Artemis? I don't even follow the government plans anymore because they'll change again (and never be completed). Might as well read SciFi novels in PowerPoint format.
Not control surfaces, it's returning the large mass to Earth ... which requires a larger booster, larger heat shields, large control surfaces, many failure points, etc, etc. You *really* think that a Mars-capable Starship will be a minor variant of a cargo or even Moon-capable Starship??? I guess we'll see.
That was a joke/exaggeration (note the '!').
Do I even need to criticize SLS??? It's a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and violates several of the lessons learned from STS: no crew with payload (i.e. no manrating of heavy lift), no large solids, etc. SLS will fly once or twice then be quietly canned. There won't be a Block II. I'd say, "give that money to SpaceX", but then that risks SX getting fat and lazy rather than staying lean and mean. I think, overall, the best approach is for NASA to eventually buy services from commercial providers (e.g. "we need you to transport seven people to XYZ and back") and not design launchers.
It'll never be fiscally viable for most of the population.
Yes, I do think we/they need landers specifically designed for their environment. Sending a large mass down and back up requires huge amounts of propellant ... which feeds back into needing a much larger launcher from Earth and numerous refueling stops in LEO, etc. Well, we're right back to the idea of a depot in LEO. And if we're going to blow that much propellant anyway, why not make a spacecraft that propulsively brakes back into LEO to dock with the depot (the crew can reenter in a simple capsule) and reuse it. It never lands anywhere, it simply goes from one orbit to another.
