Earlier this year the world watched in awe as four human beings traveled beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since 1972 to conduct a fly-by of the Moon. On the surface, this is a story about perseverance, integrity, and the grit of mankind. Yes, Artemis II was all of that -- and more. But, this is also a story about politics, the purpose of organizations, and the waste of American tax dollars. All of those are important to understanding the fly-by and the plans for an actual moon base, as told by NASA.
How did we get to the moon the first time? It is really fascinating - the mission was selected as it was deemed too difficult for the Soviet Union to complete successfully, while still being possible enough for the United States to get it done. And looking back, that belief proved to be correct, the United States remains to this day the only nation to send living humans to the Moon and back. The Apollo Command and Service module was effectively a tin-can with just enough life support to keep the 3 astronauts alive, while not being too heavy as to not be able to be lifted off and out to space. It, however, was well designed for the mission -- "To send a man to the moon and return him safely to Earth." The limitations of this spacecraft almost cost the crew of Apollo 13, but due to the quick work of the engineers on the ground, and the astronauts above, the crew was able to make it home safe.
It took us 54 years to go back. Why did it take so long? "Politics" is a good surface level answer. After the space race was "won" in 1969, spending on the moon program was cut. There was less of a felt need to spend significant amounts of money on this exploration program, when the stated goal (be the first nation to take humans to the moon) was met. NASA's priorities were forced away towards other projects and we left the moon behind.
Politics alone, however, do not fully answer this question. President George W. Bush in 2004 called for the United States to both return to the moon and go forth to Mars. The "Constellation" program was then launched to reach this lofty goal. Constellation spawned four vehicles, two of which I care about -- the Orion space capsule and the Ares V rocket. By 2009, this program only had a test launch of one of its boosters. President Obama, in 2010, suggested the cancellation of this program. The President alone couldn't cancel the program, he needed Congress to approve it. Congress, however, liked the money that was spent (money that went back into their congressional districts, or to companies that supported them) so they cancelled it... but didn't cancel it. The program was scrapped, except for the Orion capsule and the Ares V, sorry I mean Space Launch System (SLS), rocket. The United States would now have a rocket and a human-rated capsule but no mission for it.
By 2011, the Space Shuttle was retired and the United States gave up its capability to send humans into space. While it did have SLS and Orion, it did not have funding or approval to use these to go to the International Space Station (ISS). So instead, the United States bought seats from Russia and pioneered a commercial crew program, of which two companies would fly humans in: SpaceX and Boeing. I'm getting ahead of myself. What was the purpose of NASA at this point? Well, it had two competing purposes. On the one hand, it had major scientific and research priorities. And on the other, it was to beat the Soviets to many of these discoveries. That was a good justification for the money in the early years. Then Space Shuttle came along. The Space Shuttle program was unlike the programs that preceded it. It was a fleet of vehicles with no single mission or end goal. On one hand, this made it incredibly versatile: it launched and serviced the Hubble Space Telescope, visited Russia's Mir space station, and helped to build and visit the ISS.
The Space Shuttle was also a "jobs program." I'm not saying it wasn't a revolutionary space vehicle or that it was entirely a waste of money, but it was chosen by Congress because, at least in part, it created the most jobs. Design, construction, and maintenance of the fleet of vehicles was spread out across the country and across many different companies. This became, in effect, NASA's new purpose as an organization. To manage Shuttle.
That is a more complete explanation as to why it took 54 years to go back. NASA was given a different purpose. But, why is it now that it changed?
.jpg) |
| Earthset, a photograph taken by astronaut Christina Koch |
So, what is next? Artemis III is scheduled for next year, and Artemis IV & V for the year after that - 2028. The next mission isn't even going to the moon, but rather staying in Low Earth Orbit to test operations with the two commercial landers from SpaceX and Blue Origin. So it is going to be at minimum 2 years until NASA plans to send humans back to the Moon, this time to land. It really sounds like to me NASA hasn't really changed much post-Shuttle, just that it has been given a little nudge to actually use the rockets it's developing.
So what about this "Moon Base?" Considering it has changed scope several different times in the past year and a half alone, I am very skeptical that it will be ready for 2028. One key piece of it - Lunar Gateway - has been outright cancelled. While the gateway was seen as a distraction by some, this could be an indication of how the on-surface operations might be treated. Ultimately, I don't think they will achieve this goal, at least not in their stated timelines.
The future of national spaceflight sponsored by the US Government looks very different than one would anticipate coming from the end of Shuttle. The domain of space is being treated as a military pursuit (Space Force) or as a purely commercial pursuit (Starlink & similar satellite constellations), not as a scientific and research domain. I think there is value in human spaceflight to the Moon, in studying the satellite and in studying human survival in microgravity. There is scientific value in astronauts doing work in space. But today, actual revolutionary programs are being mismanaged and are wasting dollars on inefficient hardware instead of using the same amount of funds to actually complete the mission. This is a space story, but this may as well be a story of many public agencies. California High Speed Rail has spent a similar amount of money and has even less to show for it. Government should work for the people and be efficient with its money. It should do things, not just serve as an ever-near-endless money-pit.
Further reading:
Gateway cancellation: https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/nasas-management-of-programs-and-projects-after-mission-termination-canceled-or-repurposed-artemis-campaign-systems/
Apollo program: https://www.nasa.gov/history/apollo-11-mission-overview/
Current US space policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_second_Trump_administration
Comments
Post a Comment