Loading summary

Transcript184 lines

[00:00]
A
Foreign.
[00:07]
B
Welcome to books. To battles. Where we explore academic insights for real world air and space strategy. I'm Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb, professor of Strategy and Security Studies and Deputy Commandant at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.
[00:18]
A
And I'm Colonel Corey Holland, professor of Strategy and Security Studies, also at sas. Before we get any further, we want to note that all opinions expressed here are ours and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States government. I also want to say, spoiler alert, we're going to spoil the heck out of our topic here. But, Wendy, last week you came and you said, we're going to talk about Artemis. Now, it's a little out of order because Artemis, as we know, is the 2017 sophomore novel by Andy.
[00:48]
B
Weird. Did you happen to see a new movie this weekend?
[00:52]
A
Well, yeah. I mean. So Project Hail Mary is out. It's the third one, so, you know, I understand why we're going to talk about Artemis now.
[00:58]
B
Oh, wrong Artemis.
[01:00]
A
I'm sorry, what?
[01:01]
B
That's the wrong Artemis.
[01:03]
A
Which Artemis are you?
[01:04]
B
I mean, Artemis is a good book. Yeah, I mean, I will grant you that.
[01:07]
A
Yeah, I was struggling as I read it this weekend, trying to figure out how we were going to get to Aaron's place. Strategies.
[01:13]
B
Don't worry about that. That is the wrong Artemis.
[01:16]
A
Which. You're not talking about the Greek goddess either, are you?
[01:19]
B
No, I'm not the brother of Apollo.
[01:21]
A
Yeah.
[01:22]
B
Or the sister of Apollo. Yeah, no, no, we're talking about the mission to the moon.
[01:26]
A
Oh, okay. I should be more excited than I am.
[01:31]
B
Whoops. Well, that's okay, because you. You pretty much embody the public opinion of the United States in terms of Artemis.
[01:38]
A
Also, I'm. I'm living every SAS student's nightmare by having done the wrong kind of homework for the class. All right, well, what is Artemis?
[01:48]
B
Yeah, we're going to talk about Artemis today. And so, first of all, I'll say we are recording this. It is March 30, Monday, March 30, Wednesday, April 1, if all goes according to plan, the United States is going to launch a mission to the moon that is awesome. On Artemis 2. Now, obviously, if they don't get it up Wednesday, we have a launch window of a couple days. But NASA is hoping to send up the first mission to carry humans around the moon towards the moon since Apollo ended in 1972.
[02:20]
A
That is. That is very exciting. So who all are we sending up?
[02:24]
B
Yeah, we are sending up four astronauts. The commander is Reid Wiseman, Victor Glubber is the pilot, Christina Koch mission specialist, and Canada's own Jeremy Hansen as a mission specialist. So we are taking our partners and allies along with us for this.
[02:41]
A
That sounds great. So where are they sitting in the larger program?
[02:44]
B
Yeah. So Artemis is the, the larger name for this program to return the United States to the moon. Roughly 3 1/2 ish years ago, we sent Artemis 1 up and what it was was a uncrewed mission to test out the, the Space Launch System, the sls, the giant rocket that will be you we will be utilizing on several of these missions. And we sent the, we also tested out the Orion crew vehicle on that. We sent it all around the moon on long much the same flight path that Artemis 2 will be following. So we wanted to make sure everything was working right before we put humans on. And it's a good thing we did this because when the capsule returned to Earth, NASA did discover some issues with it.
[03:31]
A
Okay, like what?
[03:32]
B
None that would have actually harmed astronauts, but because the, what NASA was doing to bring the capsule back. Now whenever you're re entering the atmosphere, especially when you're coming from a very long distance, you're coming at, into the atmosphere at a very high rate of speed. Sure. And you're building up a lot of friction, a lot of heat, a lot of plasma around the vehicle. And that's why, you know, the Space shuttle, which everybody is probably most familiar with, had all of the thousands of those black tiles along the bottom of the space shuttle were heat tiles to help protect the crew from that heat. Well, the heat shield on the Orion crew vehicle had a little bit more burn through than NASA engineers had anticipated. And so that is part of the reason why we have had such a long gap between these two miss Because NASA was trying to better understand what happened and what they can do to make it make the system safer.
[04:27]
A
And the heat shield is not like an actual shield, it's more these tiles. And the intention is that those tiles burn away and they insulate what is behind it as it burns away. So some of them are going to burn through at different rates. And you're saying that we had a little bit of an issue with some of them. They burned through at a rate that we weren't anticipating.
[04:52]
B
Correct.
[04:53]
A
Okay, so what have they done to fix it?
[04:56]
B
So they're, they've changed the re entry trajectory a little bit. The capsule will not be coming in as, at as steep an angle as they might have otherwise anticipated. They, they, so they, they've made some Changes mostly to that. But they've really. I think what they really spent time doing is understanding the root cause of the problem so that they have more confidence that what they've done to change it, especially in terms of the trajectory. They're more confident that they understand the problem and are safe with it. So NASA's and this is a. I mean, really big deal for NASA because Columbia, the shuttle Columbia, it disintegrated over Texas in 2003 because of a problem with the tiles. Some insulate insulation from the external fuel tank hit the left wing of the Space Shuttle on a liftoff, and it basically created this massive hole in the heat tiles allow. And then when the Space Shuttle is reentering, it allowed all these superheated gases to get into the Space Shuttle, eventually leading to its destruction. So NASA has a history here, right. And really has tried to, I think, take some time to really understand it, so they have some more confidence in what they're doing.
[06:08]
A
So is the Space Launch System, the sls, is that a NASA heavy lift vehicle?
[06:13]
B
It is.
[06:14]
A
Okay, so this is the first time NASA has stepped back into some kind of lift capability.
[06:22]
B
Right, since the Space Shuttle. But interestingly enough, the SLS is basically shuttle derived.
[06:27]
A
Okay.
[06:28]
B
So NASA has taken essentially the solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank from the Space Shuttle. They've even taken the shuttle's main engines and repurpose them here. So when you look at the sls, there's a big orange core to it that's essentially a much larger version of the external fuel tank from the Space Shuttle.
[06:47]
A
Okay.
[06:48]
B
They also, SLS also has two solid rocket boosters on either side of that orange core. And they are essentially elongated versions of the shuttles, solid rocket boosters. And on the bottom of that center core are repurposed shuttle main engines. So for the most part, the SLS is actually utilizing Space shuttle technology.
[07:08]
A
Okay.
[07:09]
B
So it's something NASA engineers and Boeing, which is the prime contractor on it, we're somewhat familiar with. But like most space projects, it has had its developmental problems.
[07:21]
A
Right. And so as I understand it, Artemis could have launched as early as January.
[07:27]
B
Yeah.
[07:28]
A
But we've February, but we've delayed it.
[07:30]
B
Yes.
[07:31]
A
So what caused the delays?
[07:32]
B
Yeah, so it's been a couple different things. The first time, first launch window opportunity this year, was February. Before that, they rolled the SLS out to the launch pad. They did a, what's called a wet dress rehearsal. And it's basically where they fuel up the rocket and they simulate a countdown all the way to you know, less than a minute just to make sure that everything is working. Everybody knows what they're supposed to do. Unfortunately, that they identified some problems as a part of that, that wet dress rehearsal. And so they had to fix those. In fixing those, they identified more problems. They had to roll the SLS all the way back to the, the vehicle assembly building down at Kennedy, fixed it in there, rolled it back out, and so now here we are. So we missed the February launch window, we missed the March launch window, and now we're into the April launch window.
[08:23]
A
Okay. And so I'm assuming that the latest wet dress rehearsal went well.
[08:27]
B
They didn't do another one. I didn't know. But they are comp. They've done several flight readiness reviews, and they're confident that they know what could happen. They've practiced all that they need to, and they're ready to go.
[08:43]
A
Okay, so I guess what are the changes that you see between the 1972 mission profile? I mean, obviously, landing on the moon in 72 and this is just circumnavigating the moon. But other than that, what are the mission profile changes that we're sort of seeing here?
[09:00]
B
Yeah, so this mission profile is actually more akin to Apollo 13. If anybody remembers Apollo 13. A few of us, or has seen the movie. Yes, at least. And what happened on Apollo 13 is along the way to the moon, there was a problem on the vehicle. There was a small, small. Well, in space, everything's pretty big.
[09:19]
A
Yeah, small explosion.
[09:20]
B
Explosion. The damaged oxygen tanks, fuel tanks, and essentially they could not land on the Moon. But what they decided to do was, was do a free return trajectory around the moon, which is essentially, you get it on a particular orbit so that it goes. So your vehicle goes by the moon, swings out behind it, and the gravity just naturally allows it to return around the moon and then back to Earth. And that is exactly what's going to happen on Artemis 2. So we're going to launch, and then the astronauts in their Orion crew vehicle will be in Earth orbit for a few days, checking everything out, getting their. Their orbit, orbital trajectories correct. And then when everything's ready, they will be go for TLI translunar injection. They'll burn the engines just to get it moving towards the Moon, and they will be on that same trajectory. They're not going to enter lunar orbit. They're going to fly by it, and they're going to fly by the Moon so far that they will then have been the furthest that humans have ever been out past Earth. Okay, so that is a unique thing about this. But they, again, just like Apollo 13, they'll sort of slingshot around the moon just naturally. The gravity and the orbital trajectories work out. So they slingshot around the moon and then find their way. I'd find that they are already on their way back to Earth. So there'll be basically a big figure eight around the moon. And this will allow them to test out the Orion crew vehicle, make sure it's working. But also it's a contingency should anything happen. They don't need their engines, need to burn their engines, let's say something happens to them. Being on this pre return trajectory allows them to naturally return to Earth should anything happen. Okay, so it is a safety mechanism here as well.
[11:03]
A
So what are they hoping to learn from this mission?
[11:07]
B
They're hoping to make sure that the systems work with humans on board. So the Artemis one. I almost said Apollo one.
[11:14]
A
Yeah, that's.
[11:16]
B
No, not that one. Artemis one made sure they worked without humans on board. And this is going to make sure it works with humans on board. And that is a major testing milestone. Because you really want to make sure that works.
[11:27]
A
Yeah, it's kind of important.
[11:29]
B
It's kind of important. And so they'll test that out. And then mostly it's about testing systems, I think at this point, testing procedures, doing some lunar observation when you have that opportunity, when you're, you are in around the moon for a little bit. So they have some different testing milestones. And I think a lot of it, how much of that they get done will sort of depend on how well everything's going. But essentially you're doing a fully operational environmental control and life support system test to make sure that the crew can live on Orion throughout the duration of these missions.
[12:05]
A
So what is the Orion capsule like? So we've got, you know, in my mind I've still, I'm seeing the Apollo program that has the lunar module and then it's got the command module. And the command module sort of looks like a gumdrop shape. And then the lunar module, they call it, you know, the spider at one point and then they were connected by a tunnel. But overall it was very, very cramped quarters for three, you know, grown men to be working in for, you know, a couple of weeks. What I'm imagining that the Orion is modernized version, but it is not much bigger.
[12:43]
B
It's also. It is bigger. Okay, it is bigger. In fact, when the Orion module was first conceived, and this was 2005, 2006, then NASA administered then NASA administrator called this, called it Apollo on steroids.
[12:57]
A
Okay.
[12:58]
B
So if you're thinking about the Apollo capsule, perfect, because just scale it up a little bit bigger and you've got the Orion crew vehicle.
[13:05]
A
All right.
[13:05]
B
Yeah. Now what is different about Artemis is we won't necessarily have a lem, a lunar excursion module. We are actually going to rely on our commercial partners for the landing system that would get us from lunar orbit down to the moon. And in the case of our first landing mission, whichever Artemis mission that will be, that will actually be provided by SpaceX and it will be a modified version of their starship.
[13:32]
A
Okay.
[13:33]
B
That they've gotten, that they're working on right now.
[13:35]
A
But we're not taking the lunar module with us on this trip.
[13:38]
B
No, no, no landing system on this one.
[13:41]
A
Okay, so why did NASA decide to build the SLs themselves as opposed to rely on commercial partners?
[13:49]
B
Oh, now, now you're getting into the politics of it.
[13:52]
A
Well, I'm not trying to get into the politics. I just find it very interesting that they had basically advocated spacelift to commercial partners and now they are stepping back in and going, no, no, we're going to take this one.
[14:04]
B
So this is a fantastic story. And I mean that from the storytelling angle, some, a lot of people, especially in the space community, we go, yeah, this is not, not a good example of what we should be doing, but here we go. So this actually the reason why this exists the way it does actually goes back to post Columbia. So after Columbia, the George W. Bush administration.
[14:26]
A
Wow.
[14:26]
B
This is 22 years ago now.
[14:28]
A
Okay.
[14:29]
B
Oh boy. 22 years ago they came forward and said, all right, here, here is the vision for space. Expl. They called it the vse and they said, we're going to retire the space shuttle by 2010 and we are going to build a new, new rocket system, new crew vehicle, and we are going to go back to the moon and go on to Mars.
[14:46]
A
All right.
[14:47]
B
Real familiar, right? Yeah. And at the time they, they started working on what was then called the Constellation program and it was a rocket, it was called the Ares. It was thought to be a series of family of rockets. Everything from a less capable Ares 1 to the Rocket that would take people to the Moon, Ares 5 and the Orion crew vehicle. Sounds familiar. Well, you know, things don't go very well in space and especially with these big expensive long term space projects. So by the time the Obama administration came into office, the Constellation program was. Yeah, you've heard this before. Behind schedule and over budget.
[15:28]
A
Yeah, that's common Story. It is, it is a common story when the government and contracts build anything.
[15:37]
B
And so the Obama administration then did this blue panel, blue ribbon panel review and basically said, all right, you either need to pump a lot more money into this or you need to do something else. When the Obama administration decided to do something else and Obama visited Kennedy Space center, there was some great, you know, during his visit, he met with Elon Musk of SpaceX and he made this policy proposal that, all right, NASA, you are out of the low Earth orbit game. We are going to rely on commercial for it and maybe we're even and we're going to let you focus on sort of long term future projects. And we're canceling Constellation entirely. Okay, well, sounds great. But not to members of Congress whose districts and states built the things. And so in the debate over Obama Space Policy, 2010, 2011, 2012, legislation was written primarily in the Senate to direct NASA to come up with a new rocket system based on space shuttle technology, just like we talked about. And so the fact that SLS is based on shuttle technology is actually directed by legislation, so much so that sometimes SLS is called the Senate Launch System.
[16:57]
A
Oh, wow. Okay.
[16:59]
B
Because this was a very political decision. So essentially they came to a compromise. NASA would get out of the low Earth orbit game, allowing commercial providers to step in. But NASA was not going to get out of the game entirely. They were going to work on a rocket and it was going to be a rocket that was based on space shuttle technology, so that those jobs and contracts and the money that were going to these particular states and districts would continue flowing.
[17:24]
A
And I'm sure that that's true. But there is also a less sort of utilitarian reading of this, is that the space tech, the space shuttle technology worked, and we knew that it worked and we got a lot of experience with it. So why not build the next long range, you know, shut or long range lift capability on that basis?
[17:48]
B
It's a great point, but we also have to remember that the space shuttle technology is from the 1970s and our technology sure needs a refresh. Rocketry has come a long way and to the point where we are now having reusable rockets that can do a lot of the same things at a much lower cost. And so the critique of sls, the rebuttal to that, is that it's old technology, it's outdated, it's not reusable, it's incredibly expensive, we're talking billions every time we want to launch it. And so it's incredibly expensive. And especially now that we have reusable technology. We have rockets like Falcon 9 and even its sister Falcon, Falcon Heavy and Blue Origin's new Glenn that's coming online, they can do much of the same things that the SLS can do. And so now under the new, under this second Trump administration, we have been having the debate, is it worth keeping the SLS because it is old technology, it is expensive, we're not launching very frequently. This is only going to be its second launch. Right, right. And that's only every three years. So we don't have enough repetition or experience with the rocket to really know its ins and outs and its unique sort of, you know, every system has its unique things about it.
[19:11]
A
Right.
[19:12]
B
Operation. So we don't know enough about this to really make this routine. Why not utilize our commercial partners which have come such a long way? Because remember 2010, 2011, SpaceX had the Falcon 9, they could launch it, but it wasn't reusable yet. So that kind of technology has come a really long way in the 15 years since that decision was made. So let's relook at this. And NASA is doing that, is relooking at sort of the program architecture for what Artemis is going to look like here on out.
[19:46]
A
So for the actual mission itself, we are, when we go back to the moon to land on the moon, we are looking at a lunar orbit rendezvous flight profile, correct?
[19:58]
B
Don't know yet. Okay, so this is something that is actively being worked on. NASA got a new administrator late last year, Jared Isaacman, who is a self made billionaire, dropped out of high school, started his own company, made himself a billionaire. He got very into aviation and then commercial space. He's actually a veteran of two, not one, but two commercial human space flights.
[20:24]
A
Okay.
[20:24]
B
Yeah. So with SpaceX and he completed the very first commercial spacewalk.
[20:31]
A
Wow.
[20:32]
B
Yeah.
[20:32]
A
So somebody who has actual experience of
[20:35]
B
being in outer space, in space, with commercial companies.
[20:38]
A
Right.
[20:38]
B
And so since he has come into NASA, he has really done this deep dive into all of that is happening. And let's find a way to accelerate this because in the original incarnation of the Artemis program, we were supposed to land on the moon by 2024.
[20:54]
A
Okay. So we're going to have to invent some technology to do time travel in order to meet that goal.
[21:01]
B
Short of that though, he has really been looking at and getting NASA to look at how do we accelerate things, how do we really get this going? Especially because Starship is also behind. Starship is not as far along in its development as we Would like it
[21:16]
A
to be now help us out with Starship.
[21:18]
B
So starship is the SpaceX next big rocket.
[21:22]
A
Okay.
[21:22]
B
A modified version of that is what NASA is going to use to land humans on the moon.
[21:28]
A
Okay.
[21:29]
B
Now up until roughly two weeks ago, the plan was to actually to build a small space station and put it in lunar orbit. And what we would have happen is have Starship go up there, dock, have Orion get up there, dock, astronauts would transfer over and then go down to the moon.
[21:46]
A
Okay.
[21:47]
B
But last week, just last week, NASA hosted this huge meeting and announced some very significant changes to its Artemis program. Essentially what they're planning to do, they've added additional flight. So if Artemis 2 goes well, the original plan was Artemis 3 was going to land people on the moon. Well, you know, you don't necessarily want to do that if you haven't tested out the landing system.
[22:10]
A
Sure. Yeah.
[22:11]
B
So they've added an additional flight in there to test out some of this and so and they've canceled the lunar gateway. So the idea now will.
[22:20]
A
The lunar gateway being the space station.
[22:21]
B
The space station. Yeah, the space station. So the idea now is that there are some additional missions that will take place between Artemis 2 and our eventual landing on the moon to test out that the rendezvous. Because you got to get Orion up with up with the starship and then figure out, you know, how you get there. So in after Artemis 2, we'll have Artemis 3 in 2027, which will be in Earth orbit to dock with one or both land lunar landing systems. So in addition to SpaceX is getting developed, Blue Origin is also developing a landing system.
[22:58]
A
Okay.
[22:59]
B
So we have potential to dock with one or both of those in Earth orbit and test out those systems. And then as long as that works, then Artemis 4 and 5 would be lunar landings.
[23:10]
A
Okay, so when they the way that the flight profile would work, would the lunar lander be in lunar orbit already or are they going to take it with them?
[23:21]
B
I think it's a little bit unclear right now where that's going to take place place. And I think that's part of the reason they have this additional Artemis 3 mission to sort of. Let's figure out what's best.
[23:33]
A
Right.
[23:34]
B
I would imagine if it is Blue Origins lander, that they would likely link up in Earth orbit and go to the moon. Starship, I could see a scenario where either or happens because Starship, ideally once it is full up and working, will be able to be refueled in Earth orbit. So it takes, when they launch Starship, it takes all the fuel that they got on board, get it up into orbit. But eventually SpaceX plans to be able to refuel it on orbit. So I could see a scenario there where it refuels in Earth orbit, gets itself out to lunar orbit and they could dock up there. So I think it probably depends on where Starship is in its development by the time they're ready for Artemis 3. So I think it's a little unclear where that will happen just yet.
[24:22]
A
So will any. Famously, SpaceX, with the Falcon rockets, have developed a reusable rocket technology and they have, I don't want to say perfected it because it's, it's not perfect, it's not 100%, but they've done, they've gone a long way in getting this sort of reusable concept between Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and now we've got this lunar module. What are they calling it again?
[24:48]
B
Starship.
[24:48]
A
The Starship. Are they thinking that this is going to be a reusable vehicle as well? Does it stay in space? Does it re in Earth orbit? How does that work?
[24:57]
B
So Starship, Starship is going to be SpaceX's all purpose sort of next generation rocket. It is massive. It is taller and more powerful than the Saturn V rocket that got us to the moon.
[25:09]
A
Oh Lord.
[25:10]
B
It is the most powerful rocket that exists currently.
[25:14]
A
Okay.
[25:15]
B
And so it is massive.
[25:17]
A
Have they had any testing of it?
[25:19]
B
They've done suborbital testing.
[25:20]
A
Okay.
[25:21]
B
And so what Starship will be is its two stages, much like Falcon 9. So Falcon 9 has two different stages. Once the first stage is expended, it detaches from the rest of the rocket and it comes back and lands either on land or on the landing barge to be reused. The second stage is not reusable. It continues. There's a second set of engines on that. It continues to space and deploys. Whatever payload is aboard the starship is designed to be eventually fully reusable. Two stages. So the first stage on the Starship, get it, you know, get the rocket going, it has 33 engines clustered on the bottom of it. It's insane. And so once that is expended, it would detach, it returns back to the launch pad. And so if you've seen any pictures of this, that the launch pad that SpaceX has designed and developed for this, it's called the Chopsticks, it's this tower and it's got two long arms on
[26:17]
A
the top of it, right? Yeah, I think I've seen this, yeah.
[26:20]
B
And so the rocket will come down much like it was launching. And the chopsticks will smush it together, you know, smush it in between the two chopsticks and hold it there.
[26:30]
A
Okay.
[26:31]
B
And that's how it returns, which is wild.
[26:35]
A
Yeah, let's go.
[26:35]
B
Absolutely wild. The second stage continues on to orbit, and then once it's in orbit, it can be refueled, it can, you know, go to the moon. It could. It. What SpaceX eventually wants is it for it to go to Mars. We, a modified version can be used as the landing system for the moon. So it's basically going to be there sort of all purpose. Now, when that second stage is ready to return to Earth, it too will land under its own power and be fully reusable.
[27:04]
A
Okay.
[27:05]
B
Yeah. So it's a massive undertaking and incredibly technically complicated. Possible, but technically complicated. So what SpaceX has done over the past couple of years is they've done these suborbital tests where they launch the full thing, but it doesn't go into full orbit. It does a partial orbit and comes down, and the second stage comes down in the Indian Ocean. And they've been able to succeed some soft landings in the ocean there, where it's coming down mostly in one piece. I won't say in one piece, Right. But mostly in one piece, and it's landing under its own power.
[27:40]
A
Okay.
[27:40]
B
Which is really impressive.
[27:42]
A
Right. And it's. When you say landing, it's not a splashdown. There's a pad out there, or not yet.
[27:48]
B
But they're eventually. The idea is that second stage will actually return to the launch site where they launched it originally. Right now they're, they're land, doing the soft landing in the Indian Ocean because it's out in the middle of nowhere, away from people. So if it blows up like some of them have, okay. Nobody's going to get hurt.
[28:06]
A
All right, what then is the. And this sounds bad, but I question what is the purpose of the SLS if the, if the SpaceX vehicle can launch, go to the moon, land on the moon under its own power, lift off again, come back and land on Earth and be reusable? What is the SLS doing in this?
[28:37]
B
That is the crux of the problem. And so there seem to be hints from NASA that they will eventually move away from the SLS in favor of using these commercial vehicles. And like I said back when SLS was written into law, nobody thought something like this magnitude would be possible or let alone. We didn't know when it might be.
[28:59]
A
Right.
[28:59]
B
So let's have NASA do it. But now in the intervening years we see what the commercial companies can do and it's really spectacular and cheaper. And so I do think in the next couple of years we will see NASA move away from this very expensive, unreusable SLS towards the commercial options that are being developed.
[29:19]
A
Well, it's interesting me because in the Apollo program they were very focused on lunar orth Rendezvous, right? Or lunar.
[29:26]
B
Lunar orbit Rendezvous.
[29:27]
A
Rendezvous where you had the command module and the lunar module in orbit around the moon. You detach the lunar module, it goes down and lands, comes back up, that's. And it shuttles back and forth. The command module stays in lunar orbit. Because it was a weight issue. Right. And now it sounds like the heavy lift of the SpaceX rocket is able to do what? More along the lines of what they were initially thinking about in NASA, which was Earth orbit rendezvous, where you put everything together in Earth and then it all goes to the moon, it all lands and it all comes back.
[30:03]
B
Yes, I think theoretically SpaceX and eventually Blue Origin is thinking much along those same lines. But the politics of it have been such that members of Congress have sought to protect their district. And so there is a very significant pork barrel element to this. Much of NASA's political history is along those very same lines, even going back to the Apollo program. The reason Johnson Space center is in Houston, right, is because Lyndon Baines Johnson, LBJ was the majority leader in the Senate in the late 1950s. He's from representing Texas. And putting a massive NASA center in Texas was going to look really good politically to the majority leader of the Senate who you were depending on to get massive amounts of funding.
[30:52]
A
Right.
[30:53]
B
So going even all the way back to Apollo, there's always been this very strong pork barrel element where members of Congress were looking to get things out of a program like NASA for their states and districts. And a lot of them were in the South, Right? Um, in the South, Southern members of Congress were in the 1940s, 1950s, even into the 1960s, some of the most politically powerful members of Congress. And so that is why you see a lot of these NASA installations in the south, because the southern members of Congress who were powerful, got some stuff for their home states and districts.
[31:28]
A
So that's the domestic angle. Let's talk about the international angle. So Canada is having an astronaut join via the mission. What are the other allies and partners expected to be doing in the future of Artemis?
[31:46]
B
A lot. So this is, you know, again, unlike Apollo, that we are going back to the moon with partners and allies. This is not a United States only tape mission. So obviously Jeremy Hansen, Canadian, is going to be along on this mission. We have already committed that a Japanese astronaut will be on the first lunar landing mission. Our partners and allies are contributing different elements to lunar exploration. The Japanese will also be building a pressurized lunar rover that will allow astronauts to drive around the lunar surface. And so before the gateway, the lunar space station was canceled, many of our European partners were going to contribute to that as well. And so in this model, people aren't necessarily paying into one pot. States and part our partners, allies are providing different equipment, scientific equipment, different pieces of the program that will enable long term, large scale exploration of the lunar surface. So while the United States might be footing the big bill for like how we get there and rocket launches and all of that and organizing this, our partners and allies are contributing different elements, different pieces of technology, pieces of equipment to help enable us getting there.
[33:02]
A
So back in the 60s and early 70s, when Apollo was going, it was very much about the race to the moon, getting there, putting a man on the moon, returning them safely. And once we did that, it was pretty much over and the public kind of lost interest and started asking, why are we spending all of this money? We've won the race, why are we going back? Is it a single mission back that we're looking to, or are we going to try and establish a more long term, I don't want to say permanent, but at least a more consistent and persistent presence on the moon?
[33:41]
B
Yeah. One thing that's really fascinating about that history of Apollo is that the public, we have public opinion polls showing that the public actually started to get less enthused about it as early as the mid-1960s.
[33:53]
A
Oh, wow.
[33:53]
B
So it was even before we got anywhere near the moon that the public started losing interest, which is, I think, always fascinating.
[34:01]
A
Yeah.
[34:01]
B
But in any case, you know, it's interesting about this mission. Artemis is not a lot of people know even actually that this is happening, which again, whole other potential episode on that. So the public didn't even know, doesn't even really know much about Artemis as it is. But yes, to answer the question, we are planning an enduring presence. We're looking to go back to the lunar, or not go back to our where we originally landed, but go to the lunar south pole where there is water in the form of ice. And because of the way the moon is tilted, there are places in the lunar south pole that are almost entirely in the light, almost entirely in the dark all the time.
[34:44]
A
Okay.
[34:44]
B
So this would enable some more permanent establishments shall we say? But yes, and again, like I said, NASA had this big meeting last week. They've laid out an entire exploration architecture for roughly the next 10 years, three stages where as early as next year we are launching things to the moon every month, where we are sending landers up to do scientific experiments. Eventually we will be sending equipment, habitats up there, all to enable long term human exploration of the moon. And so it was, it's actually the first time that NASA has put out such an extensive plan for how we're going to do this. Up until now it was, okay, we're going to send Artemis there, but there was no plan necessarily of how we're actually going to make long term human, human settlements essentially on the moon.
[35:32]
A
So what does that do for the great power competition in the space domain? Because there are treaties, there are international laws about what you can and cannot do and claiming ownership of celestial bodies and these kinds of things. So how does this fit within great power competition?
[35:54]
B
So I think one of the arguments for this entire endeavor is great power competition going all the way back to the first Trump administration when Artemis was first established. NASA leaders and political leaders at the time said, you know, we are racing China to the moon because China also has similar plans to go to the moon and land at the South Pole because of these resources. And so along the way, one of the sustaining rationales for why we're doing this is because China is doing this. So I often get the question, are, are we in a space race with China? Political leaders would say yes. NASA leadership would say yes. Jared Isaacman, during this, this meeting last week where NASA was laying out all these changes, said, we are in a race with China. Personally, this is Wendy's own opinion here again, reinforcing this. You know, I think we won the, we won the race in 1969. It's over, right? It's done. And if any, if you get anything out of this discussion, it's that a lot of our plans in space are over budget and behind schedule. And we have a lot of experience in space exploration. China doesn't have nearly as much. And so they say they're get, they want to get to the moon by 2030. More recently, some say 2020. Again, I would say same, they're going to face the same problems we have. They're going to be over budget, they're going to be behind schedule and they, again, they don't have nearly the experience that we do. So I've always been skeptical of sort of that time frame. Now in terms of like what this does by us going there in the context of international law. You're right. We have the Outer Space Treaty. It says no appropriation of anything out in space. So no state can claim ownership, can claim sovereignty. There is an interpretation, though, of the ost, the Outer Space Treaty, that the US and some other countries have adopted that says, all right, you can't claim ownership, but you can use whatever resources that you find. It's not a fully accepted interpretation of the ost, but it is one that would allow us to establish a presence on the moon and use the resources that we find there. Now, of course, the challenge is the resources that are there are finite. Mm. And. And so, of course, that leads into this narrative that we are in a race, and maybe not to get to the moon, but for, let's not say ownership, but possession of the resources that are there.
[38:10]
A
Extraction, Exploitation of the resource, potentially.
[38:13]
B
Yeah.
[38:13]
A
Okay.
[38:14]
B
Now we don't have the technology, the equipment to extract those things just yet. We haven't demonstrated that. Neither has China. So, you know, getting there is one thing, but being able to actually extract those resources is a whole other. So, you know, we're not even at the point where that's actually happening yet.
[38:33]
A
Well, the good news is that Andy Weir's novel takes place in 2080, so there's plenty of time for reality to catch up with the science fiction that we started this whole podcast episode with. And I'm really looking forward to seeing how this all plays out. Are we gonna have a watch party here at sas?
[38:53]
B
Well, the launch window is in the evening, so it's after duty hours, so I will probably be at home.
[38:59]
A
You'll probably be at home. Okay. So as I understand it, party at Dr. Whitmouth Cobb's house on Wednesday. She'll be providing the. The refreshments.
[39:08]
B
Yes. Well, you know, there are some companies, I won't say who, that are putting out some Artemis themed goodies over the next week. Some donuts. I'll just leave it at that.
[39:18]
A
Oh, no, that's awesome. Yeah. Gotta love a donut. So, as we wrap this up, thank you, Wendy, for all of the information and the analysis as we look at how this plays into the part of Great Power competition. Now, going back to Andy Weir and Artemis and Project Hail Mary and Amaze, Amaze, amaze. Yes. The use of fiction to analyze national security. Great Power competition, military strategy, war and war theory. We are going to be doing a series during our summer break where we actually do get into some.
[39:55]
B
We're going to do a year long yeah.
[39:58]
A
Starting in our summer. And it's, and it's going to go throughout the year. And we're going to bring in Lt. Col. Rachel Reynolds, who has curated a, I think a fantastic list.
[40:06]
B
I started reading. I'm so excited.
[40:08]
A
And I'm going to be starting here in the next couple of weeks getting that. So I just wanted to put in a plug for that. We will be doing some, some analysis of fiction, a little bit lighter reading starting in the summer and then continuing throughout.
[40:22]
B
Although Rico does tell me some of the books are quite thick. So.
[40:26]
A
They are, but they're more, they're more approachable. They're, they're, they're fun books. It's what you, you know, you have Causewitz for dinner, but this is dessert.
[40:35]
B
Yeah, I've actually had, I was reading one of them this weekend. Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein.
[40:42]
A
Heinlein. Gotta love it. Gotta love it.
[40:44]
B
Just a preview of what's to come.
[40:46]
A
All sorts of stuff. And we will be posting that list here in the next couple of weeks in the episode notes. And we'll make sure that folks know what the first book is going to be so that they can start reading for the summer.
[40:56]
B
Sounds good.
[40:57]
A
All right. With that, I think that does it for this. And we will see you all next week.
[41:01]
B
Go. Artemis. Thank you for tuning in to Books to Battles. We hope you enjoyed today's discussion. If you liked today's episode, please be sure to like and subscribe and even tell a friend about us. Also, don't forget to send us any questions you'd like answered or suggested future episodes. You can contact us at bookstobattles at au af Edu For Colonel Corey Holland, I'm Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb. And don't forget, strategy doesn't stop at the page.

Summary7 min read

Books to Battles – “Artemis” (April 1, 2026)

Podcast: Books to Battles
Host: School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS)
Guests/Hosts: Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb & Colonel Corey Holland
Date: April 1, 2026
Episode Theme: Examining NASA’s Artemis program, its current crewed mission to the Moon, technological and strategic implications, and its significance in the context of U.S. and international space policy.

Episode Overview

This episode delves deeply into NASA’s Artemis program, focusing on Artemis II—the upcoming mission sending humans around the Moon for the first time since 1972. Hosts Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb and Colonel Corey Holland discuss the technical, political, and strategic context of Artemis, compare its architecture to previous Moon missions, highlight the interplay between NASA and commercial partners like SpaceX and Blue Origin, and explore Artemis’s role in great power competition and international collaboration.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: What Is Artemis?

Guest Confusion: Opening banter plays on confusion between Andy Weir’s novel “Artemis,” the Greek goddess, and NASA’s Artemis program.
- Memorable moment: “You're not talking about the Greek goddess either, are you?” – A [01:15]
- “No, we're talking about the mission to the moon.” – B [01:21]
Artemis II Launch: Scheduled for April 1, 2026 – first crewed U.S. lunar mission since Apollo (1972).
- International crew: U.S. astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glubber, Christina Koch, and Canadian Jeremy Hansen. [02:23]

2. Artemis Program Technical Breakdown

a. Artemis I Lessons

Artemis I (uncrewed, 3.5+ years ago) tested the Space Launch System (SLS) & Orion capsule in lunar orbit.
- Key quote: “When the capsule returned to Earth, NASA did discover some issues with it.” – B [03:19]
Issue: Orion’s heat shield experienced more “burn through” than expected, prompting delays between missions. [03:30]

b. SLS Design and Delays

SLS is “shuttle derived”—it uses core shuttle hardware (orange external tank, solid rocket boosters, main engines). [06:13–07:08]
Numerous delays due to wet dress rehearsals and unexpected technical issues. Missed launch windows in February and March 2026. [07:21–08:23]

c. Safety & Technology Focus

Heat shield trajectory changes to prevent recurrence of burn-through issues.
- Context link: “Columbia [...] disintegrated over Texas in 2003 because of a problem with the tiles.” – B [05:15]

3. Mission Architecture: Then and Now

a. Artemis II Mission Profile

Closest parallel: Apollo 13’s “free return trajectory”—flies around (not into orbit of) the Moon, then back to Earth. [09:19–11:03]
- “They will have been the furthest that humans have ever been out past Earth.” – B [10:00]
- Ensures natural return to Earth even if Orion’s engines fail—a redundancy focus.

b. Orion Capsule vs. Apollo

Orion is a modern, scaled-up version of the Apollo command module ("Apollo on steroids"). [12:42–13:04]
No lunar module (LEM) on Artemis II; future lunar landers will be provided by commercial partners (e.g., SpaceX Starship). [13:05]

4. Politics and the NASA/Commercial Partnership Divide

a. Why Did NASA Build SLS?

Answer rooted in politics: The SLS is mandated by the U.S. Senate to maintain jobs/contracts tied to shuttle technology (sometimes called the “Senate Launch System”). [14:46–16:58]
- “The SLS is called the Senate Launch System...very political decision.” – B [16:57]
Obama-era reforms pivoted low Earth orbit launches to commercial providers, with NASA focusing on deep space—Compromise legislation kept NASA in the heavy-lift game.

b. Commercial Reusability vs. Government Tradition

“The critique of SLS, the rebuttal...it's old technology, it's outdated, it's not reusable, it's incredibly expensive.” – B [17:48]
Commercial rockets (SpaceX Falcon 9, Blue Origin New Glenn) now rival or surpass SLS in capability and cost-effectiveness. There’s an ongoing debate over future reliance on commercial vs. government launchers. [19:11]

5. NASA’s New Course Under Administrator Jared Isaacman

New leadership aims to accelerate Artemis development and bring in commercial partners—testing, hardware, and lunar landing vehicles. [19:57–21:00]
- Artemis III (2027): new uncrewed/integrated test flights with commercial lunar landers; no lunar Gateway (space station at moon) as originally planned. [21:28–22:21]
- Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing lunar landers.

a. SpaceX Starship Deep Dive

Starship: All-purpose, fully reusable, two-stage mega rocket; more powerful than Saturn V. [25:09]
- Ongoing suborbital tests; plans for both stages to be reusable with return landings.
  - Memorable moment: “It has 33 engines clustered on the bottom...It's insane.” – B [26:16]
- “Chopsticks” landing system for first stage [26:19]

b. Future: SLS vs. Commercial Rockets

“There seem to be hints from NASA that they will eventually move away from the SLS in favor of using these commercial vehicles” – B [28:36]
Politics and congressional funding still tie NASA partly to SLS for now, but trend points toward commercial alternatives.

6. Great Power Competition and International Collaboration

a. Artemis’s International Partnerships

Artemis is not a U.S.-only program: Canadian and future Japanese astronauts, European/Japanese equipment (rovers, modules), and a “pay-in-kind” approach for multinational involvement. [31:27–33:01]
- “This is...unlike Apollo, that we are going back to the moon with partners and allies.” – B [31:45]

b. Enduring Lunar Presence & Public Interest

NASA architecture aims for permanent Moon presence, targeting lunar south pole for water/ice resources and long-term science. [34:00–35:31]
Public engagement is lower than during Apollo; many Americans unaware Artemis is happening. [33:53]

c. The New Space Race Narrative

Pressure from Chinese lunar ambitions serves as a sustaining rationale for Artemis funding and urgency.
- “Political leaders would say yes. NASA leadership would say yes. Jared Isaacman, during this meeting last week...said, we are in a race with China.” – B [35:54]
Outer Space Treaty bars sovereignty claims but allows for resource usage; U.S. and partners interpret this as legitimacy for lunar operations. Competition is as much about access and use of lunar resources as flag-planting. [35:54–38:13]

Notable Quotes & Moments

“You're not talking about the Greek goddess either, are you?” – A [01:15]
“We are recording this...the United States is going to launch a mission to the moon that is awesome.” – B [01:47]
“This was a very political decision. So essentially they came to a compromise...SLS is called the Senate Launch System.” – B [16:57]
“The public actually started to get less enthused about [Apollo] as early as the mid-1960s.” – B [33:53]
“Great Power Competition...we are racing China to the moon...” – B [35:54]
“Outer Space Treaty...no appropriation...but you can use whatever resources you find.” – B [37:22]
“If you get anything out of this discussion, it's that a lot of our plans in space are over budget and behind schedule.” – B [36:23]
“Go Artemis.” – B [41:00]

Essential Timestamps

[02:20] Artemis II crew and allies
[03:30] Artemis I heat shield issue and delays
[06:13 – 07:08] SLS technical heritage
[09:19 – 11:03] Mission profile and safety
[13:05] Orion vs. Apollo and use of commercial landers
[14:46 – 16:58] SLS politics and Senate mandate
[19:11] Commercial launch competition and the future of SLS
[21:28 – 22:21] Artemis III–V, Gateway cancellation, and test flights
[25:09 – 26:19] SpaceX Starship details and reusability
[31:45 – 33:01] International partners in Artemis
[34:00 – 35:31] Enduring lunar presence and NASA’s exploration “architecture”
[35:54 – 38:13] Great power competition, China, and Outer Space Treaty implications

Tone and Takeaways

Hosts blend scholarly analysis, strategic insight, and light humor. They break down the interplay of technological innovation, bureaucratic inertia, politics, international cooperation, and public perception—showing how all shape U.S. space policy and Artemis itself.

For listeners seeking both facts and context, this episode offers a comprehensive primer on Artemis’s hardware and mission, its origins in U.S. political wrangling, its future in partnership with commercial entities, and its place in international competition and cooperation.

Upcoming Podcast Programming

Summer & year-long series analyzing fiction and its relevance for national security and strategy, including “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”
- “You have Clausewitz for dinner, but this is dessert.” – A [40:25]
- Book list forthcoming in episode notes.

Summary Table

| Segment | Topic | Key Points/Quotes | Timestamps | |---------|-------|------------------|------------| | 1 | What is Artemis? | Launch, crew, confusion with pop culture | 01:00–02:23 | | 2 | Artemis tech & delays | SLS, heat shield, wet dress rehearsals | 03:19–08:23 | | 3 | Mission profile | Apollo vs. Artemis, safety, Orion | 08:59–13:05 | | 4 | Why SLS? | Politics: “Senate Launch System,” legacy contracts | 14:46–16:58 | | 5 | Commercial future | SpaceX Starship, reusability, NASA shift | 19:11–29:19 | | 6 | Allies & future | Canada/Japan involvement, enduring presence | 31:27–35:31 | | 7 | Space race & law | China, resource competition, OST interpretation | 35:54–38:13 | | 8 | Tone & close | Dessert analogy, book club, Artemis enthusiasm | 38:52–41:00 |

Recommended for military professionals, policy analysts, students, or anyone interested in how strategy, politics, and cutting-edge technology intertwine in the new space age.

Loading summary

Transcript184 lines

[00:00]
A
Foreign.
[00:07]
B
Welcome to books. To battles. Where we explore academic insights for real world air and space strategy. I'm Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb, professor of Strategy and Security Studies and Deputy Commandant at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.
[00:18]
A
And I'm Colonel Corey Holland, professor of Strategy and Security Studies, also at sas. Before we get any further, we want to note that all opinions expressed here are ours and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States government. I also want to say, spoiler alert, we're going to spoil the heck out of our topic here. But, Wendy, last week you came and you said, we're going to talk about Artemis. Now, it's a little out of order because Artemis, as we know, is the 2017 sophomore novel by Andy.
[00:48]
B
Weird. Did you happen to see a new movie this weekend?
[00:52]
A
Well, yeah. I mean. So Project Hail Mary is out. It's the third one, so, you know, I understand why we're going to talk about Artemis now.
[00:58]
B
Oh, wrong Artemis.
[01:00]
A
I'm sorry, what?
[01:01]
B
That's the wrong Artemis.
[01:03]
A
Which Artemis are you?
[01:04]
B
I mean, Artemis is a good book. Yeah, I mean, I will grant you that.
[01:07]
A
Yeah, I was struggling as I read it this weekend, trying to figure out how we were going to get to Aaron's place. Strategies.
[01:13]
B
Don't worry about that. That is the wrong Artemis.
[01:16]
A
Which. You're not talking about the Greek goddess either, are you?
[01:19]
B
No, I'm not the brother of Apollo.
[01:21]
A
Yeah.
[01:22]
B
Or the sister of Apollo. Yeah, no, no, we're talking about the mission to the moon.
[01:26]
A
Oh, okay. I should be more excited than I am.
[01:31]
B
Whoops. Well, that's okay, because you. You pretty much embody the public opinion of the United States in terms of Artemis.
[01:38]
A
Also, I'm. I'm living every SAS student's nightmare by having done the wrong kind of homework for the class. All right, well, what is Artemis?
[01:48]
B
Yeah, we're going to talk about Artemis today. And so, first of all, I'll say we are recording this. It is March 30, Monday, March 30, Wednesday, April 1, if all goes according to plan, the United States is going to launch a mission to the moon that is awesome. On Artemis 2. Now, obviously, if they don't get it up Wednesday, we have a launch window of a couple days. But NASA is hoping to send up the first mission to carry humans around the moon towards the moon since Apollo ended in 1972.
[02:20]
A
That is. That is very exciting. So who all are we sending up?
[02:24]
B
Yeah, we are sending up four astronauts. The commander is Reid Wiseman, Victor Glubber is the pilot, Christina Koch mission specialist, and Canada's own Jeremy Hansen as a mission specialist. So we are taking our partners and allies along with us for this.
[02:41]
A
That sounds great. So where are they sitting in the larger program?
[02:44]
B
Yeah. So Artemis is the, the larger name for this program to return the United States to the moon. Roughly 3 1/2 ish years ago, we sent Artemis 1 up and what it was was a uncrewed mission to test out the, the Space Launch System, the sls, the giant rocket that will be you we will be utilizing on several of these missions. And we sent the, we also tested out the Orion crew vehicle on that. We sent it all around the moon on long much the same flight path that Artemis 2 will be following. So we wanted to make sure everything was working right before we put humans on. And it's a good thing we did this because when the capsule returned to Earth, NASA did discover some issues with it.
[03:31]
A
Okay, like what?
[03:32]
B
None that would have actually harmed astronauts, but because the, what NASA was doing to bring the capsule back. Now whenever you're re entering the atmosphere, especially when you're coming from a very long distance, you're coming at, into the atmosphere at a very high rate of speed. Sure. And you're building up a lot of friction, a lot of heat, a lot of plasma around the vehicle. And that's why, you know, the Space shuttle, which everybody is probably most familiar with, had all of the thousands of those black tiles along the bottom of the space shuttle were heat tiles to help protect the crew from that heat. Well, the heat shield on the Orion crew vehicle had a little bit more burn through than NASA engineers had anticipated. And so that is part of the reason why we have had such a long gap between these two miss Because NASA was trying to better understand what happened and what they can do to make it make the system safer.
[04:27]
A
And the heat shield is not like an actual shield, it's more these tiles. And the intention is that those tiles burn away and they insulate what is behind it as it burns away. So some of them are going to burn through at different rates. And you're saying that we had a little bit of an issue with some of them. They burned through at a rate that we weren't anticipating.
[04:52]
B
Correct.
[04:53]
A
Okay, so what have they done to fix it?
[04:56]
B
So they're, they've changed the re entry trajectory a little bit. The capsule will not be coming in as, at as steep an angle as they might have otherwise anticipated. They, they, so they, they've made some Changes mostly to that. But they've really. I think what they really spent time doing is understanding the root cause of the problem so that they have more confidence that what they've done to change it, especially in terms of the trajectory. They're more confident that they understand the problem and are safe with it. So NASA's and this is a. I mean, really big deal for NASA because Columbia, the shuttle Columbia, it disintegrated over Texas in 2003 because of a problem with the tiles. Some insulate insulation from the external fuel tank hit the left wing of the Space Shuttle on a liftoff, and it basically created this massive hole in the heat tiles allow. And then when the Space Shuttle is reentering, it allowed all these superheated gases to get into the Space Shuttle, eventually leading to its destruction. So NASA has a history here, right. And really has tried to, I think, take some time to really understand it, so they have some more confidence in what they're doing.
[06:08]
A
So is the Space Launch System, the sls, is that a NASA heavy lift vehicle?
[06:13]
B
It is.
[06:14]
A
Okay, so this is the first time NASA has stepped back into some kind of lift capability.
[06:22]
B
Right, since the Space Shuttle. But interestingly enough, the SLS is basically shuttle derived.
[06:27]
A
Okay.
[06:28]
B
So NASA has taken essentially the solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank from the Space Shuttle. They've even taken the shuttle's main engines and repurpose them here. So when you look at the sls, there's a big orange core to it that's essentially a much larger version of the external fuel tank from the Space Shuttle.
[06:47]
A
Okay.
[06:48]
B
They also, SLS also has two solid rocket boosters on either side of that orange core. And they are essentially elongated versions of the shuttles, solid rocket boosters. And on the bottom of that center core are repurposed shuttle main engines. So for the most part, the SLS is actually utilizing Space shuttle technology.
[07:08]
A
Okay.
[07:09]
B
So it's something NASA engineers and Boeing, which is the prime contractor on it, we're somewhat familiar with. But like most space projects, it has had its developmental problems.
[07:21]
A
Right. And so as I understand it, Artemis could have launched as early as January.
[07:27]
B
Yeah.
[07:28]
A
But we've February, but we've delayed it.
[07:30]
B
Yes.
[07:31]
A
So what caused the delays?
[07:32]
B
Yeah, so it's been a couple different things. The first time, first launch window opportunity this year, was February. Before that, they rolled the SLS out to the launch pad. They did a, what's called a wet dress rehearsal. And it's basically where they fuel up the rocket and they simulate a countdown all the way to you know, less than a minute just to make sure that everything is working. Everybody knows what they're supposed to do. Unfortunately, that they identified some problems as a part of that, that wet dress rehearsal. And so they had to fix those. In fixing those, they identified more problems. They had to roll the SLS all the way back to the, the vehicle assembly building down at Kennedy, fixed it in there, rolled it back out, and so now here we are. So we missed the February launch window, we missed the March launch window, and now we're into the April launch window.
[08:23]
A
Okay. And so I'm assuming that the latest wet dress rehearsal went well.
[08:27]
B
They didn't do another one. I didn't know. But they are comp. They've done several flight readiness reviews, and they're confident that they know what could happen. They've practiced all that they need to, and they're ready to go.
[08:43]
A
Okay, so I guess what are the changes that you see between the 1972 mission profile? I mean, obviously, landing on the moon in 72 and this is just circumnavigating the moon. But other than that, what are the mission profile changes that we're sort of seeing here?
[09:00]
B
Yeah, so this mission profile is actually more akin to Apollo 13. If anybody remembers Apollo 13. A few of us, or has seen the movie. Yes, at least. And what happened on Apollo 13 is along the way to the moon, there was a problem on the vehicle. There was a small, small. Well, in space, everything's pretty big.
[09:19]
A
Yeah, small explosion.
[09:20]
B
Explosion. The damaged oxygen tanks, fuel tanks, and essentially they could not land on the Moon. But what they decided to do was, was do a free return trajectory around the moon, which is essentially, you get it on a particular orbit so that it goes. So your vehicle goes by the moon, swings out behind it, and the gravity just naturally allows it to return around the moon and then back to Earth. And that is exactly what's going to happen on Artemis 2. So we're going to launch, and then the astronauts in their Orion crew vehicle will be in Earth orbit for a few days, checking everything out, getting their. Their orbit, orbital trajectories correct. And then when everything's ready, they will be go for TLI translunar injection. They'll burn the engines just to get it moving towards the Moon, and they will be on that same trajectory. They're not going to enter lunar orbit. They're going to fly by it, and they're going to fly by the Moon so far that they will then have been the furthest that humans have ever been out past Earth. Okay, so that is a unique thing about this. But they, again, just like Apollo 13, they'll sort of slingshot around the moon just naturally. The gravity and the orbital trajectories work out. So they slingshot around the moon and then find their way. I'd find that they are already on their way back to Earth. So there'll be basically a big figure eight around the moon. And this will allow them to test out the Orion crew vehicle, make sure it's working. But also it's a contingency should anything happen. They don't need their engines, need to burn their engines, let's say something happens to them. Being on this pre return trajectory allows them to naturally return to Earth should anything happen. Okay, so it is a safety mechanism here as well.
[11:03]
A
So what are they hoping to learn from this mission?
[11:07]
B
They're hoping to make sure that the systems work with humans on board. So the Artemis one. I almost said Apollo one.
[11:14]
A
Yeah, that's.
[11:16]
B
No, not that one. Artemis one made sure they worked without humans on board. And this is going to make sure it works with humans on board. And that is a major testing milestone. Because you really want to make sure that works.
[11:27]
A
Yeah, it's kind of important.
[11:29]
B
It's kind of important. And so they'll test that out. And then mostly it's about testing systems, I think at this point, testing procedures, doing some lunar observation when you have that opportunity, when you're, you are in around the moon for a little bit. So they have some different testing milestones. And I think a lot of it, how much of that they get done will sort of depend on how well everything's going. But essentially you're doing a fully operational environmental control and life support system test to make sure that the crew can live on Orion throughout the duration of these missions.
[12:05]
A
So what is the Orion capsule like? So we've got, you know, in my mind I've still, I'm seeing the Apollo program that has the lunar module and then it's got the command module. And the command module sort of looks like a gumdrop shape. And then the lunar module, they call it, you know, the spider at one point and then they were connected by a tunnel. But overall it was very, very cramped quarters for three, you know, grown men to be working in for, you know, a couple of weeks. What I'm imagining that the Orion is modernized version, but it is not much bigger.
[12:43]
B
It's also. It is bigger. Okay, it is bigger. In fact, when the Orion module was first conceived, and this was 2005, 2006, then NASA administered then NASA administrator called this, called it Apollo on steroids.
[12:57]
A
Okay.
[12:58]
B
So if you're thinking about the Apollo capsule, perfect, because just scale it up a little bit bigger and you've got the Orion crew vehicle.
[13:05]
A
All right.
[13:05]
B
Yeah. Now what is different about Artemis is we won't necessarily have a lem, a lunar excursion module. We are actually going to rely on our commercial partners for the landing system that would get us from lunar orbit down to the moon. And in the case of our first landing mission, whichever Artemis mission that will be, that will actually be provided by SpaceX and it will be a modified version of their starship.
[13:32]
A
Okay.
[13:33]
B
That they've gotten, that they're working on right now.
[13:35]
A
But we're not taking the lunar module with us on this trip.
[13:38]
B
No, no, no landing system on this one.
[13:41]
A
Okay, so why did NASA decide to build the SLs themselves as opposed to rely on commercial partners?
[13:49]
B
Oh, now, now you're getting into the politics of it.
[13:52]
A
Well, I'm not trying to get into the politics. I just find it very interesting that they had basically advocated spacelift to commercial partners and now they are stepping back in and going, no, no, we're going to take this one.
[14:04]
B
So this is a fantastic story. And I mean that from the storytelling angle, some, a lot of people, especially in the space community, we go, yeah, this is not, not a good example of what we should be doing, but here we go. So this actually the reason why this exists the way it does actually goes back to post Columbia. So after Columbia, the George W. Bush administration.
[14:26]
A
Wow.
[14:26]
B
This is 22 years ago now.
[14:28]
A
Okay.
[14:29]
B
Oh boy. 22 years ago they came forward and said, all right, here, here is the vision for space. Expl. They called it the vse and they said, we're going to retire the space shuttle by 2010 and we are going to build a new, new rocket system, new crew vehicle, and we are going to go back to the moon and go on to Mars.
[14:46]
A
All right.
[14:47]
B
Real familiar, right? Yeah. And at the time they, they started working on what was then called the Constellation program and it was a rocket, it was called the Ares. It was thought to be a series of family of rockets. Everything from a less capable Ares 1 to the Rocket that would take people to the Moon, Ares 5 and the Orion crew vehicle. Sounds familiar. Well, you know, things don't go very well in space and especially with these big expensive long term space projects. So by the time the Obama administration came into office, the Constellation program was. Yeah, you've heard this before. Behind schedule and over budget.
[15:28]
A
Yeah, that's common Story. It is, it is a common story when the government and contracts build anything.
[15:37]
B
And so the Obama administration then did this blue panel, blue ribbon panel review and basically said, all right, you either need to pump a lot more money into this or you need to do something else. When the Obama administration decided to do something else and Obama visited Kennedy Space center, there was some great, you know, during his visit, he met with Elon Musk of SpaceX and he made this policy proposal that, all right, NASA, you are out of the low Earth orbit game. We are going to rely on commercial for it and maybe we're even and we're going to let you focus on sort of long term future projects. And we're canceling Constellation entirely. Okay, well, sounds great. But not to members of Congress whose districts and states built the things. And so in the debate over Obama Space Policy, 2010, 2011, 2012, legislation was written primarily in the Senate to direct NASA to come up with a new rocket system based on space shuttle technology, just like we talked about. And so the fact that SLS is based on shuttle technology is actually directed by legislation, so much so that sometimes SLS is called the Senate Launch System.
[16:57]
A
Oh, wow. Okay.
[16:59]
B
Because this was a very political decision. So essentially they came to a compromise. NASA would get out of the low Earth orbit game, allowing commercial providers to step in. But NASA was not going to get out of the game entirely. They were going to work on a rocket and it was going to be a rocket that was based on space shuttle technology, so that those jobs and contracts and the money that were going to these particular states and districts would continue flowing.
[17:24]
A
And I'm sure that that's true. But there is also a less sort of utilitarian reading of this, is that the space tech, the space shuttle technology worked, and we knew that it worked and we got a lot of experience with it. So why not build the next long range, you know, shut or long range lift capability on that basis?
[17:48]
B
It's a great point, but we also have to remember that the space shuttle technology is from the 1970s and our technology sure needs a refresh. Rocketry has come a long way and to the point where we are now having reusable rockets that can do a lot of the same things at a much lower cost. And so the critique of sls, the rebuttal to that, is that it's old technology, it's outdated, it's not reusable, it's incredibly expensive, we're talking billions every time we want to launch it. And so it's incredibly expensive. And especially now that we have reusable technology. We have rockets like Falcon 9 and even its sister Falcon, Falcon Heavy and Blue Origin's new Glenn that's coming online, they can do much of the same things that the SLS can do. And so now under the new, under this second Trump administration, we have been having the debate, is it worth keeping the SLS because it is old technology, it is expensive, we're not launching very frequently. This is only going to be its second launch. Right, right. And that's only every three years. So we don't have enough repetition or experience with the rocket to really know its ins and outs and its unique sort of, you know, every system has its unique things about it.
[19:11]
A
Right.
[19:12]
B
Operation. So we don't know enough about this to really make this routine. Why not utilize our commercial partners which have come such a long way? Because remember 2010, 2011, SpaceX had the Falcon 9, they could launch it, but it wasn't reusable yet. So that kind of technology has come a really long way in the 15 years since that decision was made. So let's relook at this. And NASA is doing that, is relooking at sort of the program architecture for what Artemis is going to look like here on out.
[19:46]
A
So for the actual mission itself, we are, when we go back to the moon to land on the moon, we are looking at a lunar orbit rendezvous flight profile, correct?
[19:58]
B
Don't know yet. Okay, so this is something that is actively being worked on. NASA got a new administrator late last year, Jared Isaacman, who is a self made billionaire, dropped out of high school, started his own company, made himself a billionaire. He got very into aviation and then commercial space. He's actually a veteran of two, not one, but two commercial human space flights.
[20:24]
A
Okay.
[20:24]
B
Yeah. So with SpaceX and he completed the very first commercial spacewalk.
[20:31]
A
Wow.
[20:32]
B
Yeah.
[20:32]
A
So somebody who has actual experience of
[20:35]
B
being in outer space, in space, with commercial companies.
[20:38]
A
Right.
[20:38]
B
And so since he has come into NASA, he has really done this deep dive into all of that is happening. And let's find a way to accelerate this because in the original incarnation of the Artemis program, we were supposed to land on the moon by 2024.
[20:54]
A
Okay. So we're going to have to invent some technology to do time travel in order to meet that goal.
[21:01]
B
Short of that though, he has really been looking at and getting NASA to look at how do we accelerate things, how do we really get this going? Especially because Starship is also behind. Starship is not as far along in its development as we Would like it
[21:16]
A
to be now help us out with Starship.
[21:18]
B
So starship is the SpaceX next big rocket.
[21:22]
A
Okay.
[21:22]
B
A modified version of that is what NASA is going to use to land humans on the moon.
[21:28]
A
Okay.
[21:29]
B
Now up until roughly two weeks ago, the plan was to actually to build a small space station and put it in lunar orbit. And what we would have happen is have Starship go up there, dock, have Orion get up there, dock, astronauts would transfer over and then go down to the moon.
[21:46]
A
Okay.
[21:47]
B
But last week, just last week, NASA hosted this huge meeting and announced some very significant changes to its Artemis program. Essentially what they're planning to do, they've added additional flight. So if Artemis 2 goes well, the original plan was Artemis 3 was going to land people on the moon. Well, you know, you don't necessarily want to do that if you haven't tested out the landing system.
[22:10]
A
Sure. Yeah.
[22:11]
B
So they've added an additional flight in there to test out some of this and so and they've canceled the lunar gateway. So the idea now will.
[22:20]
A
The lunar gateway being the space station.
[22:21]
B
The space station. Yeah, the space station. So the idea now is that there are some additional missions that will take place between Artemis 2 and our eventual landing on the moon to test out that the rendezvous. Because you got to get Orion up with up with the starship and then figure out, you know, how you get there. So in after Artemis 2, we'll have Artemis 3 in 2027, which will be in Earth orbit to dock with one or both land lunar landing systems. So in addition to SpaceX is getting developed, Blue Origin is also developing a landing system.
[22:58]
A
Okay.
[22:59]
B
So we have potential to dock with one or both of those in Earth orbit and test out those systems. And then as long as that works, then Artemis 4 and 5 would be lunar landings.
[23:10]
A
Okay, so when they the way that the flight profile would work, would the lunar lander be in lunar orbit already or are they going to take it with them?
[23:21]
B
I think it's a little bit unclear right now where that's going to take place place. And I think that's part of the reason they have this additional Artemis 3 mission to sort of. Let's figure out what's best.
[23:33]
A
Right.
[23:34]
B
I would imagine if it is Blue Origins lander, that they would likely link up in Earth orbit and go to the moon. Starship, I could see a scenario where either or happens because Starship, ideally once it is full up and working, will be able to be refueled in Earth orbit. So it takes, when they launch Starship, it takes all the fuel that they got on board, get it up into orbit. But eventually SpaceX plans to be able to refuel it on orbit. So I could see a scenario there where it refuels in Earth orbit, gets itself out to lunar orbit and they could dock up there. So I think it probably depends on where Starship is in its development by the time they're ready for Artemis 3. So I think it's a little unclear where that will happen just yet.
[24:22]
A
So will any. Famously, SpaceX, with the Falcon rockets, have developed a reusable rocket technology and they have, I don't want to say perfected it because it's, it's not perfect, it's not 100%, but they've done, they've gone a long way in getting this sort of reusable concept between Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and now we've got this lunar module. What are they calling it again?
[24:48]
B
Starship.
[24:48]
A
The Starship. Are they thinking that this is going to be a reusable vehicle as well? Does it stay in space? Does it re in Earth orbit? How does that work?
[24:57]
B
So Starship, Starship is going to be SpaceX's all purpose sort of next generation rocket. It is massive. It is taller and more powerful than the Saturn V rocket that got us to the moon.
[25:09]
A
Oh Lord.
[25:10]
B
It is the most powerful rocket that exists currently.
[25:14]
A
Okay.
[25:15]
B
And so it is massive.
[25:17]
A
Have they had any testing of it?
[25:19]
B
They've done suborbital testing.
[25:20]
A
Okay.
[25:21]
B
And so what Starship will be is its two stages, much like Falcon 9. So Falcon 9 has two different stages. Once the first stage is expended, it detaches from the rest of the rocket and it comes back and lands either on land or on the landing barge to be reused. The second stage is not reusable. It continues. There's a second set of engines on that. It continues to space and deploys. Whatever payload is aboard the starship is designed to be eventually fully reusable. Two stages. So the first stage on the Starship, get it, you know, get the rocket going, it has 33 engines clustered on the bottom of it. It's insane. And so once that is expended, it would detach, it returns back to the launch pad. And so if you've seen any pictures of this, that the launch pad that SpaceX has designed and developed for this, it's called the Chopsticks, it's this tower and it's got two long arms on
[26:17]
A
the top of it, right? Yeah, I think I've seen this, yeah.
[26:20]
B
And so the rocket will come down much like it was launching. And the chopsticks will smush it together, you know, smush it in between the two chopsticks and hold it there.
[26:30]
A
Okay.
[26:31]
B
And that's how it returns, which is wild.
[26:35]
A
Yeah, let's go.
[26:35]
B
Absolutely wild. The second stage continues on to orbit, and then once it's in orbit, it can be refueled, it can, you know, go to the moon. It could. It. What SpaceX eventually wants is it for it to go to Mars. We, a modified version can be used as the landing system for the moon. So it's basically going to be there sort of all purpose. Now, when that second stage is ready to return to Earth, it too will land under its own power and be fully reusable.
[27:04]
A
Okay.
[27:05]
B
Yeah. So it's a massive undertaking and incredibly technically complicated. Possible, but technically complicated. So what SpaceX has done over the past couple of years is they've done these suborbital tests where they launch the full thing, but it doesn't go into full orbit. It does a partial orbit and comes down, and the second stage comes down in the Indian Ocean. And they've been able to succeed some soft landings in the ocean there, where it's coming down mostly in one piece. I won't say in one piece, Right. But mostly in one piece, and it's landing under its own power.
[27:40]
A
Okay.
[27:40]
B
Which is really impressive.
[27:42]
A
Right. And it's. When you say landing, it's not a splashdown. There's a pad out there, or not yet.
[27:48]
B
But they're eventually. The idea is that second stage will actually return to the launch site where they launched it originally. Right now they're, they're land, doing the soft landing in the Indian Ocean because it's out in the middle of nowhere, away from people. So if it blows up like some of them have, okay. Nobody's going to get hurt.
[28:06]
A
All right, what then is the. And this sounds bad, but I question what is the purpose of the SLS if the, if the SpaceX vehicle can launch, go to the moon, land on the moon under its own power, lift off again, come back and land on Earth and be reusable? What is the SLS doing in this?
[28:37]
B
That is the crux of the problem. And so there seem to be hints from NASA that they will eventually move away from the SLS in favor of using these commercial vehicles. And like I said back when SLS was written into law, nobody thought something like this magnitude would be possible or let alone. We didn't know when it might be.
[28:59]
A
Right.
[28:59]
B
So let's have NASA do it. But now in the intervening years we see what the commercial companies can do and it's really spectacular and cheaper. And so I do think in the next couple of years we will see NASA move away from this very expensive, unreusable SLS towards the commercial options that are being developed.
[29:19]
A
Well, it's interesting me because in the Apollo program they were very focused on lunar orth Rendezvous, right? Or lunar.
[29:26]
B
Lunar orbit Rendezvous.
[29:27]
A
Rendezvous where you had the command module and the lunar module in orbit around the moon. You detach the lunar module, it goes down and lands, comes back up, that's. And it shuttles back and forth. The command module stays in lunar orbit. Because it was a weight issue. Right. And now it sounds like the heavy lift of the SpaceX rocket is able to do what? More along the lines of what they were initially thinking about in NASA, which was Earth orbit rendezvous, where you put everything together in Earth and then it all goes to the moon, it all lands and it all comes back.
[30:03]
B
Yes, I think theoretically SpaceX and eventually Blue Origin is thinking much along those same lines. But the politics of it have been such that members of Congress have sought to protect their district. And so there is a very significant pork barrel element to this. Much of NASA's political history is along those very same lines, even going back to the Apollo program. The reason Johnson Space center is in Houston, right, is because Lyndon Baines Johnson, LBJ was the majority leader in the Senate in the late 1950s. He's from representing Texas. And putting a massive NASA center in Texas was going to look really good politically to the majority leader of the Senate who you were depending on to get massive amounts of funding.
[30:52]
A
Right.
[30:53]
B
So going even all the way back to Apollo, there's always been this very strong pork barrel element where members of Congress were looking to get things out of a program like NASA for their states and districts. And a lot of them were in the South, Right? Um, in the South, Southern members of Congress were in the 1940s, 1950s, even into the 1960s, some of the most politically powerful members of Congress. And so that is why you see a lot of these NASA installations in the south, because the southern members of Congress who were powerful, got some stuff for their home states and districts.
[31:28]
A
So that's the domestic angle. Let's talk about the international angle. So Canada is having an astronaut join via the mission. What are the other allies and partners expected to be doing in the future of Artemis?
[31:46]
B
A lot. So this is, you know, again, unlike Apollo, that we are going back to the moon with partners and allies. This is not a United States only tape mission. So obviously Jeremy Hansen, Canadian, is going to be along on this mission. We have already committed that a Japanese astronaut will be on the first lunar landing mission. Our partners and allies are contributing different elements to lunar exploration. The Japanese will also be building a pressurized lunar rover that will allow astronauts to drive around the lunar surface. And so before the gateway, the lunar space station was canceled, many of our European partners were going to contribute to that as well. And so in this model, people aren't necessarily paying into one pot. States and part our partners, allies are providing different equipment, scientific equipment, different pieces of the program that will enable long term, large scale exploration of the lunar surface. So while the United States might be footing the big bill for like how we get there and rocket launches and all of that and organizing this, our partners and allies are contributing different elements, different pieces of technology, pieces of equipment to help enable us getting there.
[33:02]
A
So back in the 60s and early 70s, when Apollo was going, it was very much about the race to the moon, getting there, putting a man on the moon, returning them safely. And once we did that, it was pretty much over and the public kind of lost interest and started asking, why are we spending all of this money? We've won the race, why are we going back? Is it a single mission back that we're looking to, or are we going to try and establish a more long term, I don't want to say permanent, but at least a more consistent and persistent presence on the moon?
[33:41]
B
Yeah. One thing that's really fascinating about that history of Apollo is that the public, we have public opinion polls showing that the public actually started to get less enthused about it as early as the mid-1960s.
[33:53]
A
Oh, wow.
[33:53]
B
So it was even before we got anywhere near the moon that the public started losing interest, which is, I think, always fascinating.
[34:01]
A
Yeah.
[34:01]
B
But in any case, you know, it's interesting about this mission. Artemis is not a lot of people know even actually that this is happening, which again, whole other potential episode on that. So the public didn't even know, doesn't even really know much about Artemis as it is. But yes, to answer the question, we are planning an enduring presence. We're looking to go back to the lunar, or not go back to our where we originally landed, but go to the lunar south pole where there is water in the form of ice. And because of the way the moon is tilted, there are places in the lunar south pole that are almost entirely in the light, almost entirely in the dark all the time.
[34:44]
A
Okay.
[34:44]
B
So this would enable some more permanent establishments shall we say? But yes, and again, like I said, NASA had this big meeting last week. They've laid out an entire exploration architecture for roughly the next 10 years, three stages where as early as next year we are launching things to the moon every month, where we are sending landers up to do scientific experiments. Eventually we will be sending equipment, habitats up there, all to enable long term human exploration of the moon. And so it was, it's actually the first time that NASA has put out such an extensive plan for how we're going to do this. Up until now it was, okay, we're going to send Artemis there, but there was no plan necessarily of how we're actually going to make long term human, human settlements essentially on the moon.
[35:32]
A
So what does that do for the great power competition in the space domain? Because there are treaties, there are international laws about what you can and cannot do and claiming ownership of celestial bodies and these kinds of things. So how does this fit within great power competition?
[35:54]
B
So I think one of the arguments for this entire endeavor is great power competition going all the way back to the first Trump administration when Artemis was first established. NASA leaders and political leaders at the time said, you know, we are racing China to the moon because China also has similar plans to go to the moon and land at the South Pole because of these resources. And so along the way, one of the sustaining rationales for why we're doing this is because China is doing this. So I often get the question, are, are we in a space race with China? Political leaders would say yes. NASA leadership would say yes. Jared Isaacman, during this, this meeting last week where NASA was laying out all these changes, said, we are in a race with China. Personally, this is Wendy's own opinion here again, reinforcing this. You know, I think we won the, we won the race in 1969. It's over, right? It's done. And if any, if you get anything out of this discussion, it's that a lot of our plans in space are over budget and behind schedule. And we have a lot of experience in space exploration. China doesn't have nearly as much. And so they say they're get, they want to get to the moon by 2030. More recently, some say 2020. Again, I would say same, they're going to face the same problems we have. They're going to be over budget, they're going to be behind schedule and they, again, they don't have nearly the experience that we do. So I've always been skeptical of sort of that time frame. Now in terms of like what this does by us going there in the context of international law. You're right. We have the Outer Space Treaty. It says no appropriation of anything out in space. So no state can claim ownership, can claim sovereignty. There is an interpretation, though, of the ost, the Outer Space Treaty, that the US and some other countries have adopted that says, all right, you can't claim ownership, but you can use whatever resources that you find. It's not a fully accepted interpretation of the ost, but it is one that would allow us to establish a presence on the moon and use the resources that we find there. Now, of course, the challenge is the resources that are there are finite. Mm. And. And so, of course, that leads into this narrative that we are in a race, and maybe not to get to the moon, but for, let's not say ownership, but possession of the resources that are there.
[38:10]
A
Extraction, Exploitation of the resource, potentially.
[38:13]
B
Yeah.
[38:13]
A
Okay.
[38:14]
B
Now we don't have the technology, the equipment to extract those things just yet. We haven't demonstrated that. Neither has China. So, you know, getting there is one thing, but being able to actually extract those resources is a whole other. So, you know, we're not even at the point where that's actually happening yet.
[38:33]
A
Well, the good news is that Andy Weir's novel takes place in 2080, so there's plenty of time for reality to catch up with the science fiction that we started this whole podcast episode with. And I'm really looking forward to seeing how this all plays out. Are we gonna have a watch party here at sas?
[38:53]
B
Well, the launch window is in the evening, so it's after duty hours, so I will probably be at home.
[38:59]
A
You'll probably be at home. Okay. So as I understand it, party at Dr. Whitmouth Cobb's house on Wednesday. She'll be providing the. The refreshments.
[39:08]
B
Yes. Well, you know, there are some companies, I won't say who, that are putting out some Artemis themed goodies over the next week. Some donuts. I'll just leave it at that.
[39:18]
A
Oh, no, that's awesome. Yeah. Gotta love a donut. So, as we wrap this up, thank you, Wendy, for all of the information and the analysis as we look at how this plays into the part of Great Power competition. Now, going back to Andy Weir and Artemis and Project Hail Mary and Amaze, Amaze, amaze. Yes. The use of fiction to analyze national security. Great Power competition, military strategy, war and war theory. We are going to be doing a series during our summer break where we actually do get into some.
[39:55]
B
We're going to do a year long yeah.
[39:58]
A
Starting in our summer. And it's, and it's going to go throughout the year. And we're going to bring in Lt. Col. Rachel Reynolds, who has curated a, I think a fantastic list.
[40:06]
B
I started reading. I'm so excited.
[40:08]
A
And I'm going to be starting here in the next couple of weeks getting that. So I just wanted to put in a plug for that. We will be doing some, some analysis of fiction, a little bit lighter reading starting in the summer and then continuing throughout.
[40:22]
B
Although Rico does tell me some of the books are quite thick. So.
[40:26]
A
They are, but they're more, they're more approachable. They're, they're, they're fun books. It's what you, you know, you have Causewitz for dinner, but this is dessert.
[40:35]
B
Yeah, I've actually had, I was reading one of them this weekend. Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein.
[40:42]
A
Heinlein. Gotta love it. Gotta love it.
[40:44]
B
Just a preview of what's to come.
[40:46]
A
All sorts of stuff. And we will be posting that list here in the next couple of weeks in the episode notes. And we'll make sure that folks know what the first book is going to be so that they can start reading for the summer.
[40:56]
B
Sounds good.
[40:57]
A
All right. With that, I think that does it for this. And we will see you all next week.
[41:01]
B
Go. Artemis. Thank you for tuning in to Books to Battles. We hope you enjoyed today's discussion. If you liked today's episode, please be sure to like and subscribe and even tell a friend about us. Also, don't forget to send us any questions you'd like answered or suggested future episodes. You can contact us at bookstobattles at au af Edu For Colonel Corey Holland, I'm Dr. Wendy Whitman Cobb. And don't forget, strategy doesn't stop at the page.