Why Dont We Go to the Moon Again

The Real Reason Nosotros Haven't Been Back To The Moon

Nasa/Getty Images

On July twenty, 1969, i of the most momentous events in human history occurred: Men walked on the Moon. It was the culmination of more a decade of scientific, engineering, and political piece of work and represents ane of our greatest achievements. Eventually the Usa completed six Moon landings, bringing a full of 12 astronauts to the Moon'due south surface past 1972.

And then we stopped.

Information technology will before long exist five decades since a homo being has walked on the Moon's surface. Opposite to endless science fiction stories, nosotros don't have a Moon base. Contrary to a lot of optimistic opinions, nosotros're non fifty-fifty very shut to always going back. Commonly, the hardest function most getting from 1 place to some other is the first time; later on that, the logistical issues accept been solved and the trip becomes easier and easier. For example, one time Europeans figured out there was an enormous state mass between them and India, going to and from the Americas apace became routine.

So how come that hasn't happened with the Moon? Although your first guesses are probably part of the explanation, there isn't just ane real reason we haven't been back to the Moon. In that location'due south a whole matrix of reasons keeping the states sadly World-leap.

The Cold War ended

The White House/Getty Images

One of the key drivers of the USA'southward quest to land men on the Moon was a sense of competition with the Soviet Union. Equally Ars Technica reports, the Soviet Marriage poured money and expertise into their space programme in the 1950s, and achieved several astonishing fists. Sputnik was the first bogus satellite orbiting Earth in 1957, and in 1961 Soviet pilot Yuri Gagarin became the first human being to orbit the Globe. Past the early 1960s, it seemed obvious that the Soviets were going to be the start nation to country someone on the Moon.

The Cold State of war was in full gear, and the potential technological and strategic advantages such a feat would give the Russians was a business organization. President Kennedy said in 1962 "This is, whether we similar it or not a race. Everything nosotros practice [in infinite] ought to be tied into getting to the Moon alee of the Russians."

As noted by one-time NASA Chief Historian Roger Launius, the Space Race was really a proxy war between the U.s. and the Soviet Union. Instead of deploying tanks and troops on Globe, the two countries deployed scientists and engineers in an effort to claim the Moon every bit their own—if only symbolically. Those Cold War weather condition no longer exist, and so far, no country has risen to the same rivalry with the USA equally the Soviet Matrimony had, removing a key reason we went to the Moon in the first identify.

It'southward besides politically risky

Shutterstock

Information technology took more than a decade to become us to the Moon the first time. It also took an incredible amount of coin and attempt, both mental and physical. And information technology could have gone wrong at whatever time—engineering science could take failed, astronauts could have died, or a new president could have merely canceled the project. The political risks were so high it's actually miraculous the project succeeded.

As Business Insider reports, those political risks have merely gotten worse in the decades since our last visit to the Moon. Presidents take often suggested a return to the Moon, and NASA has come with several plans to practice so—but once the price tag shoots upwards and the challenges become clear, these plans are usually shifted to goals perceived as more practical.

That's the other problem: The benefits of going back to the Moon are largely theoretical. Scientific research is a fundamental reason to go back—but at that place's no clear profit margin. A Moon base of operations could be used equally a refueling depot, but until at that place's a more applied reason to go to and from the Moon—or to use the Moon as a layover on our way somewhere else—the risks associated with such a project are frightening. Put merely, no politician wants to accept their proper noun associated with an expensive boondoggle, or a tragic disaster.

The original moon landing was a PR stunt

Keystone/Getty Images

Information technology's absolutely truthful that John F. Kennedy was the man who pushed for going to the Moon, citing the need to fight the Russians' efforts to dominate space. Merely the truth is a little less inspiring. Because part of the reason President Kennedy pushed and so hard for the Space Program was his demand for some good publicity after a serial of political disasters had his administration reeling.

As CNET reports, Kennedy began his presidency convinced that a Moon landing would be far too expensive to seriously consider. Then he had a very bad, no good year in 1961. The Soviet Union fabricated the USA look bad when they put Yuri Gagarin in orbit around the Earth. That made the USA look weak, and made the argument that we couldn't beget to go to the Moon await kind of lightheaded.

So Kennedy green-lit the Bay of Pigs Invasion. This was a disaster for Kennedy. It was so poorly organized and incompetently executed, information technology made Kennedy expect really, really bad. It changed his attitude towards his military leaders and advisers, and information technology forced him to wait for a manner to change the conversation. Announcing a bold "Moonshot" mission was platonic. It made him wait like a visionary leader and it made the The states look like a technological superpower. If y'all want us to get back to the Moon, we might need a new political disaster.

The moon landing wasn't designed for repetition

Shutterstock

Landing on and strutting effectually the Moon in 1969 was an incredible feat. Sure, it price a tremendous amount of money and effort, but you'd be forgiven for assuming that one time we've achieved a goal like this, it must get easier to exercise.

Unfortunately, yous're wrong—and that'due south one big reason we haven't been back since the cease of the original Apollo Plan in 1972. As noted past the MIT Technology Review, because the original Moon landing projection was positioned as a "race" against the Soviets, the project wasn't designed for efficiency. Shortcuts were used wherever possible, and no one thought to build sustainable supply chains. The finish issue is a arrangement where the equivalent of ii or three jumbo jets' worth of technology and engineering is just burned up or thrown away, never to be used again.

In other words, the whole organisation of getting people to the Moon was never designed for repetition. It'southward actually amazing nosotros ran 17 Apollo missions and got to the Moon half dozen times using it. If we desire to get serious about going back, nosotros'll demand to design a sustainable, efficient system for doing and then. Don't hold your breath; in 2007 Google announced the X Prize, offer $20 million to the first non-governmental organization to complete a lunar landing. Since so merely 3 crafts have landed on the Moon—all regime projects, none crewed.

The original Apollo designs were barely condom

Shutterstock

Since 1969 we've managed to put a total of twelve people on the Moon. That's incredible, but even more incredible is the fact that they all survived the trip. Put simply, getting to the Moon and dorsum is incredibly unsafe, and the danger is exacerbated by the fact that Apollo craft design could exist described as taking a "minimally-feasible" arroyo to safety.

As Buzzfeed News reports, the frantic race to put men on the Moon led to a lot of corner-cutting in terms of the engineering and technology used. After the 1969 Moon landing, the sense of urgency that drove the project evaporated. We'd browbeaten the Soviet Union to the Moon, afterwards all, and every subsequent Apollo mission seemed to underscore how little we got back out of these expensive and stress-inducing missions.

It all came to a head in 1970 when the Apollo 13 mission went horribly wrong. An explosion jettisoned the crew's oxygen supply and damaged the module, leading to a tense, frightening trip home in a crippled ship. While the astronauts returned safely, the incident underscored the fact that the Apollo spacecraft was, in the words of historian John Logsdon, existence pushed "right up to the edge of its safe functioning." Not long afterwards, President Nixon cutting funding for the Moon landings and shifted NASA'south focus to cheaper, safer projects: Skylab and the Infinite Shuttle.

We demand amend engineering

Handout/Getty Images

Engineering is ever advancing, right? We managed to put together spacecraft that carried astronauts to the Moon and then got them home safe and audio in 1969. Surely the last five decades have seen some incredible advances in the technology needed for such a mission?

If you're talking about computers, the answer is yes. The computers on the Apollo lunar modules were incredibly bones compared to today's hardware. In fact, equally Real Articulate Science notes, the smartphone in your pocket is probably 100,000 times more powerful than the estimator in the Apollo spacecraft. Heck, some calculators released in the 1980s were more than powerful.

But computers are just part of the applied science required to get people to and from the Moon—and their express capabilities were by design, as they needed to be extremely efficient in order to use very little electricity. And as noted in Forbes, much of the hardware used in the Apollo missions remains state-of-the-art—and this technology was barely practiced enough to get united states of america there and continue everyone alive back then. The lack of serious advances tin be seen in how similar today'south Space X launches are to the launches in the 1960s—not much has inverse. And that's one huge bulwark to going back to the Moon.

Presidents aren't patient

Max Mumby/indigo/Getty Images

Legacy is always on politicians' minds. John F. Kennedy officially launched the mission to land on the Moon in 1962. Past the time nosotros actually achieved it in 1969, he had been assassinated—just he would have been out of part even if he'd lived, thanks to term limits. Richard Nixon, who Kennedy had defeated in the 1960 election, was the man who got to savour in the publicity generated by the Moon landings.

That makes presidents hesitate. Equally Lifehacker notes, since it can take a decade—or more—to fund, design, build, and examination something as complex every bit a Moon landing, any president that pushes for such a project is guaranteed to be out of function by the time it reaches fruition. In today'southward political climate where presidents are never not campaigning, that'southward intolerably long to wait. And incoming administrations—especially if they're of the opposing party—have a habit of canceling big projects put into motion by their predecessors precisely to deny them the credit.

In fact, Fizz Aldrin, the second man on the Moon, has argued pretty plainly that the only way we're getting dorsum to the Moon is if both political parties in this land put aside their differences. "I believe it begins with a bi-partisan Congressional and Assistants commitment to sustained leadership," the legendary astronaut said, and he's not wrong.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters

Shutterstock

As Buzzfeed News notes, the Space Shuttle programme was pushed forward in the 1970s considering it would be cheaper than landing on the Moon—and safer. The Space Shuttle programme might have been a step back from the incredible achievement of putting people on the Moon, but it kept humans in space and served an incredibly important purpose both in preserving the United states of america's position as a leader in space exploration and people's excitement about it.

When the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on takeoff in 1986, it was a horrifying moment that chilled the unabridged nation. Every bit Space notes, that upshot led to changes in how NASA worked and how the Infinite Shuttle plan was used. Information technology was scaled dorsum, and some of the missions the Shuttle was performing were shifted back to older, more than reliable technologies.

Then, in 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated when returning to Globe. As PBS reports, this second disaster had a much broader consequence on the space plan. President Bush and his administration question whether it was worth putting human lives in danger past putting them routinely into space. This new, more cautious attitude pretty much ended whatsoever run a risk of a serious effort to return to the Moon—such a mission suddenly seemed far too dangerous.

Making the moon pay is difficult

Shutterstock

Like it or non, we're a capitalist society. Projects are pitched with a return on investment—and putting people on the Moon just doesn't offer whatever kind of turn a profit. In fact, when you lot consider how much incredibly expensive engineering science winds up burning upward and crashing into the ocean, never to exist used once again, it runs into negative numbers past a wide margin.

In that location are some possible ways the Moon could be made into a profit-making functioning, which would attract investors and corporate money to the project. Every bit noted past Space, the Moon is a rich source of helium-3, a rare—and finite—chemical element that could 1 day be a tremendous source of power. And the Moon could also be set up as a stopover point for longer trips. For example, a manned mission to Mars could fly to the Moon, refuel, and take a much ameliorate chance of arriving safely on the Red Planet.

Merely for either of those scenarios to make sense, nosotros'd need a permanent Moon base of operations of some sort. According to Yahoo Finance, estimates on the price to establish a "basic" sort of base of operations run to the $100 billion range—and maintaining just four astronauts in such a base would cost $36 billion a twelvemonth. And that'southward before setting up the equipment and infrastructure for mining or refueling operations. That means making any sort of profit is nearly impossible—and so enthusiasm for a return remains low.

New resources opening on Earth

Shutterstock

I major reason that plans to return to the Moon have been put on concord is that the resources necessary for such a massive undertaking are needed much closer to home. In the Arctic, specifically.

As CNBC reports, climate change is rapidly transforming 1 of the most inhospitable areas of the world, the Arctic Circle, into a rich source of new, resource-packed territory. It's estimated that oil and natural gas reserves worth as much as $35 trillion are waiting under the ice, and the USA is locked in a race with both Russia and Mainland china to secure equally much of the area as possible. Much of the money and technology brains that might be working towards a new moonshot are instead working on this trouble instead.

The similarities between the claiming of building a base on the Moon and locking downwardly the rights to the Chill are then strong, in fact, that Wired reports that the race to control the Chill is viewed as a dry out run of sorts for the eventual race to control the Moon. There are already legal arguments forming that the way things are handled in the Arctic equally it opens up should be a model for how disputes might be handled in the future on the Moon. Merely we won't get to the Moon until we sort out the much more than pressing—and more local—problems here first.

The focus is on Mars

Shutterstock

"Been there, done that" doesn't seem like it would be a viable political or scientific attitude, but it sums upward the bones attitude of many when it comes to the Moon. In fact, many people in the regime and in infinite-related agencies think we should be focusing on Mars every bit a priority.

As Scientific American reports, the Firm of Representatives' Committee on Scientific discipline, Space, and Technology introduced a nib this year to make exploration of the red planet NASA's official stretch goal. Not but is Mars a much more than valuable destination in terms of scientific research and expanding our understanding of the universe, information technology'southward also a goal that has captured the public'due south imagination.

That doesn't mean going back to the Moon is completely off the tabular array, however. Equally The Atlantic reports, most experts agree that the only way we're going to get human being beings to Mars reasonably safely is if we build a relay station of sorts on the Moon. Astronauts would travel from the Earth to the Moon, refuel and make other preparations, then launch from the Moon to Mars, simplifying the logistics of the trip. Just that means that we're all the same non going dorsum to the Moon until someone puts some serious money, talent, and other resources behind a trip to Mars.

The global pandemic is slowing things downwards

Shutterstock

The global pandemic has blessed us with toilet paper shortages, mask requirements, and endless Zoom meetings. Now in that location's one more than affair you tin can blame on the novel coronavirus: A lack of progress on going dorsum to the Moon.

When NASA announced plans to become American astronauts dorsum on the Moon by 2024, many idea it was overly optimistic—simply even if the schedule slipped, information technology was an exciting development. As Reuters reports, the plan to become back to the Moon led to serious work on creating a next-generation rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS), forth with a new coiffure module called the Orion. The programme has hit some bumps—it's already $two billion over budget—merely information technology was scheduled to be tested for the start time this twelvemonth.

But just like every other industry, the aerospace earth has been hit by the global pandemic. NASA recently announced information technology would be forced to shut downwardly ii important facilities: The Michoud Associates Facility and the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The closures were necessary because employees there tested positive for the coronavirus. The shutdowns have had a big impact: NASA had to officially suspend the SLS program for the fourth dimension being, dealing a serious accident to any chances of a render to the Moon.

franklinablent.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.grunge.com/247837/the-real-reason-we-havent-been-back-to-the-moon/

Share this post