Photos
Featured reviews
We are being mooned again by NASA, a mission in 2027, fifty-five years after the last Apollo mission left the lunar surface in 1972. Twenty years ago George W Bush in a State of the Union declared that the space programs goal was ultimately a mission to Mars, but before that a return to the moon by 2010 was the immediate priority. Since then, other than some unmanned landers and probes, but we haven't been back. As we moved into the second decade of the 21stC and the Shuttle program was wound down, there was a greater emphasis for the moon, nevertheless, NASA has been spinning wheels for 20 years talking about going back as the missions always get cancelled or shelved.
However, with the Artemis program, the new mission statement was for an eventual landing in penciled in for 2020. The plan was to send four astronauts to orbit the moon which would be a 10 day long trip and followed up with a second mission which would then land two astronauts on the lunar surface for a specified period of time and then return to the orbiter. This whole expedition could last as long as 30 days in total. Yet it's 2025 and the moon landing has now been pushed back to 2027 and looking at it on balance, it's a fair bet that the mission to the moon will probably be delayed yet again due to budget cuts or for some unforeseen technical difficulty.
The Artemis program is certainly more ambitious than the Apollo missions as over the long term there is to be a permanent space and docking station orbiting the moon "Gateway" which would be used to receive incoming ships and launch landers to the moons surface. As we move into the 2030's, another even longer term plan involves a moon base with a nuclear power station providing it's energy. As things currently stand the four crew members that have been earmarked for the mission are three Americans and a Canadian.
In going forward the astronauts that will be part of any Artemis mission will be closely scrutinized by certain parts of the media and political class. With identity politics currently a top priority, all of the personnel chosen will have to tick off the boxes of the various identity blocks that take preference over experience and qualifications. All the crew were of the Apollo missions were men, so there will be a determination to fast track others to make up for that imbalance. There was a good reason for that, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and not a joy ride or some routine scientific mission. In many respects Apollo in reality were were military missions, using technology that would be considered primative and wouldn't even be considered safe today. This was why Air Force and Navy pilots who would be prepared to risk their lives were preferred over scientists. Although many of them had academic qualifications ie aeronautical degrees and phd's, they were all carefully vetted for suitability for the Apollo program. The astronauts were all risking their lives on a hazardous expedition to the moon, it wasn't a sure thing at all. All the missions were operating with technology that was at the very edge of it's ability, for example the explosion in the Service Module during Apollo 13 ended up turning it into a desperate mission to save the crew. With a combination of the efforts on the ground at Mission Control and the skill of the astronauts on board were able to get them safely back to Earth. It was all a close run thing which was noted in Jim Lovell's memoirs who was the commander of that mission (who just died at age 97).
That all being left aside, the aspiration of having a nuclear power station being put together by robots and astronauts, would nevertheless be a huge physical and technical undertaking. It's unlikely that uranium will be extracted from the earth and then transferred to the moon on a NASA rocket, for obvious reasons that would be a non-starter. That would mean that the Uranium would have to be mined on the moon. One can't imagine this being done on a unilateral basis from one country, unless they were prepared to ignore the 1967 International treaty governing the moon. It's not for the USA to either take anything from the moon nor to give it away and it's hard to see environmentalists on Earth not having something to say over the notion of mining for uranium there. They certainly aren't going let the USA or an international coalition to embark on that without a fight.
There will be a big emphasis on scientific discovery and exploration, but its difficult to believe that commercial activities would be put on the back burner for too long. One suspects that over the long term that NASA will have to make some concessions to accommodate space tourism which would be masquerading as a scientific mission, or a combined mission. The moon will definitely be a place where rockets and space ships will be able to travel to with relative ease in the future.
Yet as early air travel found the hard way, there was the occasional mishap with air planes falling out of the sky. It's likely that trips into space or to the moon might face some technical problems from time to time or else a disaster once in a while. Even if all the kinks are ironed out it will always be an overarching concern in the long run, if you don't believe me, ask the crew and passengers of the Titanic submersible in 2023.
Elon Musk seems to have lost interest in the moon and is focusing on his long term plan to go to Mars. Mars is a massive endeavor and even if qualified astronauts volunteer to go on a mission there are huge obstacles to over come on getting there. As far as the moon is concerned it's the only place humans can travel to and I can't see that changing for a long time, it's the only place we can get their quickly with the least risks. I'd like to see a feasibly study of what would the likely failure rate of some of these missions.
Although for what reason other than the obvious explanation of exploration and science - it's not clear why a permeant base on the lunar surface needs to be established. The moon is dead, there is no life on it and there is no life anywhere else in our solar system - at least intelligent life. Commercial interests will ultimately take priority over science and the bottom line this is all going to be decided on the basis of financial priorities by the parties involved in this. If the money is available, they'll move forward , but if it isn't, don't be surprised if the time line for Artemis is stretched out well beyond what they've planned.
However, with the Artemis program, the new mission statement was for an eventual landing in penciled in for 2020. The plan was to send four astronauts to orbit the moon which would be a 10 day long trip and followed up with a second mission which would then land two astronauts on the lunar surface for a specified period of time and then return to the orbiter. This whole expedition could last as long as 30 days in total. Yet it's 2025 and the moon landing has now been pushed back to 2027 and looking at it on balance, it's a fair bet that the mission to the moon will probably be delayed yet again due to budget cuts or for some unforeseen technical difficulty.
The Artemis program is certainly more ambitious than the Apollo missions as over the long term there is to be a permanent space and docking station orbiting the moon "Gateway" which would be used to receive incoming ships and launch landers to the moons surface. As we move into the 2030's, another even longer term plan involves a moon base with a nuclear power station providing it's energy. As things currently stand the four crew members that have been earmarked for the mission are three Americans and a Canadian.
In going forward the astronauts that will be part of any Artemis mission will be closely scrutinized by certain parts of the media and political class. With identity politics currently a top priority, all of the personnel chosen will have to tick off the boxes of the various identity blocks that take preference over experience and qualifications. All the crew were of the Apollo missions were men, so there will be a determination to fast track others to make up for that imbalance. There was a good reason for that, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and not a joy ride or some routine scientific mission. In many respects Apollo in reality were were military missions, using technology that would be considered primative and wouldn't even be considered safe today. This was why Air Force and Navy pilots who would be prepared to risk their lives were preferred over scientists. Although many of them had academic qualifications ie aeronautical degrees and phd's, they were all carefully vetted for suitability for the Apollo program. The astronauts were all risking their lives on a hazardous expedition to the moon, it wasn't a sure thing at all. All the missions were operating with technology that was at the very edge of it's ability, for example the explosion in the Service Module during Apollo 13 ended up turning it into a desperate mission to save the crew. With a combination of the efforts on the ground at Mission Control and the skill of the astronauts on board were able to get them safely back to Earth. It was all a close run thing which was noted in Jim Lovell's memoirs who was the commander of that mission (who just died at age 97).
That all being left aside, the aspiration of having a nuclear power station being put together by robots and astronauts, would nevertheless be a huge physical and technical undertaking. It's unlikely that uranium will be extracted from the earth and then transferred to the moon on a NASA rocket, for obvious reasons that would be a non-starter. That would mean that the Uranium would have to be mined on the moon. One can't imagine this being done on a unilateral basis from one country, unless they were prepared to ignore the 1967 International treaty governing the moon. It's not for the USA to either take anything from the moon nor to give it away and it's hard to see environmentalists on Earth not having something to say over the notion of mining for uranium there. They certainly aren't going let the USA or an international coalition to embark on that without a fight.
There will be a big emphasis on scientific discovery and exploration, but its difficult to believe that commercial activities would be put on the back burner for too long. One suspects that over the long term that NASA will have to make some concessions to accommodate space tourism which would be masquerading as a scientific mission, or a combined mission. The moon will definitely be a place where rockets and space ships will be able to travel to with relative ease in the future.
Yet as early air travel found the hard way, there was the occasional mishap with air planes falling out of the sky. It's likely that trips into space or to the moon might face some technical problems from time to time or else a disaster once in a while. Even if all the kinks are ironed out it will always be an overarching concern in the long run, if you don't believe me, ask the crew and passengers of the Titanic submersible in 2023.
Elon Musk seems to have lost interest in the moon and is focusing on his long term plan to go to Mars. Mars is a massive endeavor and even if qualified astronauts volunteer to go on a mission there are huge obstacles to over come on getting there. As far as the moon is concerned it's the only place humans can travel to and I can't see that changing for a long time, it's the only place we can get their quickly with the least risks. I'd like to see a feasibly study of what would the likely failure rate of some of these missions.
Although for what reason other than the obvious explanation of exploration and science - it's not clear why a permeant base on the lunar surface needs to be established. The moon is dead, there is no life on it and there is no life anywhere else in our solar system - at least intelligent life. Commercial interests will ultimately take priority over science and the bottom line this is all going to be decided on the basis of financial priorities by the parties involved in this. If the money is available, they'll move forward , but if it isn't, don't be surprised if the time line for Artemis is stretched out well beyond what they've planned.
Details
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content