[ad_1]
"I will tell you what is incredible. It cost $ 25 billion."
It was the taking of Sean Glaspie on the moon of Apollo 11 on World Television, episode 7 of AMC Mad Men. Although a historic and important event, it is undoubtedly the high cost of Apollo (nearly 175 billion dollars today in dollars) which finally condemned the program and forced the United States to return to Earth for half a century (and counting).
Nearly 50 years later, NASA – the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration – has budgeted $ 35 billion. Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) build a new "space launch system" almost as powerful as the Saturn V rockets that brought us to the moon.
Is $ 35 billion that is a lot of money? Maybe not in "Apollo" terms, but it's still a neat sum. What's more, forecasts are beginning to show that the SLS, already overestimated, could cost up to $ 1 billion or even $ 2.5 billion per launch. Given the context of NASA's congressional budget for the 2019 fiscal year, this East a lot of money. Congress is planning not to spend more than $ 1 billion on moon-related projects this year – but just one SLS launch will blow up the budget even before the rocket leaves its launch pad!
Unless NASA can make space travel cheaper, the costs of explosion could again jeopardize the lunar project.
NASA has the moon in mind. Source of the image: Getty Images.
The high cost of taking a picture
Then how make we reduced costs? Last month, at a meeting of NASA's Advisory Board at the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, NASA's administrator, Jim Bridenstine, hinted that NASA's plan to "bring America back to the moon over the long term". As a potential clues to finding winners (and losers) in the space race, I think it's worth considering.
Here is a quick overview of three highlights of Bridenstine's speech.
"Reusable" is the key to "sustainable"
Bridenstine dedicated the first 15 minutes of a 22-minute introductory presentation to President Trump's Space Policy Directive 1, which states that "the United States will lead the return of humans to the moon for exploration and use. long-term". and a sustainable exploration program with commercial and international partners. "And I think the two key words here are" commercial "- because NASA will rely heavily on commercial companies, which we can invest in some – and" sustainable. "
"The exploration and long-term use of the moon requires a reduction in costs so that NASA can maintain it over time. Fortunately, says Bridenstine, NASA can now claim "capabilities that did not exist five or ten years ago", such as "reusable rockets" that cost much less than consumable rockets. currently used in the world. world.
Currently, however, neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin are building rockets capable of launching and landing for re-use. Only SpaceX and Blue Origin do it. (And for now, only SpaceX has a first-level rocket capable of placing a satellite in orbit then land on land and be reused.)
The inescapable conclusion: SpaceX (and possibly Blue Origin) will be an important part of NASA's efforts to return to the moon – and despite their role in the construction of SLS, Boeing and Lockheed will occupy a much less important place.
"Reusable" may not always mean what you think it means
Boeing and Lockheed may not be cut entirely out of the loop, though. Indeed, for at least two years, the joint venture Boeing and Lockheed, United Launch Alliance, is working on a reuse plan, not on its first-phase launchers, but on its second-stage rockets, in orbit.
This ties in with Bridenstine's comment that "we want reusable tugboats that go from Earth's orbit to lunar orbit" and vice versa. The ULA's "ACES" program, in which used fuel tubes that are second-stage rockets could be left in orbit, equipped with additional equipment and turned into orbital tugs, would appear to be in place. insert in this aspect NASA lunar development projects. Similar plans by Orbital ATK (now part of Northrop Grummanand Maxar Technologies to build their own fleets of space tugs can also play a role in NASA's future plans.
Mining the moon
In addition to seeing the moon again and exploring the moon, Bridenstine says we will also use the resources of the moon. This will include the extraction of the moon for ice water that can be used for drinking water and decomposed oxygen for breathing and liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for rocket fuel. This will also likely include mining of the lunar rock for the raw materials needed to build lunar habitats. could include resource extraction for use on Earth.
"There could be billions of dollars of platinum group metals" on the moon, Bridenstine opines. (Although we did not know until we returned and did some prospecting work.) are "The rare earth metals that are extremely valuable" on the Moon, and those too could be an object of use of lunar resources.
This suggests that future investment opportunities could arise if and when private companies such as Moon Express and Planetary Resources (both of which have shown interest in space mining) have IPOs.
And one more thing
One last observation that Bridenstine made, it is particularly important to keep in mind: "We want interoperability" among the different kinds of rockets used to travel to the moon, between the space stations located on the lunar surface and in orbit. , among the lunar landers and lunar shuttles.
In order for NASA to take full advantage of multiple commercial space companies competing for its business, it is essential that the agency is not a victim of "vendor blocking", where a company's products are not suitable to others. This is why NASA will want to make sure that everything it buys from a supplier will be able to communicate, dock and interact with the hardware and software of other vendors.
Making the moon affordable, it's a collective effort, and there's plenty of room for all kinds of businesses – and investors in them – to take advantage of it.
[ad_2]
Source link
