[ad_1]
It's been four decades since American astronauts on Month .
Without an Espresso application, you will not need it again. Install and check why!
NASA's Apollo 17 mission, which brought 12 people to the moon in December 1972, remains perhaps their greatest success to date. The astronauts collected stones, photographed everything they could, did a series 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 term for a month. Even today, 45 years after the last mission, there are a number of reasons why people should return to the big, dusty Earth satellite and stay on the "Business Insider".
Researchers and entrepreneurs believe that the Moon's base could become a gas station for long space travel, lead to the construction of space telescopes, facilitate life on Mars and solve the scientific mysteries on the planet. emergence of the Earth and its satellite.
There is also a tourism potential that we have heard and read over the last few years, especially with the development of a number of technological companies.
– The permanent research station of the month is the next logical step. It's only at a distance of three days. We have to invent a few things and test them with, but go into the depths of space – says former astronaut Chris Hadfield.
But a series of astronauts and experts will agree and say that the obstacles for which there were no missions on the Moon are trivial and insignificant. A particularly important obstacle to all missions involving people is the expense.
Under the law signed by US President Donald Tramp 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. The project to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, which could cost about $ 1.7 trillion over the next 30 years, is particularly important.
Compared to some days, NASA's budget is relatively small.
– NASA's share of the federal budget peaked at 4% in 1965. Over the last 40 years, it has remained below 1% and over the past 15 years , he slowly approached 0.4% of the federal budget – as an Apollo 7 mission astronaut, Volter Cyntham.
Tramp's budget framework is for missions back to the moon and the mission to Mars, but it seems that there could be problems and delays due to insufficient resources. In 2005, NASA estimated that it would return to the moon and about 133 billion.
– Research missions involving people are the most difficult to obtain political support. If Congress does not decide to invest more money in the program of the mission, we can only talk – Cynthia stressed.
The purpose of the Tramp Administration is to bring the astronauts on the moon around 2023, the year that could be at the end of Tramp 's second presidential term, of course he' s sure. he gets it. And in this lies the new problem – political coups.
– Why should we trust a president and his announcements of something that could happen in two terms in the future? It's just a story – Hadfield stresses.
From the point of view of astronauts, the most important mission, design, testing and more could take more than two presidential terms.
– I hope that the next president will support a budget that would allow us to carry out missions that were asked of us, whatever they were – said Astronaut Scott Kelly.
NASA has spent $ 9 billion over five years designing, building and testing equipment for the space constellation program to bring astronauts to the moon. After Obama assumed the presidency and, after he could not accurately assess the cost of the program, Obama approved the Space Launch System, a rocket launcher program.
The Tramp did not destroy the SLS, but it changed the Obama goal of sending astronauts in the fall and in March. Such frequent changes and changes in priorities led to the cancellation, a loss of about $ 20 billion, and time and years were lost.
– American leaders inspired everyone to do something that no other nation can do. We showed it in a short time 45 years ago. I do not think we've repeated it since. I believe everything depends on political commitment – said astronaut Baz Oldrin.
They can encourage the desire of the people, which is still a little tepid on this issue. Even at the apogee of the Apollo program, after Nil Armstrog and Baz Oldrin surfaced, only 53% of Americans felt the program was worth the cost. Most of the time, this percentage was below 50. Today, 55% of Americans think that the return to the moon should be the priority of NASA, but 44% think that astronauts on the moon should not come back.
With regard to Mars research support, it is much higher, so 63%. But the financial cost is not the only reason why the return is always an impossible mission. The moon 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 spent billions of dollars developing, launching and delivering satellites capable of capturing the surface that would help in the selection of potential landing sites.
However, greater concern is that the effect of the meteorite created – regolith, dust. Aeronautical engineer Mad Tangagel of the University of Southern California wrote in 2014 that the moon is covered with a thin layer of moon dust similar to an electrostatically charged powder due to the fact that the moon is covered by a cloud. interaction with the solar wind, very abrasive and gripping. combinations, vehicles and systems ".
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 and build permanent bases, we have to find a solution to this problem – she said.
New problem and sunlight. About 14 days in a piece on the surface is hot as in hell because it is exposed to direct sunlight because the moon has no atmospheric protective layer. 14 days later, there is total darkness and the Moon's surface becomes one of the coolest places in the universe.
NASA is developing a small Kilopower nuclear reactor that astronauts should provide the necessary energy during dark days.
– There is no more cruel medium for life than the Moon, but despite this, as it is so close to the Earth, it is the best place to learn how to live – wrote to Tangavel.
However, there are also "idiotic" billionaires who have embarked on a race to space. And if it was not for them, that they were just NASA, Boing and Lokhid who developed the machinery, there would be no major changes.
– Without doubt, if we want to go further, especially if we want to go farther than the moon, we need a new transport. Today, we are still in the era of "tanks" – said astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman.
This is mainly the work of Ilon Mask and his company SpaceX, as well as Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin. The long-term wishes of the astronauts and the desire to return to the moon easily match the long-term desire of Bezos. His idea of building the base of the first moon was presented in Washington by the Blue Origin rocket system, New Glenn.
In April, he said: "We will move all the heavy industry of the Earth, which will become a residential area of light industry".
The SpaceX mask could go back up to the Moon before NASA or Blue Origin. Their Falkon Hewey rocket is capable of multiplying the space capsule of the little Crew Dragone up to the Moon and vice versa.
All comments
Mask stated that two people had already made a deposit to make this trip.
– My dream is that the Moon is part of the economic economic zone, of the daily economy. And that's something we should do – Hoffman says.
Astronauts do not doubt our return to the Moon and Mars. It's just a question of when and what generation will experience it.
VIDEO BONUS:
(Espreso.rs/Express.hr)
[ad_2]
Source link
