NASA dubs 2024 Moon mission 'Artemis,' asks for $1.6 billion

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stand on the Moon on July 20, 1969
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stand on the Moon on July 20, 1969

NASA's next mission to the Moon will be called Artemis, the US space agency announced Monday, though it's still looking for the money to make the journey happen by its accelerated 2024 deadline.

In March, US President Donald Trump's administration moved the date for the next American lunar mission up by four years from its original goal of 2028 while pledging to get a to the Moon's surface for the first time.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine told reporters the agency would need an additional $1.6 billion to pay for the new ground and needed to meet the deadline.

"This additional investment, I want to be clear, is a downpayment on NASA's efforts to land humans on the Moon by 2024," he said.

Bridenstine said the mission was named Artemis after the Greek mythological goddess of the Moon and twin sister to Apollo, namesake of the program that sent 12 American astronauts to the Moon between 1969 and 1972.

NASA's total annual budget is approximately $21.5 billion, and in the 2019 , the agency spent about $4.5 billion on developing the Orion spacecraft, the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy rocket and a new lunar orbital mini-station, three elements essential to the Artemis mission.

But many experts and lawmakers are concerned that NASA cannot meet the accelerated deadline, especially given the major delays in development of the SLS, which is being built by aerospace giant Boeing.

Asked how much the new mission would cost in total, Bridenstine demurred, telling a reporter: "I would love to tell you that."


Explore further

After the Moon in 2024, NASA wants to reach Mars by 2033

© 2019 AFP

Citation: NASA dubs 2024 Moon mission 'Artemis,' asks for $1.6 billion (2019, May 14) retrieved 21 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-nasa-dubs-moon-mission-artemis.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.
2154 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 14, 2019
About time; it's been 50 years since we stepped foot on the moon.

May 14, 2019
Our 1.6 billion dollar moonbuggy

Does this not depend on the next president?
as NASA has already driven their moonbuggies on this Moon
What gives NASA
why the need for additional 1.6 billion dollars
for new ground and space vehicles needed to meet the deadline
NASA, you have already designed, built and successfully tested in the field, moonbuggy
If we all recall
we all saw the live video feed of Moonians driving their moonbuggy on Moonian regolith
these video's are not porkies are they, NASA
We hope this Moonian moonbuggy video is not part of this conspiracy of moonbuggies on this
moon

When we have a fully working tested in the field on Moonian regolith, moonbuggy
why does it cost an additional 1.6 billion dollars to build a copy of this moonbuggy

Is the American Tax Payer being taken for a Ride?

May 14, 2019
Shit, that's cheap. Bet we get a moonbase for under a US$trillion.

May 14, 2019
Our 1.6 billion dollar moonbuggy

This sage from under his bridge
Shit, that's cheap, Bet we get a moonbase for under a US$trillion

TrollianDaSchneib, we all know space travel cost billions of dollars
there are as with everything in life, Limits
why do you think, TrollianDaSchneib we have not got, Our Rotating Space Port
the reason TrollianDaSchneib, is because NASA is spending 1.6 billion dollars on a beach buggy
let's be blunt TrollianDaSchneib, the mudguards fell off and fortunately these resourceful Moonians had brought a roll of duct tape from Walmart and successfully duct taped this mudguard in place
as you know TrollianDaSchneib, Moonian regolith is extremely fine and sticky and gums up anything that is not all ready gummed up
but TrollianDaSchneib
as this is a billion dollar but, TrollianDaSchneib a copy of this equivalent of an Earthly beachbuggy Moonian moonbuggies do not cost 1.6 billion dollars

Not in your wildest dreams under your bridge, TrollianDaSchneib

May 14, 2019
There remains only two kinds of nations.

Those that use metric. And those that land men on the Moon and return them safely to Earth.

May 14, 2019
NASA is fundamentally anti-capitalist and is a parasite on the American people.

NASA must be de-funded and the money wasted on it's boondoggles used to provide further tax cuts for the wealthy.

May 14, 2019
$1.6 Billion is about 0.00036 of the federal budget for 2019.

May 15, 2019
Apollo cost $40 billion in the 60's. Today, with dainty safety protocols, it would cost $400 billion. A moonbase which would need multiple trips, dozens would cost over a trillion. A Mars mission, probably $10 trillion. We cannot keep using chemical rockets. Project Orion is the only conceivable way for mankind to go in any economically-feasible way to the planets or the nearest stars. Otherwise, they are wasting their time.

May 15, 2019
Who cares about stars? Let's just reach the planets and asteroids now,

May 15, 2019
If mankind could plan things that might take longer than a human lifetime to bear any fruit (history says not), what we should be doing first is developing materials strong enough to make cabling for a geostationary "space elevator".

Make even stronger cables and you can take a "space elevator" and add in some counterweights and pulleys, and the centripetal force of the earth's spin gets you energy-free, massive lift into orbit and then a slingshot launch when tethered out a bit. I dub that a "space railroad".

May 15, 2019
As moonbuggies do not cost 1.6 billion dollars

When Donald realises
he is being asked for 1.6 billion dollars
for
a copy of a tried and tested in the field, moonbuggy
he will think back when he used to sell condos
and
say to NASA
1.6 billion dollars for a moonbuggy, not likely mate
Moonbuggies do not cost 1.6 billion dollars

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