinating topic, but difficult to predict. Since this topic does not come up much here on Behind The Black, your essay gets lost in the fog of all the other topics we discuss, and it may be slipping down the memory hole.
What your readers know is the hardware that is available or in development, the rest is fantasy, so we tend to stick to the comfortable topics that utilize the available hardware, and returning man to the Moon is a topic that much hardware is being developed for. Perhaps you need a new general category similar to “Points of Information” or a topic like “Cool Image Time,” in which your posts look more toward the future or look more toward competition and free enterprise in space, something beyond your topic of “Capitalism in Space.” A general category or topic that keeps the spirit of your essay alive and fresh in everyone’s mind, maybe something titled: “Points of Prediction,” or “Entrepreneurism in Space,” or “Where is Space Taking Us?”
As We the People begin to develop our own “space program” that is outside of the various governmental space programs, the direction that our competitive free enterprise goes will start being obvious. There is a commercial attempt to colonize Mars; will it succeed and where would that take us? There are commercial attempts to mine asteroids; how can that affect space travel, space colonization, and earthly activities? Would Blue Origin or other companies settle the Moon without Artemis, and if so how does that affect space exploration and human society?
Your essay opens a rift into another time: the future of space enterprise and the competition to dominate it. Maybe we should stick our heads into the rift and explore some possibilities.
“I am reading this thread with increasing frustration. Why are my very intelligent readers spending time trying to improvise a stunt-like return to the Moon that will do little good in the long run for the American space effort, and is also very likely to be stupidly risky?”
Excellent question, and I have a couple of thoughts:
I think that we have a tendency to stick to the topic, occasionally distracting ourselves with related topics. If the topic is SLS, we fixate on SLS. I wouldn’t call it an obsession, but we are disappointed that the expensive SLS looks like it will survive the Trump administration, unless the Chinese land their man on the Moon before Artemis does.
Your readers could see the return to the Moon as a problem to solve, and how can we resist the temptation to solve such a juicy problem?