NASA's Artemis II Should Have Been a SpaceX Mission ($100B Waste)

Summary

• The Artemis II mission is a historic, exciting return to lunar orbit after 53 years, marking a gateway for future lunar colonization plans involving private companies.
• NASA's SLS rocket launch cost is $4.1 billion, with a total program cost of ~$93 billion, criticized as a "colossal waste of money" compared to private alternatives.
• SpaceX's Starship can launch for an estimated $10 million if reusable ($100 million if it explodes), representing a cost reduction to less than 1% of NASA's per-launch expense.
• The inefficiency is attributed to NASA's "cost-plus" contracting model, which incentivizes contractors like Lockheed Martin to increase costs, versus SpaceX's private-market incentives to reduce costs.
• The future of lunar settlement (Artemis III/IV, targeting a permanent outpost by 2036) is seen as dependent on SpaceX's reusable rocket technology and cost efficiency, not NASA's own systems.
• SpaceX's Starship is highlighted as superior: 25-30% taller, 2x heavier, 4x more payload capacity, and fully reusable with a modern cockpit design versus NASA's "1960s" look.
• Blue Origin is seen as a competitor but significantly behind SpaceX in the critical metric of cheaply moving large mass to orbit (e.g., for large satellites or lunar missions).
• Market implication: The "space race is back," driving interest in public space stocks and anticipation for a potential SpaceX IPO with a monumental valuation ($1.75-$2 trillion).
• A key uncertainty is the timeline for sustainable lunar habitation, with the bet placed on SpaceX (not NASA) achieving the first crewed landing and enabling settlement by the late 2020s.
• The discussion maintains a nuanced optimism: celebrating NASA's achievement as a necessary step while being sharply critical of its execution and cost.