Mike Haridopolos calls Artemis II moon shot a boon for Space Coast and national security

The contrails from rockets remain a frequent sight in the Space Coast skies. But this week marks a special launch, as the Artemis II carries men to orbit the moon.

U.S. Rep. Mike Haridopolos, the Indian Harbor Beach Republican representing the region, sees the landmark mission as vital for national defense, the space industry and Florida’s economy. He spoke to Florida Politics at length about the historic mission and the value of future trips that will eventually mean mankind’s return to the moon for the first time since 1972.

FP: How important is having a flight to the moon to the economy of the region?

MH: It’s an absolute boon for the Space Coast. As you know, many of us were so concerned with the end of the shuttle program when Barack Obama crushed it. But what we have done in the meantime is to really work on building public-private partnerships, as evidenced by Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA, etc. Now, you have the big rocket going up this week, but we have almost daily launches from Kennedy Space Center (KSC), putting up those commercial and military satellites that have been a boon for our economy — not only on the Space Coast, but around Florida.

FP: What does the Artemis II mission in particular mean to the long-term future for Kennedy Space Center?

MH: It’s the key component and the linchpin for NASA. With the latest plans laid out with this moon colony idea by (new NASA Administrator) Jared Isaacman, you’re going to see more and more flights heading out of KSC — not just, of course, potentially, with Artemis III, IV and V to land on the moon eventually, but also the cargo necessary to we want to put on the moon. So when those astronauts get there, they can build that moon colony and establish the United States as the dominant force on the moon for all mankind. This is just another step in the way in which Kennedy Space Center is such an integral part of the NASA operation and the private sector operation. As you know, it’s not just NASA that launches there. There’s so many other private companies that are moving forward into this space, and we’ve gone so far in the idea we even have space bonds. It really says a lot that we have a need for workers there. These are high-paying, high-skilled jobs. You’re seeing our part of the state’s economy truly grow because of these huge investments being made by both the government and the private sector.

FP: Insofar as moon travel goes, I know the focus has been on the public sector. Do you think with the idea of a base up there that we’re going to see more involvement with private sector launches to the moon?

MH: We definitely will. Not every rocket is going to be NASA. Landing cargo is much different than landing humans on the moon. As you know, not too long ago, Firefly (Aerospace) was able to land on the moon. You’ve seen others, meaning unmanned systems, going there. I think you’re going to see as part of this operation a mixture of public-private partnerships so there’s a win-win. But we want to win this race to the moon, because the Chinese do not share our values for human life, let alone the environment. There’s a great potential on the south pole that there’s water there, which means hydrogen, which means fuel, to not only operate the base, but potentially launch us to Mars.

FP: How do you think that this space race, now with China, is going? What are your concerns, or what advantages do you think we have?

MH: Look, we are doing an incredible job. Remember, last year, 165 launches in the United States, whether it be in California or, in the bulk of those, of course, Kennedy Space Center. And these are for commercial satellites and also military satellites, which is so important to the changing realities of warfare. Without those satellites, we don’t have GPS technology, etc. So it’s a huge deal for us. We feel like we’re winning this space race, but know that we can’t let our foot off the gas. That’s why I’m so pleased. Not only does Isaacman have this vision for a moon base, but he has also talked about the idea of increasing the number of flights with Artemis so we can build up our muscle memory and fix any issues that could come up when you deal with a very complex rocket system like this.

FP: We have seen a lot of changes with Artemis plans announced the last few months. We were going to send men to land on the moon on Artemis III, and now that’s being pushed to Artemis IV. What does that mean in the big picture for the Artemis program?

MH: First, I’m very impressed by Jared Isaacman. This is a guy who puts his money where his mouth is. He’s been a person in a rocket. He’s an engineer and a pilot. This guy understands the engineering necessary to pull off successful missions, and he has brought a new level of enthusiasm to NASA and space in general. You see him aggressively out there on social media talking up how important this is for the United States to win this space race, and how he wants to change the cadence so that we are launching more often and building with that muscle memory necessary to find success.

FP: How did you feel about the announcement Artemis III would be an Earth orbit mission, not a moon mission?

MH: That’s just a pragmatic solution. As you know, we don’t have a lander ready yet, and so we want to use these SLS (Space Launch System) rockets to learn as much as we can, much like we did with the Apollo missions. Remember, we didn’t just go from A to Z there. There was a step-by-step process to improve the way we operate. Again, we have a great love for life, and we want to make sure, if we’re putting astronauts into space, that we’re doing it the safest way possible, as we learn how to operate once again around the moon and do that translunar injection. So that said, I think he is making a smart short- and long-term decision. The biggest challenge we face, in my opinion, landing on the moon with astronauts is that lander. And we’re going to rely on the expertise of Blue Origin and SpaceX, who have been so successful in other missions. I have every reason to believe they’re going to find that solution for the lander that will make the difference not just landing on the moon, but the long-term success of the moon colony.

FP: There were concerns about Isaacman’s personal ties to SpaceX. Has he been a fair arbiter dealing with all of the vendors?

MH: What I’m hearing from people is they love the fact that he is so accessible. The prior administration was a little aloof. They did not embrace some of the changes he’s talked about. It was a slow-moving operation in some ways under the prior leadership. Isaacman is out there in the public. He’s pushing ideas, and he’s not just talking to the space industry today. He’s talked to the prior leaders on what lessons we can learn. I’ve heard whenever people call or text or email him, he gets right back to them. I know he’s been incredibly accessible with me as a new member of Congress and the Chairman of the (House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee). When I have questions, he immediately answers those for us, and we continue to think of ways to make this mission a success. I’ve only heard rave reviews — and remember, he went out and visited all the different NASA sites as well. He’s not just sitting there in Washington. He’s going out and talking to people on the front line, getting their opinion and then making important decisions as we move forward.

FP: Are you referencing the prior administration under interim NASA Administrator (and Transportation Secretary) Sean Duffy or under former NASA Administrator Bill Nelson (under President Joe Biden)?

MH: I’m talking about Nelson. Duffy, you know, he did everything he could to kind of line everything up. He did a great job. Remember, Duffy’s the one who helped us get that almost $10 billion for the Big Beautiful Bill to improve NASA. Nelson was a different operator, and as you know, at the end of their term, they stranded those astronauts up on the ISS because of the challenges they faced.

FP: There’s been angst in Tallahassee, especially some testimony from KSC Director Janet Petro, that there is enough infrastructure around it to keep it going as the prime launch site. Do you feel confident about KSC continuing to be the center where we’re launching rockets?

MH: Well, I really hope that they can work closely with Space Florida. I know the Governor loves space. I’m optimistic that the legislators and the Governor will work out their agreements once the budget is finalized. We put a tremendous amount of resources through the Big Beautiful Bill at Kennedy Space Center, over a quarter of a billion dollars, and we’re also looking at ways in which we, our private sector friends, can make investments in the infrastructure. All I can control is what I can control. And I’m happy to say that we have really stepped up in Washington to make sure that NASA receives the funds it needs. Remember, a year ago, they were talking about a 40% cut. There was no cut in NASA this year, and we added almost $10 billion in the Big Bill. So we’re going to do everything on our end. In the meantime, we hope that our friends down in Tallahassee will make those investments like Rick Scott and I did back in the day. One of the goals we had when the shuttle went away, Rick Scott and I — he was Governor, I was Senate President — was, how do we enhance the public private partnerships? You’ve seen that with SpaceX and Blue Origin, and we’re optimistic they can continue on that good pathway.

FP: One of the things the Space Coast took a big hit on when the shuttle program went away was losing those manned flights that attracted so many eyes. Do you think Artemis is starting to spur a different level of tourism?

MH: I think it is. And even though you don’t have some of the big, huge crowds like you’re going to see this week, remember, there’s a huge crowd that always comes out for the SpaceX launches or the Blue Origin launches, and that’s a big deal. Now, I know there’s not astronauts on top, so it’s a little bit different. But that Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy and other ones that go up almost every two or three days, it’s a big deal. More importantly for the long term, not just the tourists, space jobs are being developed — not hundreds, but thousands of jobs. The state of Florida and I are working very closely right now on some of these training programs so even high school students after three or four years can get the certifications necessary to go right from high school into a space technician job and being a part of the space team that is NASA or private sector.

FP: How has the growth in commercial space flight changed how you as a Congressman find support for launches and for KSC?

MH: You’ve seen changes take place over the last 15 years. We all recognize how reliant we are on some of these private sector companies, not just for their launches, but for the innovations necessary. Sometimes politics does get in the way, because different presidents have different visions. Clearly, President (Donald) Trump loves space. Remember, he created the Space Force. I think because we found so much success on the commercial side, you’re seeing people get more excited about it in Congress. I’d say thank you to all my friends in Congress. They have truly stepped up with their resources necessary to build on the current space program. Again, we fully funded NASA, and we added an additional $10 billion. That’s almost half the yearly budget of NASA. And not just Florida, but, of course, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and California, for that matter. This is a national project.

FP: Why is it that government continues to be the entity that drives the moon mission?

MH: If you think about it, the business sense initially is not always there, right? I mean, it’s getting there, and once it’s established, like we have in LEO (low-Earth orbit), you see the private sector come in. It’s almost like any investment company. You have the big investors, those being the taxpayers, because of their love of space and the belief that space can improve their quality of life, make the initial investment. Then once those investments are made and innovations are made, you see the private sector come in and replicate that at a lower cost. It’s like any other business you see. Sometimes seed money is put in there. It would be the equivalent of tax incentives in order to get those investors. Once a success is proven, I think you’ll see the private sector maximize the opportunity made by the government.

FP: Will we be mining the moon any time soon?

MH: Helium-three is a real potential that could improve our nuclear power here on Earth. I think that’s one option. And with all the sun that hits the moon, and of course that can hit satellites, you might see the data centers on the moon or in satellites in the future, like Elon Musk has talked about. Given our tremendous need for power, it makes total sense to me that this could be another innovation that we need, considering that the data centers soak up so much energy, and if we can get it from or have data centers getting the energy from the sun, or having data centers up in space, it could be a game changer.