Interest in moon exploration hot again
Everyone, it seems, wants to go to the moon.
Today (or Monday by India time), India will launch Chandrayaan-2, its first attempt to reach the lunar surface. That comes after Chang’e-4, a Chinese robotic spacecraft including a small rover, became the first ever to land on the far side of the moon in January. And a small Israeli nonprofit, Spaceil, tried to send a small robotic lander to the moon this year, but it crashed.
In the coming decades, boots worn by visitors from these and other nations could add their prints to the lunar dust. China is taking a slow and steady approach, and foresees its astronauts’ first arrival about a quarter of a century in the future. The European Space Agency has put out a concept of an international “moon village” envisioned for sometime around 2050. Russia also has described plans for sending astronauts to the moon by 2030.
In the United States, which sent 24 astronauts toward the moon from 1968 to 1972, priorities shift with the whims of Congress and presidents. But NASA was suddenly pushed to pick up its pace when Vice President Mike Pence announced in February the goal of putting Americans on the moon again by 2024, four years ahead of the previous schedule.
“NASA is highly motivated,” said Jim Bridenstine, the former Oklahoma congressman and Navy pilot picked by President Donald Trump to be the agency’s administrator. “We now have a very clear direction.”
For India, reaching the moon would highlight its technological advances. China would establish itself as a world power off planet. For the United States and NASA, the moon is now an obvious stop along the way to Mars.
The fascination with Earth’s celestial companion is not limited to nation-states. A bevy of companies has lined up in hopes of winning NASA contracts to deliver experiments and instruments to the moon. Blue Origin, the rocket company started by Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon, is developing a large lander that it hopes to sell to NASA for taking cargo — and astronauts — to the moon’s surface.
For three decades after the end of the Apollo program, few thought much about the moon. The United States had beaten the Soviet Union in the moon race. After Apollo 17, the last visit by NASA astronauts in 1972, the Soviets sent
a few more robotic spacecraft to the moon, but they also lost interest in further exploration there.
NASA in those years turned its attention to building space shuttles and then the International Space Station. Its robotic explorers headed farther out, exploring Mars more intensely, as well as the asteroid belt and the solar system’s outer worlds.
Bridenstine says one of the main reasons for accelerating a return to the moon now is to reduce the chances of politicians changing their minds. A 2024 landing would occur near the end of the second term of a Trump presidency if he wins re-election.
NASA has named the new moon program Artemis, after Apollo’s twin sister in Greek mythology. Its first mission would be a crewless test of the Space Launch System, a big rocket already in development.
It is scheduled for late 2020. The second flight — with astronauts aboard — would zip around the moon, but not land, in 2022.
On the third flight, in 2024, astronauts would first travel to Gateway, an outpost in orbit around the moon, and from there take another spacecraft to the lunar surface.
So why go back?
A lot has to do with the discovery that there is water there: That is a potentially invaluable source of drinking water, but also for water that can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen.
The oxygen could provide breathable air; oxygen and hydrogen also could be used as rocket propellant. Thus, the moon — or a refueling station in orbit around the moon — could serve as a stop for spacecraft to refill their tanks before heading
out into the solar system.
“If we can do it, the Gateway becomes a fuel depot,” Bridenstine said.
And then there are the entrepreneurs who have been brainstorming possible business ventures on the moon.
In 2007, the X Prize Foundation announced a $20 million grand prize, bankrolled by Google, that would be awarded to the first private team that could put a robotic lander on the moon.
The competing teams found the challenge much more financially and technically difficult than anticipated. Even after the deadline was extended several times, the prize expired last year without a winner.
Though no company could claim the jackpot, many are still seeing the moon as a business opportunity.
The payoffs of the moon could include helium-3 mined
from the lunar soil, potentially a fuel for future fusion reactors, although practical fusion reactors are still decades away.
There could be an opening for companies that would ship the ashes of loved ones to the moon as a memorial. And some private companies could carry payloads for scientific research. For instance, the far side of the moon could be ideal for optical and radio telescopes because they would not face earthly interference.
NASA’S efforts to reach the moon by 2024 will depend on whether Congress funds those efforts. NASA has asked for an additional $1.6 billion for the 2020 fiscal year, and Bridenstine told CNN last month that the accelerated schedule might cost a total of $20 billion to $30 billion, raising worries that the money might be diverted from other parts of NASA to pay for Artemis.