Bill Inglalls / NASA
On a recent Sunday afternoon, a black-and-white spaceship rode through the atmosphere, ionizing molecules, and making a plasma inferno. In the middle of this fireball, two astronauts are sheltered in the small harbor of Dragonship Endeavor, because its carbon-based heat shield creeps and flattens.
After a few restless minutes, Effort throws up most of its orbital velocity. Falling into the lower atmosphere, their parachutes deployed in a careful sequence, and the spaceship drifted from blue skies to blue seas. Astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken were safe. They were at home. For the first time in 4.5 decades, astronauts returned from space and splashed down into the ocean, as did the heroes of the Apollo era that orbited the Moon.
The landing came when NASA, in the direction of Vice President Mike Pence, was working hard to bring people back to the Moon by 2024. This is a Herculean task for the agency’s administrator, Jim Bridenstine, who balances politics, funding, and technical barriers to push NASA and its contractors forward.
Immediately after landing, Bridenstine renewed his pitch for this Artemis Moon program during a splashdown news conference. He wore a polo shirt with the Artemis logo and said: ‘We must make sure that another generation does not miss this opportunity. Today was a great victory, but it was just a start. The Artemis program is our sustainable return to the moon. ”
Then Bridenstine added this remark: “If we do things right, we will get the strong support for two parties we need.” This was clearly a fundraiser needed to execute Artemis. But what exactly do “exact things” mean? On the technical side, it means using space hardware that can get the job done. On the political side, it means making choices that satisfy those in Congress who pay the bills.
When it comes to spaceships, rockets, and the moon, these two things may not be the same.
This separation could not be clearer when Effort spat part. The success of Crew Dragon, a relatively lightweight, modestly priced, and reusable spaceship, has led some aerospace engineers to suggest that the space agency scrap its plan to use larger, much more expensive cars – those proposed by Congress for more camped like a decade – to perform the landing of the moon.
-
Crew Dragon is brought on board the SpaceX recovery ship.
NASA
-
Support teams arrive at the SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavor spaceship shortly after landing.
NASA
-
The spaceship is lifted to the recovery ship.
NASA
-
NASA astronauts Robert Behnken, left, and Douglas Hurley are seen in the SpaceX Crew Dragon Effort spaceship aboard the SpaceX GO Navigator recovery time ship shortly after landing.
NASA
-
How was your ride home, Doug Hurley?
NASA
-
Bob Behnken was also in good spirits.
NASA
-
NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley, left, and Robert Behnken prepare to leave their helicopter at Naval Air Station Pensacola after the duo landed in their SpaceX Crew Dragon Effort spaceships.
NASA
-
Crew Dragon arrives close to the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday.
Bill Inglalls / NASA
-
An image of the parachutes falling into the water.
NASA
After his successful landing in early August, Crew Dragon proved him right, these lawyers say. It’s been to space and back with people inside. With some modifications, it could become more flexible to support longer-term missions to guide astronauts to lunar orbit and safely back to Earth. Why wait for the expensive government funds when commercial solutions are already at hand?
“Do we really want to go to the moon, or not?” asked Robert Zubrin, an American aeronautical engineer who founded the Mars Society. “The question for Mike Pence is pretty simple: Do you really want to join the Moon by 2024 or not? Because we have the tools to go. ”
The current plan
In the last 18 months, Bridenstine has made a plan that seeks to balance technical and political concerns to reach the Moon.
The administrator understands that commercial space, led by SpaceX, was stepped up and supplied to NASA. He has tried these new companies – which tend to work faster and take on less guaranteed money than traditional airlines such as Boeing – where possible in the Artemis program. They have allowed in offering projects to build a lander to take people from the lunar orbit to the surface of the moon, as well as deliver cargo to the moon.
Already some in Congress have taken this approach. Some House Democrats, including Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, have argued that commercial companies should not be allowed to build the Human Landing System. Rather, they say, NASA should design, own and operate the lander. So far, Bridenstine has managed to push this back.
But there’s a red line he does not dare cross. In the Senate, the influential Speaker of the House of Representatives Commission, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, has said people should launch to the moon in the Orion spaceship, on top of a spaceship missile system. This can, in general, be considered the position of Congress. And if Bridenstine has any hope of winning Congress funds for a rural landlord, then he should play by those rules.
Under the current plan, Bridenstine then shared contracts with a number of different contractors, both traditional and commercial. “I think we have a good balance,” he told Ars in an interview.
Politics seems to be working its strategy, at least for the moment. While Artemis has not received all the funds it needs, it does get some. But what about technical? Is there hope to make 2024?
