US boots on the Moon in 2024? It won't be easy

US astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon on July 20, 1969—NASA is now trying to speed up the timetable for putting astronauts back o
US astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon on July 20, 1969—NASA is now trying to speed up the timetable for putting astronauts back on the Moon

For the past 15 years, America has sought to put its astronauts back on the Moon, but NASA did not think it could be done before 2028.

On Tuesday, the government of President Donald Trump set a new deadline: 2024.

But that timeframe is anything but ironclad, and would force the US space agency to upend its usual work practices and take serious risks.

Just a few weeks ago, NASA chief Jim Bridenstine said the United States was not in any .

But he was forced to change his tune when Vice President Mike Pence said NASA needed to put astronauts back on the Moon in 2024 "by any means necessary."

"Make no mistake about it, we are in a space race today," Pence said.

Bridenstine now says the acceleration of the calendar is "aggressive" but doable.

Industry experts and officials also believe it's possible, but with a list of caveats: more money is needed, fewer tests, more help from the —and some even want a change at the top of NASA.

"I assume that all means that we would need more funding in order to accomplish those goals," one lawmaker asked.

"Yes," said Bridenstine.

More money, more problems

The idea of allocating more money to NASA has some on Capitol Hill gritting their teeth.

In this photo obtained from NASA, technicians at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans move the largest piece of struc
In this photo obtained from NASA, technicians at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans move the largest piece of structural test hardware for the new deep space rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS)

The space agency has already spent $23 billion developing its new heavy-lift rocket (the Space Launch System, which is being built by aerospace giant Boeing), the Orion capsule to transport the astronauts (built by Lockheed Martin) and ground installations.

Congress has granted it $4 billion for 2019.

Orion is nearly ready but the SLS is the real bottleneck: it will be more powerful than the rockets used on the original Apollo missions to the Moon, but it is years behind schedule.

At a NASA facility in New Orleans, the first stage of the SLS prototype, expected to take flight next year, is still being assembled.

But its four engines have not yet been delivered.

That first stage is then meant to be transported via barge to St Louis for testing, before being sent to Florida for final assembly.

As for the planned June 2020 test flight, Bridenstine said: "I don't think that's in the cards."

Some of the engine testing could be cancelled to gain a few months.

But that would fly in the face of the long-standing conservative work culture at NASA, which is still scarred by the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters in 1986 and 2003.

"Do you want to kill astronauts? Because this is how you kill astronauts," said Holly Griffith, a vehicle systems engineer working on the Orion capsule in Houston.

This file artist concept image from NASA shows the next generation of heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System—which is years
This file artist concept image from NASA shows the next generation of heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System—which is years behind schedule

"There's no reason to accelerate going to the Moon by four years," Griffith told AFP. "It's ridiculous."

Help!

The reality of Pence's announcement is that 2024 is politically significant: it would be the final year in Trump's eventual second term at the White House.

"The administration has been frustrated for some time on the lack of progress on the mandate to return to the Moon," Greg Autry, the for space development at the independent National Space Society, told AFP.

"It's clear the president wants it to happen during his second term, presuming he's re-elected," added Autry, who was a member of Trump's presidential transition team.

So why has a return to the Moon taken so long—after all, Neil Armstrong made his legendary "giant leap for mankind" 50 years ago.

Autry says NASA wants to be "100,000 percent sure this will be safe."

He says a "culture change" is needed, along with the naming of new top brass at the space agency who are "more like the president" and come from the private sector.

Technically, the new mission is markedly different from the Apollo program.

This time around, the Americans are not simply looking to plant the Stars and Stripes, but also to create a lasting infrastructure over the course of several trips, both in orbit and on the lunar surface.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine (L)—seen here at the US space agency's headquarters in November 2018—says the acceleration of
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine (L)—seen here at the US space agency's headquarters in November 2018—says the acceleration of the calendar for a new Moon mission is "aggressive" but doable

Also on the agenda is learning to extract frozen water from the Moon. Uncrewed missions would take place to build the Lunar Gateway in the vicinity of the Moon and deliver equipment.

All of the above would be in preparation for eventual missions to Mars.

The other new element is that NASA wants to land at the Moon's South Pole, where the water has been detected, as opposed to its equator, where the Apollo missions landed.

"We're not starting from scratch," says Marshall Smith, who manages proposals at NASA for the future lunar lander, which will ferry astronauts back and forth from the station to the Moon.

But "it's going to be a challenge," he admits—there is not even a design yet for the lander.

For 2024 to become a reality, NASA will need to rely heavily on private companies, which are far more developed than they were in the 1960s and will be called upon like never before.

The shorter timetable "may require them to partner a lot more with industry," said Thomas Orlando, the director of a NASA research center at Georgia Tech.


Explore further

NASA's new rocket won't be ready for moon shot next year

© 2019 AFP

Citation: US boots on the Moon in 2024? It won't be easy (2019, March 30) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-boots-moon-wont-easy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
181 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 30, 2019
"Do you want to kill astronauts? Because this is how you kill astronauts," said Holly Griffith, a vehicle systems engineer working on the Orion capsule in Houston.


Lockheed Martin has billed NASA ~$16B for Orion since 2006 and the only thing we have to show for it is a death trap? Even worse, Orion is essentially a 30% larger diameter Apollo capsule with flat screens and microprocessors, not a cutting-edge space capsule. It would probably be a lot faster and safer to refurbish the Apollo 11 capsule on display at the Air & Space Museum than let Lockheed Martin continue spending $1.35B a year on Orion to achieve nothing.

https://en.wikipe...cecraft)


Apr 01, 2019
Agree, it boggles the mind that we were able to land on the moon and safely return on 6/7 straight Apollo missions (and even returned safely on Apollo 13) some 50 years ago, but here we are today saying we need more than 5 years to re-figure it out. Part of it was the Apollo program was less risk-averse than NASA is today. Part of it is funding (NASA made up 4% of the federal budget in the 60's vs 0.5% today). But as you point out, a major contributor is outsourcing to private contractors who appear to do very little at inflated prices. And the solution to this is to give private companies MORE contracts? We'll be lucky to visit the People's Lunar Republic by 2040.

Apr 01, 2019
Part of it is funding (NASA made up 4% of the federal budget in the 60's vs 0.5% today).


Size of the budget increased a lot since then. If you account for inflation, then actual buying power of NASA budget is fully half of what it was during Apollo peak. We have spent significantly more on NASA since the end of Apollo, than on Apollo itself.

https://static1.s...4329598/

Apr 02, 2019
Scouring junkyards for Saturn V parts. The truth of the matter is the odious black moneypit the ISS has GUTTED the U.S. space program. Now they go hat in hand to the Russians or outfits like Space-X. How the mighty have fallen. But the real culprit is the man who ordered them to the moon, Kennedy, who's political-driven timidity caused him to kill Project Orion (which would have put them on Mars by now) in favour of chemical rocket Apollo.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more