Why on Earth go back to the Moon when we already went there? Why should NASA repeat what it did a half-century ago, especially because astronauts will not actually step on the Moon for several years, and by that time, NASA will have spent about $100 billion? Many reasons (Btw, the launch is postponed at least until Friday because of discovery of a fuel leak in the SLS rocket engine.)
First of all the Artemis lunar program is not simply a do-over of the Apollo moon landings from 1969-72. Artemis itself is larger and more powerful (more thrust, at 8.8 million lbs.) than the Saturn V rocket that helped hurl Apollo astronauts to the Moon. Further, Artemis' objective is to lay the ground work for a lunar base as a stepping stone to Mars - perhaps by the late 2030s. It will also help establish a new space station ('Gateway') orbiting the Moon, which will aid that objective.
In Greek mythology, Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo. The program’s first step will be the upcoming test flight of the moon rocket, known as the Space Launch System, with the Orion capsule on top where astronauts will sit during future missions.
The flight planned for this morning will feature mannikins wired up with sensors so that comparisons can be made to what actual humans would endure. The flight plan - see graphic from Wall Street Journal - will feature a 70% more spacious (compared to Apollo's) Orion capsule, and swing around the Moon before returning to Earth. The total mission to last 42 days. This unmanned test flight is designed strictly to expose any issues with the spacecraft before putting people on board. That includes a test of the heat shield given the capsule will be re-entering at a significantly higher velocity.
What really excites me about Artemis is the chance - I say chance, given I don't know how much longer I'll live - to see the first woman and person of color step foot on the Moon. If I can keep the cancer at bay long enough perhaps, I will see this historic step.
But there are clouds gathering to do with cost overruns and funding with which to reckon. Appearing in a CBS Morning interview Aug. 24, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin is not convinced the mission will land on the Moon with a human crew before late 2026. This contradicting NASA Director Bill Nelson who argued (in the same segment) that 2025 "is doable." But according to Martin - see the clip below from his interview:
NASA's inspector general projects agency will spend $93 billion on Artemis through 2025 - YouTube
“The culture of optimism results in unrealistic costs and projections."
He cites two prime reasons for the delay: 1) the Technological complexity of the missions, and 2) Poor project planning. Already there is a cost overrun of $40 billion and Martin estimates the total cost to be $93 billon through 2025. Now, while this sounds like a lot let’s bear in mind each year the Pentagon gets $800 billion. And it still can’t account (in spending) for $2.2 trillion amassed during the 1990s. Despite such financing mischief, one reads on page A17 of the WSJ op-eds today a piece ('Restore Reagan’s Military ‘Margin of Safety’) from - Roger Zakheim of the Reagan Institute. He actually wrote:
"To meet this moment, we need
defense investment along the lines of what the Reagan administration pursued:
roughly 5% to 6% of gross domestic product annually. To those who say we can’t
afford a buildup without sacrificing our prosperity, Reagan’s response from
four decades ago still rings true: “Our government must stop pretending that it
has a choice between promoting the general welfare and providing for the common
defense. Today they are one and the same.”
I can promise anyone reading this post that if lawmakers gave in to this insanity - as they might if voters are dumb enough to put Reeps back in charge of the House - you can kiss Artemis' Moon landing mission goodbye. As well as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The first four Artemis launches will cost $4.1 billion each which is not sustainable in any environment with the current level of defense spending. As Paul Martin pointed out in his interview with Mark Strassmann:
“At $4,1 b
per launch you’re going to be limited to only one launch every other year. That
cadence of launches will not achieve
NASA’s mission of having a permanent presence on the lunar surface.”
Meanwhile, Charles Duke Jr., a former NASA astronaut who spent more than 20 hours on the lunar surface during the 1972 Apollo 16 mission- said the coming launch represents a change for an agency that had become risk-averse. This is especially after the Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle disasters.
Artemis for sure will carry its own unique risks, but that is the nature of space exploration and crossing new frontiers in general. Moreover, it provides for the capacity of our species to move beyond its home world. As Isaac Asimov said in one of his lectures: "It makes no sense to keep all our 'eggs' on this one small planet which could be annihilated with one major asteroid impact. Ask the dinosaurs."
So Paul Martin may be correct in his assessment of the costs, but I say if we can afford to spend $800 billion a year on defense we can afford to spend a small fraction of that ensuring an opportunity to give Homo Sapiens a path toward exploring space. And even - perhaps settling new worlds.
See Also:
by Brandon Gage | August 29, 2022 - 6:00am | permalink
And:
No comments:
Post a Comment