This article leaves out that the current administration proposed slashing all funding to the Artemis program, and then recently has moved to drastically change the program architecture and significantly drive up cost and create further delay. It’s a malicious narrative against the public program disguised as an attempt to support it.
interesseret on
Funding and public interest.
There we go, that’s all explanation needed.
T1Demon on
The US Government only really cares to invest in the space program when they identify a potential military advantage. Bonus points if it can also scale to be commercially beneficial
TaskForceCausality on
>> It is political risk, budget constraints, and the depressing reality that a program that takes too long and costs too much money will always struggle to survive changes in presidential administration.
>>As former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine put it bluntly: “If it wasn’t for the political risk, we would be on the moon right now. In fact, we would probably be on Mars.”
I disagree. Those are factors, but the primary one is money. If there were oil or uranium deposits on the moon, best believe there’d be daily flights there today. But at our current level of technology, there’s no financial gain to visiting the Moon (or any other destination in the solar system). Without short term profit motives in space travel , there’s little reason for massive private sector investment. Without that investment, governments will spend money on more immediate concerns – like subsidies and wars that enrich their corporate sponsors today , not in 10-20 years.
National pride got us to the moon, but it’s short term financial gain that’s going to keep us there. Until that economic motive is found, we’re not going back. Even a Taikonaut landing on the moon might not be enough provocation.
sojuz151 on
Space shuttle was a terrible program that is in a part to blame. Expensive and incapable of even being considered to beyond leo missions.
Constellations program was canceled not because a new president but because it was extremely behind the schedule and over budget.
SLS and Orion consumed massive amounts of resources while giving almost nothing in return. Both of those are possible to replace with cheaper commercial solutions. This would require some modification but nothing in comparison with cost of those programs
There was more than enough budget, it was mismanaged.
thebestguac on
Do a TV show on the moon in tandem with research – ads will sponsor it – boom
Luzon0903 on
Funding and lack of governmental or even private interest (I don’t even know any companies going for the Moon independently, of course I could be wrong)
JohnOfA on
“We leave as we came, and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.”
Sounds like cool premise for TV series that answers the question, what if we did return to the moon? They could call it “As We Shall Return”.
WardenEdgewise on
I’m wondering why there haven’t been many more unmanned landers/probes/rovers sent to the moon over the past 4 or 5 decades. It seems that after the Apollo missions, NASA should have continued lunar exploration with unmanned missions like they have sent to Mars over the years. Most of the Mars missions have been very successful.
Techn028 on
If the moon had rare resources and there was a profit to be made then a guarantee we’d have lunar bases and mining operations going on right now
ReasonablyBadass on
There simply isn’t much point in humans on Luna. It is close enough we can use robots to do any work we want and it is far more hostile then Mars. Mars is a much better prospect for a colony.
11 Comments
This article leaves out that the current administration proposed slashing all funding to the Artemis program, and then recently has moved to drastically change the program architecture and significantly drive up cost and create further delay. It’s a malicious narrative against the public program disguised as an attempt to support it.
Funding and public interest.
There we go, that’s all explanation needed.
The US Government only really cares to invest in the space program when they identify a potential military advantage. Bonus points if it can also scale to be commercially beneficial
>> It is political risk, budget constraints, and the depressing reality that a program that takes too long and costs too much money will always struggle to survive changes in presidential administration.
>>As former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine put it bluntly: “If it wasn’t for the political risk, we would be on the moon right now. In fact, we would probably be on Mars.”
I disagree. Those are factors, but the primary one is money. If there were oil or uranium deposits on the moon, best believe there’d be daily flights there today. But at our current level of technology, there’s no financial gain to visiting the Moon (or any other destination in the solar system). Without short term profit motives in space travel , there’s little reason for massive private sector investment. Without that investment, governments will spend money on more immediate concerns – like subsidies and wars that enrich their corporate sponsors today , not in 10-20 years.
National pride got us to the moon, but it’s short term financial gain that’s going to keep us there. Until that economic motive is found, we’re not going back. Even a Taikonaut landing on the moon might not be enough provocation.
Space shuttle was a terrible program that is in a part to blame. Expensive and incapable of even being considered to beyond leo missions.
Constellations program was canceled not because a new president but because it was extremely behind the schedule and over budget.
SLS and Orion consumed massive amounts of resources while giving almost nothing in return. Both of those are possible to replace with cheaper commercial solutions. This would require some modification but nothing in comparison with cost of those programs
There was more than enough budget, it was mismanaged.
Do a TV show on the moon in tandem with research – ads will sponsor it – boom
Funding and lack of governmental or even private interest (I don’t even know any companies going for the Moon independently, of course I could be wrong)
“We leave as we came, and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.”
Sounds like cool premise for TV series that answers the question, what if we did return to the moon? They could call it “As We Shall Return”.
I’m wondering why there haven’t been many more unmanned landers/probes/rovers sent to the moon over the past 4 or 5 decades. It seems that after the Apollo missions, NASA should have continued lunar exploration with unmanned missions like they have sent to Mars over the years. Most of the Mars missions have been very successful.
If the moon had rare resources and there was a profit to be made then a guarantee we’d have lunar bases and mining operations going on right now
There simply isn’t much point in humans on Luna. It is close enough we can use robots to do any work we want and it is far more hostile then Mars. Mars is a much better prospect for a colony.