Op-Ed | It's time to go back to the moon to really stay



[ad_1]

Responding to the president's desire to send Americans back to the moon as part of his tenure, NASA's director Jim Bridenstine faces several challenges, perhaps insurmountable. Ignoring the political and budgetary constraints under which he must plan such a technical accomplishment, he is embarrassed by a tired thought of returning to Apollo.

Fifty-eight years ago, almost every day, President Kennedy declared what was at the time an ambitious national goal: to send a man to the moon in the space of a decade and a half.bring it back safely to Earth. "Apollo's biggest challenge was not the first, but the last.

It was relatively easy to bring someone to the moon, even at that moment: launch a rocket with a crew and a lander and place them on the lunar surface. This could be done with a much smaller rocket than the Saturn V.

But to come back, another vehicle should first return to orbit, then another propeller to bring it back to Earth, and this vehicle should be able to enter the atmosphere and recover on the planet. area. It turned out that two other vehicles were deployed: a lunar ascension phase and a recovery capsule in the atmosphere. Because we had too little experience in assembling space, all this extra equipment and the thruster needed to make it go back and forth had to be flown in a single flight from Florida. The capsule with its precious human cargo placed on the huge Saturn V launcher is all that came back from the moon.

Although Kennedy's goal was achieved, the science of the six lunar missions was limited by the necessarily short duration of the mission on the lunar surface. In particular, we still do not have data on the long-term effects of partial severity, including on the ability to conceive and manipulate healthy offspring of rodents, let alone primates, including humans, knowledge essential to understand the ability of humanity to flourish. the moon.

When planning the return to the moon, it seems we were just trying to repeat Apollo: send a man (and a woman) to the moon and send them safely to Earth. But suppose we eliminate this last requirement, at least in the beginning?

If we do not need to bring them back immediately, the 2024 mission becomes much simpler and more affordable: build a habitat that can be replenished and land on the moon. Then, after having verified its good functioning, send its first crew. We know how to create space habitats from the ISS experience, and lunar habitats are easier because they have some seriousness of work. All the necessary major equipment that would be new is a lander. A few weeks in Washington, Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world and founder of the space company Blue Origin, unveiled a mock-up of the one they're planning to build. There is no reason to think that with adequate financing (and that this would surely be much lower than that developed by NASA under a cost-plus contract), it could not be ready and tested in four years (and would be even necessary with a planned return, although the requirements may be different).

Without the immediate need for lunar ascents, the mission could be carried out with existing launchers, such as the Falcon Heavy.

When would the crew come back? Whenever we have developed the means to do so, an activity that could be done in parallel, but without the emergency 2024. Meanwhile, in a few months, or even a year or three, they will be able to embark on the project. long-term exploration of the moon and research into the effects of partial gravity, possibly leading to rats attempting to reproduce. If they had the ability to do EVA (something necessary for proper exploration in any case), restocking it indefinitely would be simple, with occasional deliveries of food, water, of clothes and lithium hydroxide to clean the atmosphere of the habitat, as we do with deliveries from CRS to ISS. This would be the very definition of "sustainable".

In fact, the marginal cost of such a mission could be low enough to allow the presence of multiple habitats and crews in different locations, with regular crew rotations once a return system is in place. has been developed over the next two years. And each base could grow alongside the creation of additional habitats, which would allow for experiments in lunar agriculture and perhaps in aquaculture.

Is the plan risky? Of course that's it. In the event of a medical or other emergency, there would be no immediate way to evacuate the crew. But for decades, we accepted this risk at Amundsen / Scott Station, with no possibility of evacuating researchers during the austral winter.

No borders are open without risk and the space boundary is the toughest that humanity has ever faced. But accepting the risk can bring a great reward, and the reward here is a serious lunar search, in half a decade, far beyond the limited expeditions of half a century ago. Is there any doubt that there are researchers, inside or outside the NASA astronaut office, willing to accept this risk? If this is the case, we may not have been able to select astronauts, but I do not think that is the case.

For decades, with every unsuccessful programmatic attempt to return lunar, President George HW Bush's space exploration initiative to his son's vision for space exploration, the goal displayed was to "go back to the moon, this time to stay". rather than being daring, the plans always start with a repetition of what we did in the 1960s.

It's now 21stcentury. The best way to ensure that when we return to the moon, this time, rest, is to stay. Let us move on.


Rand Simberg is the author of "Safe is not an option: overcoming the futile obsession with" Finding everyone alive "that kills our expansion into space".

[ad_2]

Source link