Now to NASA’s ‘collaborations’ intended to get Artemis II off the ground: there are said to be more than 2,700 of them. The main players are, of course, all involved in the business of war. Boeing has made the core stage, supplying engine thrust. Boeing made all the Apache AH-64 helicopters and F-15 fighter jets “which the Israeli Air Force has used extensively in all of its attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, including in 2023”. Airbus provides Artemis with propulsion and power. Airbus also made the Heron TP RPAS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in partnership with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) which had pioneered the Heron and used it in Gaza. Lockheed Martin has made the little module to house the astronauts, and the company is “proud of the significant role it has fulfilled in the security of the State of Israel”. Indeed, they have provided Israel with C-130 and F-16 aircraft for decades and, more recently, F-35 stealth fighters. Northrop Grumman made the rocket boosters for NASA. Northrop Grumman componentry enables very many of the weapon systems which Israel has at her disposal. This ‘Moon Mission’ is owned by the war industry, of that there can be no doubt.
The Artemis dynasty showcases the extent to which NASA — and by extension the United States Government — is dependent upon those fashioning the tools of death and destruction to realise ‘their’ goals in space. Not just that, but dependent upon entities with foundations and loyalties outside that country. When Kennedy spoke at Rice in ’62, he was absolutely setting out America’s stall as the front-runner in this race for space. He said: “And only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theatre of war”. Only extreme high pressure on the propaganda barometer would cause anyone to think a ‘sea of peace’ is overhead. As to the position of pre-eminence, this is not so much about looking to Russia or China or India for a comparison, but more a question of examining how much of a grip the ‘United States’ has on the space infrastructure, even if it is emblazoned with the Stars and Stripes.
It could be a further two years that Elon Musk has to wait before SpaceX provides Starship to NASA; it will be the ‘human landing system’ for Artemis III, which is meant to plonk people on the Moon. There is no doubt that Musk’s personal views and ambitions shape the actions of ‘his’ many businesses, which means that the influence he holds, through both SpaceX and Starlink, is undue. That personality may have a bearing on commercial enterprise is not new, and nor is it necessarily problematic. However, when the personality of a civilian in the private sector exerts influence over the activities of governments and militaries, questions should be raised. In this context, it would appear to be directly relevant that Elon Musk — a committed Zionist — has pushed to inflame sectarian tension in the United Kingdom. His comments at Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom event in London in September 2025 were as hysterical and irresponsible as they were prejudiced and deliberate. He was invited to speak on the subject of migration (which, for those unfamiliar with Tommy’s oeuvre, only means brown-skinned Muslims). Musk said: “My message is, to them, if this continues, that violence is going to come to you. You will have no choice. This is, this is … You’re in a fundamental situation here, where … whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back, or you die. You either fight back or you die. And that’s the truth”.
Not only does the stable of Musk house SpaceX and Starlink, but also Starshield, a “secured satellite network for government entities”. This is one example of many ‘dual-use’ assets in space, which even the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) admits “blur the line between peaceful and potentially disruptive applications”. Thus, both myths are dashed: activity in space may not be regarded as generally peaceful, and governments have very little control over such activity. The corporate synergies are to be paid attention to. Since Israel and the United States began launching gratuitous attacks on Iran in February of this year, the BBC tells us, “Starlink reportedly made free in Iran — but protesters are taking huge risks by using it”. This enables the belligerent parties to pump propaganda into Iran by keeping lines of (satellite) communication open, a role that X will play a large part in. For context, see the map showing the regions that Starlink is not available and consider whether this upholds Kennedy’s suggestion that “there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people”. Not quite all people, it turns out.