1706574997
Photo NASA
The Apollo moon landing was an unprecedented event that gave the American space industry an incredible boost. More countries are currently joining the race for the Silver Globe, but landing it still appears to be an extremely difficult task. Given current advances in science and technology, why is it so difficult to land on Earth’s natural satellite?
“This is one small step for man, one giant leap for humanity,” said Neil Armstrong, who became the first person to set foot on the lunar surface in 1969. The Apollo program, the goal of which was manned flights to the Silver Globe, was a breakthrough in the development of the American space sector. From that moment on, it became clear that the moon was not unreachable, and NASA became known around the world.
However, the lunar program ended in 1972, for several reasons, including: rising inflation, costs due to ongoing conflict (Vietnam), or American society’s attention to other pressing needs. Flights to the moon have been and are still being carried out, but in many cases they prove unsuccessful. Despite such great advances in science and technology and rich experience, why does landing on Earth’s natural satellite remain a challenge for humanity? ? So let’s take a closer look at this topic.
Organizing a lunar mission is an extremely difficult task. The landing itself is preceded by internal negotiations on the final plan, budget, marketing, selection of astronauts, commercial partners, etc. It is a big mistake to compare the current lunar landing attempts with the Apollo missions. The US Cold War program is significantly different from today’s plans.
The Apollo program was implemented by NASA, a government agency in the United States with a significant budget, a qualified staff of engineers and researchers, and the support of public opinion and Congress. Today, more companies are joining the race, including other countries and private companies.
For example, in 2023 there were five lunar landing missions, organized by India, Russia, the United States and twice by Japan. Only two were successful: Chandrayaan-3 and SLIM, implemented by the state space agencies of India and Japan, respectively.
Private companies with government support but no experience or budget were responsible for the U.S. and again Japanese experiments. In the case of Russia, the fate was determined by the deployed components, whose resources are limited by international sanctions. Current tests cannot therefore be compared with the situation in 1969 and the Apollo 11 mission. The flight was operated by NASA at the time, which represents a significant difference.
Another problem is the often different visions of changing US presidents. For example, the Constellation program, which preceded Artemis and also included a return to the Moon, was initiated during George W. Bush’s candidacy. After Barack Obama’s victory, the project was canceled and the president himself tried to divert NASA’s attention to a manned landing on an asteroid and then on Mars.
In 2017, there was another political reshuffle in the USA, as a result of which Donald Trump came to power. Under the new president, the Artemis program began, which focuses on Earth’s natural satellite rather than an asteroid. Currently, incumbent Joe Biden appears to be continuing in this direction, but let’s remember that Americans will elect a new president in 2024. Let’s hope that Artemis is not canceled, especially given the advanced status of the work and the enormous expenses.
Speaking of money, the Apollo program cost the American public over $25 billion, adjusted for inflation. Analysts estimate it would currently cost over $250 billion. The technology for the Artemis program was already in development before its official launch in 2017, as the Orion capsule shows.
According to 2021 NASA data, the estimated cost of returning to the Moon is expected to be $93 billion over the period 2012-2025. The following years brought increased costs and delays, and the Artemis program is still not complete. Increased financial resources and public support are required for further development.
Other arguments for landing on the earth’s natural satellite include: uneven terrain, which makes a smooth landing difficult. The moon is also different from Earth or Mars because it has no atmosphere. Therefore, braking before touchdown is done using the engines and not the parachutes. This method is also a big challenge.
Technological progress, in turn, has influenced all sectors of the economy, but not to the same extent. Space technologies are not just about landers and launch vehicles. It involves a whole range of components, from solar panels to on-board systems and artificial intelligence.
Nico Dettmann, head of ESA’s lunar exploration group, was quoted as saying by the Guardian Decades passed without humans developing landers. “The technology is not so widespread that it can be easily learned from others,” he added. Let us note that between the Soviet Luna 24 mission in 1974 and China’s Chang’e 3 in 2013, there was no landing on Earth’s natural satellite. The components and technologies for this task are not yet generally available and their development takes time.
In conclusion, there are many reasons why landing on the Moon remains difficult in the second decade of the 21st century. In the past, missions were mainly carried out by states and were not as ambitious as the current plans of the US, Russia or China. Today there are more players in the market, new spending and other policy concepts are emerging. Conditions on the Silver Globe are still challenging. However, man’s thirst for knowledge and discovery remains unchanged. Everything lies ahead and the moon is just a station of future space exploration.
Are you interested in space and want to learn more about exploration, industry, military and new technologies? Join our community by subscribing to the newsletter and Follow us on social mediato always be up to date!
#Moon #landing #doesnt #history #repeat