During the evening of 20 April, following the postponement of the wind wave, a new generation of launch vehicle stars (Starship) belonging to Space Exploration Technology Ltd. Space (Elon Musk) under the flag of Elon Musk was finally fired, but the first orbit-level pilot was unsuccessful in the air explosion.

Mask then sent a letter congratulating the SpaceX team for its efforts and expressing a great deal of relaunching for several months. SpaceX, on the other hand, is also officially described as a “complete”, “congratuary”, “to many”.

The launch of an asterisk ship was scheduled for the evening of this week, but was announced at the time of launch on the grounds that the pressure valves appear to be frozen. At that time, Mask also sent a letter stating that “many learned, a few days later”.

Why do Mask do so with “very much”? The launch of an asterisk is crucial, as it relates not only to the Mars nightmare in Massk, but also to the United States re-entry plan.

Over a period of 50 years, the United States Aerospace Agency (NASA) is increasingly close to returning to the Moon, and SpaceX plays a vital role in this task.

It is designed to transport goods and crews to the moon, Mars, etc. This high-profile launch will determine whether the “Artemis” boarding plan of NASA will be on a successful track.

In 2021, SpaceX received a $2.9 billion contract awarded by NASA, which will be the first time since 1972 for NASA to return to the Moon with an asterisk. In addition, in November last year, an asterisk was awarded another contract as part of the Aarmires mandate.

Brendan Rosseau, Lecturer in Space Economics, Harvard Business School, was a key test not only of the Space X Star, but also of the NASA casing “business participants at the heart of their development processes”.

01

SpaceX successfully launched as part of the NASA plan

Rosseau said that the success of SpaceX was part of the ambitious plan of NASA to introduce business participants into the boarding project.

Following the completion of the 2011 space plan, NASA changed the way in which its development plan was developed. Rosseau said that NASA did not invest all of its energies from the outset in the design of rockets, but rather in private companies. These companies can undertake development tasks and can compete in terms of price and efficiency.

Rosseau noted that the NASA strategy is highly risky, but now has a high return. “It spawned a company such as SpaceX and Blue Origin (blue origin under the flag of Jefés). Investments in NASA and the acquisition of NASA clients are the only reasons why these companies can be present today.”

SpaceX is not the only beneficiary of this strategy. NASA has commissioned 14 private companies to deliver various payloads to the Moon in the coming years, three of which will be transported this year.

February

Will the economic nature of space be subverted?

The cost of an asterisk is not currently accurately projected, but it was indicated before Mask that the cost of each launch could be less than $10 million over a few years.

In addition, the full repetitive use of constellations means that it may be launched several times a year. Rosseau said: “This will fundamentally change the economic character of space”.

Rosseau said that history would be created if SpaceX could complete 50 launches within a year. Moreover, this is only one third of the annual launch targets set by SpaceX.

In contrast, the NASA space launch system (Space Launch System, SLS) is not expensive. Since the inception of the plan in 2006, the project has spent $50 billion in development costs and was successfully launched six years after the project was launched.

The cost of each SLS rocket is over $4 billion. NASA also needs to be rebuilt after each launch due to non-repetition. Therefore, SLS is not a cheap undertaking, at least in the short term.

All this makes the SLS of NASA not a pro-competitive counterpart of the SpaceX Star.

03

NASA does not want to rely solely on an asterisk.

Why should NASA continue to support its own SLS rocket if it believes that SpaceX can meet its commitments?

Rosseau indicated that, in view of its attitude in favour of commercial participants, NASA retained its own SLS rocket project “somely unusual”.

He said: “The purchase of services from the business sector (private companies) is indeed feasible in terms of time and money costs.”

Rosseau said that promoting the continued investment of NASA in SLS could be driven by political rather than commercial decisions.

Rosseau said that, in any event, SLS could still be a major rocket for NASA, at least for the Aarmirus mandate.

He said that “SLS’s advantage was that it was built in itself as a task of “allowers” and that NASA had made considerable efforts to that end in order to be compatible with the “hunter house” spacecraft. It seems that they will stay for some time.”

Rosseau also noted that if SpaceX proved to be cheaper and more efficient, NASA could face increasing pressure to use spaceX rockets more in tasks other than “Anchus”.

Currently, asterisks are the only vehicles that may allow NASA to board the moon.

However, Greg Autry, Visiting Professor at the Institute of Security, Science and Technology of the Imperial Institute of Technology in London, considered that “NASA cannot be limited to one way to achieve boarding months”.

Autry stated that the outlook for the asterisk was indeed surprising, but warned that there were still many obstacles that needed to be overcome before proceeding with the first orbital flight, including refuelling the aircraft in orbit, installing the life-supporting hardware on the spacecraft, and improving the “delivering” of the boarding month.