How are we going to colonise the galaxy if we can’t launch on a cloudy day?” was only one of the disappointed posts on Twitter as Nasa’s countdown ground to a halt for the umpteenth time on Wednesday. The US space agency was supposed to be launching the Ares 1-X in the first test of a rocket designed to take astronauts back to the Moon, but it was plagued by clouds that threatened “triboelectrification” — Nasa-speak for interference on the radio link.

When the rocket did finally blast off for a spectacular two-and-a-half-minute test flight, Nasa’s commentator called it a test of concepts for future rockets. Another Nasa official was heard describing the launch team as “fricking fantastic” — more Nasa-speak, presumably. But it is too early to be looking forward to more flags and footprints on the Moon just yet. The truth is that this may be the only time the rocket ever flies.

A White House-appointed review panel recently concluded that Houston has a problem. Namely, Nasa’s ambition to return astronauts to the Moon in the 2020s is not matched by its funding, and Ares 1 is too expensive to be viable. Wednesday’s fleeting test alone cost almost half a billion dollars.

Ares 1 is designed to replace the space shuttle, which is due for retirement either next year or the year after, but it is not going to be ready in time. As a result, America will temporarily lose its ability to launch astronauts. Nasa officials ominously refer to this time as “the gap”, and they will have to buy places on Russian rockets, like space tourists are doing, to continue sending Americans to the International Space Station.

It’s hardly an auspicious step for an agency that wants to set up bases on the Moon and then Mars. The White House report estimates that Nasa is adrift by about $3 billion (£1.8 billion) a year if it is to stand any hope of using the Ares 1 to return astronauts to the Moon within the next two decades.

Nasa’s response has been to consider big job cuts, angering congressional representatives in the states housing Nasa establishments. The White House has yet to decide whether to raise Nasa’s budget, though it seems unlikely in this economic climate.

So the Moon and Mars look unlikely destinations for now, but there are other targets worth visiting. The report, chaired by the aerospace industrialist Norman Augustine, highlighted asteroids and the moons of Mars. The asteroids are mountain-sized space rocks left over from the formation of the planets, including Earth, and so could contain valuable clues about how the solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago.

The moons of Mars are the perfect staging posts for remotely operating rovers on the surface of the red planet in real time. Most importantly for cash-strapped Nasa, such targets would require much less powerful rockets to return home at the end of the mission, keeping costs lower.

More seriously for Nasa, the report recommends that it scraps Ares 1 in favour of contracting private companies to handle launching astronauts into orbit. For example, the California-based SpaceX will soon be testing its latest rocket to take cargo to the International Space Station. SpaceX says it could transform its Dragon capsule into a manned version in only three years.

Historic is an overused word at Nasa but, whatever happens, the Ares 1-X launch will certainly be remembered as a watershed. The White House must now decide whether Nasa is simply a gigantic administrative beast designed to keep people in jobs but do little else, or whether it should transform itself back into an organisation of space exploration. That means job losses, restructuring and Nasa losing its American monopoly on space. But it also means achievement, inspiration and, more importantly, science.

Stuart Clark is the author of Galaxy: Exploring the Milky Way

Times Recommends

• Wartime couple are reunited 68 years on
• 50 People of the Decade
• Book round-ups. Turkeys tarted up. I feel sick