Astronauts have discovered why no one has landed on the moon for 45 years!

NASA's Apollo 17 mission, which brought 12 people to the moon in December 1972, remains perhaps their greatest success.

The astronauts collected stones, photographed everything they could, performed a number of experiments, laid flags and returned home. Despite this great mission of several weeks, the Apollo program did not allow people to stay in the long run for a month.

Even today, 45 years after this latest mission, there are a number of reasons why people should return to the big, dusty satellite and stay there, writes Business Insider.

Researchers and entrepreneurs believe that the base on the Moon could become a sort of service station for long space travel, lead to the construction of space telescopes, facilitate life on Mars and solve the hundred-year-old scientific mysteries surrounding the planet. Emergence of the Earth and the Moon.

There is also a tourism potential that we have heard and read in recent years, particularly with the development of a number of technological companies.

"The permanent research station of the month is the logical next step, only three days away." We have to invent a number of things and test them before going into space, "says former astronaut Kirs Hadfield

Nevertheless, a number of astronauts and some Experts will agree and say that the obstacles for which there were no missions per month are trivial and insignificant.A particularly important obstacle to all missions involving people is the expense. [19659003] Under the law that US President Donald Tramp signed in March 2017. NASA's annual budget is $ 19.5 billion and next year it could reach $ 19.9 billion. Although this is a significant sum of money, compared to allowances eg the US military, which accounts for about $ 600 billion a year, seems insignificant.

In particular, a major modernization project and the expansion of the nuclear arsenal, q It could be worth about $ 1.7 trillion over the next 30 years. Compared to some previous days, NASA's budget is relatively small.

"NASA's share of the federal budget was 4% in 1965. Over the last 40 years, it has remained below 1% and slowly reached 0.4% of the federal budget in the last 15 years ". an astronaut from the Apollo 7 mission, Volter Cyntham.

The Tramp Budget is the backbone for mission returns per month and the mission to Mars, but it seems that there could be problems and delays due to insufficient resources. In 2005, NASA estimated that the return to the month would cost about 133 billion

"Research missions involving people are the most difficult to gain political support." If Congress does not decide to invest more money in the missionary program, he stressed Cynthia. The goal of the Tramp Administration is to bring astronauts to the moon around 2023, the year that could be ahead of Tramp 's second presidential term of office, of course. he gets it.

And here lies the new problem: political blows.

"Why should we trust a president and his announcements of something that could happen in the next two years, it's just a story," Hufffield said. From the point of view of the astronauts, the most important mission, the design, the tests and many more could take more than two presidential terms.

"I would like the next president to support a budget that will allow us to carry out the missions that are asked of us wherever they are," said astronomer Scott Kelley.

NASA spent nine billion dollars over five years designing, building and testing equipment for a Constellation space program to bring astronauts to a month.

After Obama took over the presidency and after he could not accurately assess the cost of the program, Obama approved the space launch system, a rocket launch program.

Tramp did not destroy the SLS, but it changed the Obama goal of sending the astronauts to the Moon and Mars. Changes and changes of priorities as frequent have resulted in the cancellation of a loss of about $ 20 billion and, moreover, time and years have been lost.

"The American leadership inspires everything to do something that no other nation is capable of doing. We showed it 45 years ago, and I do not think we've been repeating it ever since. , I believe that everything depends on political commitment, says astronaut Baz Oldrin.

They can overwhelm the wishes of the people, which is still a bit tepid on this issue. Apolo program climax, after Nil Armstrong and Baz Oldrin surfaced, only 53% of Americans thought the program was worth the cost.

Most of the time, this percentage was below 50. Today Fifty-five percent of Americans think the return to the moon should be NASA's top priority, while 44 percent believe that astronauts on the moon should not return, and Mars support is much more high, so 63% .But the financial cost is not the only reason why return is always an impossible mission.

The month is also an old death trap of 4.5 billion people, which should not be taken lightly or underestimated. The surface is covered with craters and walls that threaten the landing safely.

Before the first landing in 1969, the US government was spending billions of dollars for the development, launch and delivery of satellites capable of recording the surface that would help in the selection of potential landing sites . However, much more worry comes from the fact that the impact of the meteorite created – regolith, dust.

The aeronautical engineer Mad Thangavel of the University of Southern California wrote in 2014 that the moon was covered with a thin layer of lunar dust such as an electrostatically charged powder due to the Interaction with the solar wind. It is very abrasive and gripping. full of space suits and vehicles.

Astronaut Peggy Witson, who spent 665 days in the universe, described dust problems as the main problem of Apollo missions.

"If we spend a lot of time building permanent houses, I have to find a way to solve this problem," she said.

A new problem is sunlight. About 14 days in a piece on the surface is hot as in hell because it's exposed directly to sunlight, because the moon does not have an atmospheric protective layer. 14 days later, there is complete darkness, and the surface of the moon becomes one of the coolest places in the universe. NASA is developing a small Kilopower nuclear reactor that astronauts should provide with the necessary energy during dark days. "

There is no cruel environment for the Moon, but despite this, since it is so close to the Earth, it is better to learn to live," he writes. Tangavel.

And there are also "stupid" billionaires who have embarked on the race. And if it was not for them, that they were just NASA, Boing and Lokid who developed the machinery, there would probably be no big changes. "There is no doubt if we want to go further, especially if we want to go farther than the moon.It is a new means of transportation today, we are still at the ## 147 ##. 39 "era of" cars, "said astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman

This is mostly the work of Ilon Mask and his company SpaceX, as well as Jeff Bezos and Blue These are exactly the long-term wishes of the astronauts and the desire to return to the moon is easily matched by Bezos' long-term desire.

He presented his idea of ​​building the base of the first moon in Washington with the Blue Origin rocket system, New Glenn.In April, he said that "it will move all the heavy industry of the Earth, which will become a resident area of ​​light industry." [19659003] Speys Ix mask could be up to the moon before NASA or Oriental Blu. Their Falkon Hevi rocket is capable of launching a small Dragon Kru space capsule to the moon and back.

Mask said that two people had already put money to make this trip. "My dream is that the Moon becomes part of the earth's economic zone, the daily economy, and that's something that should be done," Hoffman said. The astronauts do not doubt our return to the Moon and Mars. It's just a question of when and what generation will do the experiment.

Read HERE How is this mystery solved for a hundred years?

Source: Express. fr