[ad_1]
NASA Apollo 11 astronauts planted a flag on the moon on July 20, 1969. - The last time a person visited the moon was in December 1972, during Over the decades, NASA has planned to send people back to the moon but has not yet succeeded.
- Astronauts often say that the main reasons humans have not returned to the lunar surface are fiscal and political. obstacles – no scientific or technical challenges.
- Private companies like Blue Origin or SpaceX may be the first entities to send people back to the moon.
Landing 14 people on the moon remains one of NASA's greatest successes.
The astronauts collected stones, took pictures, did experiments, planted flags, and then returned home. But these stays of a week during the Apollo program have not established a lasting human presence on the moon.
More than 45 years after the last landing on the moon crewed – Apollo 17 in December 1972 – there are plenty of reasons to come back Researchers and contractors believe that a crew base on the moon could become a fuel depot for missions in the deep space, lead to the creation of unprecedented space telescopes, make it easier to live on Mars, and solve long-standing scientific mysteries on the Earth and creating from the moon. A lunar base could even become a thriving economy, perhaps built around lunar space tourism
"A permanent human research station on the Moon is the next logical step, three days away." That's wrong , and not kill everyone, "recently told former astronaut Chris Hadfield at Business Insider." And we have a whole lot of things that we have to invent and then test in order to learn before we start. " go further. "
But many astronauts and other experts suggest the biggest obstacles to crewed lunar missions over the past four years – the more deceptive if not depressing decades have been. 19659011] It's really expensive to go on the moon – but not so expensive
Bloomsbury Auctions A proven hurdle for everything The law signed in March 2017 by President Donald Trump gives the N ASA has an annual budget of about $ 19.5 billion and could reach $ 19.9 billion in 2019.
One or the other amount looks like a bargain – up to $ 19.9 billion. that you consider that the total is divided between all the divisions of the agency and ambitious projects: the James Webb space telescope, the giant rocket project called Space Launch System and distant missions in the sun. Jupiter, Mars, l? Has the steroidal belt, the Kuiper belt and the edge of the solar system. (In contrast, the US military has a budget of about $ 600 billion a year, including a project – the modernization and expansion of the US nuclear arsenal – could cost up to $ 1.7 trillion over 30 years.)
More "NASA's share in the federal budget peaked at 4% in 1965. For 40 years, it has remained below 1 %, "Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said during a congressional testimony in 2015.
Trump's budget calls for a return to the moon, then to an orbital visit on Mars. But given the huge costs and delays of NASA's SLS rocket program, there may not be enough money to reach one or the other destination, even if the International Space Station is quickly disconnected. the moon would cost about $ 104 billion (or $ 133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program costs about $ 120 billion dollars today (19659008) "Human exploration is the most expensive space enterprise and, therefore, the most difficult to obtain. political support, "said Cunningham. "Unless the country, which is Congress here, decides to put in more money, it's just what we do here."
Referring to Mars missions and returning to the moon, Cunningham adds, "NASA's budget is too low to do all the things we've talked about here."
The problem with presidents
Reuters / Carlos Barria US President Donald Trump has abandoned the Obama administration [19659026] The immediate goal of the Trump administration is to bring astronauts to "neighborhood of the moon" in 2023. It would be towards the end of what could be Trump's second term if he is re-elected.
And here is another major problem: partisan political badlash.
"Why would you believe what a president said about a prediction of something that would happen two administrations in the future?" Hadfield said. "It's just a conversation."
From the point of view of astronauts, it is the mission. The process of designing, engineering and testing a spaceship that could allow people to access another world lasts much longer than a president. two terms. But there is a predictable trend of incoming presidents and legislators to abandon the previous leader's space exploration priorities.
"I would like the next president to support a budget that allows us to accomplish the mission we are asked to" Astronaut Scott Kelly, who spent a year in space , wrote in a Reddit Ask Me Anything session in January 2016 (before Trump took office).
But Presidents and Congress do not seem to care about staying the course.
In 2004, for example, the Bush administration tasked NASA to find a way to replace the space shuttle, which was to retire, and return to the moon. The agency created the Constellation program to land astronauts on the moon, using a rocket called Ares and a spaceship called Orion.
NASA spent $ 9 billion over five years designing, building and testing equipment for this space program. Yet after President Barack Obama took office – and the Government Accountability Office released a report on NASA's inability to estimate Constellation costs – Obama pushed him to abandon the program and approved the rocket Space Launch System (SLS). t scrapped SLS. But he changed Obama's goal by sending astronauts to an asteroid for lunar and Martian missions.
These frequent changes to NASA's costly priorities resulted in cancellation after cancellation, a loss of about $ 20 billion, and years of wasted time.
"I am disappointed that they are so slow and that they are trying to do something else," said Jim Lovell, an Apollo 8 astronaut at Business Insider in 2017. "I'm not excited about anything in the near future – see things as they come. "
Buzz Aldrin said in a 2015 congressional testimony that he believes the will to return to the moon must come from Capitol Hill. "19659009" The American leadership inspires the world by constantly doing what no other nation is capable of doing, we demonstrated it 45 years ago, but I do not believe not that we've done it since, "Aldrin writes in a prepared statement." I believe it starts with a bipartisan commitment from Congress and the Administration to sustained leadership. "
The Real Engine of this government's commitment to return to the moon is the will of the American people who vote for the politicians their political priorities. But the public interest in lunar exploration has always been lukewarm.
Even at the top of the Apollo program – after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the lunar surface – only 53% of Americans thought the program was worth the cost. Most of the time, the approval of Apollo by the United States was well below 50%.
Today, 55% of Americans think that NASA should make the return to the moon a priority, but only a quarter of these believers think that According to a poll of the Pew Research Center released in June. But 44% of those surveyed believe that sending astronauts to the moon should not be done at all.
Support for Mars crew exploration is stronger, with 63% believing it should be a NASA priority.
Challenges Beyond Politics
NASA Many space enthusiasts have long hoped to build a base on the Moon, but the Moon The hostile environment of the surface would not be a great place for humans. The political tussle over NASA's mission and budget is not the only reason people have not returned to the moon. The moon is also a deadly trap for humans 4.5 billion years old and should not be ridiculed or underestimated.
Its surface is crowded with craters and rocks that threaten safe landings. Before the first landing on the moon in 1969, the US government was spending billions of dollars to develop, launch and deliver satellites to the moon to map its surface and help mission planners search for potential sites. Apollo landing. ] But more worry is what the meteor's eons have created: the regolith, also called moon dust.
Madhu Thangavelu, aeronautical engineer at the University of Southern California, wrote in 2014 that the moon is covered by a fine. upper layer of lunar dust resembling talc, a few centimeters deep in some areas, electrostatically charged by interaction with the solar wind and very abrasive and sticky, which very quickly soiled space suits, vehicles and systems. "
Peggy Whitson, an astronaut who has lived in space for 665 days, recently told Business Insider that the Apollo missions" had a lot of dust problems. "
" If we go from long periods and build a permanent habitat s, we must understand how to handle this, "said Whitson.
There is also a problem with sunlight.For 14.75 days at a time, the lunar surface is a landscape of Hell that is exposed directly to the harsh rays of the sun – the moon does not have a protective atmosphere.The next 14.75 days are in total darkness, making the lunar surface l & rsquo; One of the coldest places in the universe.
A small nuclear reactor developed by NASA, called Kilopower, could provide electricity to astronauts for weeks on end. Other worlds, including Mars.
"He there is no place more hostile to the environment or harder to live than the moon, "Thangavelu writes. "And yet, as it is so close to the Earth, there is no better place to learn to live far from the planet Earth."
NASA has designed space suits and rovers resistant to dust and sun. if this material is almost ready to be launched, as some of them were part of the Constellation program now canceled.
A generation of billionaire "space nuts" could make it happen
] SpaceX / YouTube An illustration of the "Rocket Rocket" Elon Musk and SpaceX landed on a lunar base A series of lunar rockets is on the horizon.
"said astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman to reporters at a roundtable held earlier this year. "The innovation that has occurred over the last 10 years in spaceflight would never have occurred if there was only NASA, Boeing and Lockheed, because 39 there was no motivation to cut costs or change the way we do it. "
Hoffman refers to the work of Elon Musk and his rocket company, SpaceX, as well as that of Jeff Bezos, who runs a secret aeronautical company called Blue Origin.
"There is no question – if we go further, especially if we go farther than the moon – we need new means of transport," Hoffman added. "Right now, we're still in the era of spaceflight. "
The desire of many astronauts to return to the moon is inscribed in the long-term vision of Bezos.Bezos has launched a plan around Washington to start building the base of the first moon using the new Blue Origin rocket system from Blue Origin.In April he said: "We will move all the heavy industry of the Earth, and the Earth will be zoned residential and l & # 39; 39, light industry. "
Musk also spoke at length about how SpaceX developing "Big Falcon Rocket" could pave the way for affordable and regular lunar tours. SpaceX could even visit the moon before NASA or the blue origin. The company's new Falcon Heavy rocket is capable of launching a small space capsule of Dragon Crew beyond the Moon and returning to Earth – and Musk said two private individuals had already paid a large deposit to travel [19659008EithersomedaythemoonwouldbepartoftheeconomicsphereoftheEarth-justlikegeostationaryorbitandlowEarthorbit"Hoffmansaid"Thespaceonthegeostationaryorbitispartofourday-to-dayeconomyIthinkthatonedaythemoonwillbeandthat'ssomethingforwhichtowork"
The astronauts do not doubt that we will return to the moon. on Mars. It's just a question of when.
"I guess eventually, things will happen where they will return to the moon and end up going to Mars, probably not in my lifetime," said Lovell. "I hope they will succeed."
Source link
Tags astronauts depressing explain Moon reasons visited years
