With a six-year delay, a few more days doesn’t matter. Due to technical problems, the launch of the new heavy-duty rocket SLS from the Kennedy Space Center had to be postponed on Monday. Nevertheless, NASA is getting closer to its goal: a flight to the moon, first with dolls, later with people. The return to the surface should be successful in 2025, but the enthusiasm is manageable.
The criticism of the US lunar program, in which Europe is significantly involved, is understandable. Some find it grotesque, in view of the crises on earth – wars, climate, biodiversity loss – to organize billion-dollar trips into space for a select few.
However, with this argument all large-scale projects without immediate benefits could be ended: the particle accelerator at CERN, for example, space telescopes or research into nuclear fusion. Their value often only becomes apparent after decades and is not just monetary.
It is questionable whether astronautical moon missions “recoup” their costs. So far, no lunar raw material is known that is worthwhile to laboriously mine and bring to Earth. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate goal to bring people into space, onto the moon or even Mars. Because it is in their nature to push their limits, to venture into the unknown and to explore it. How this happens is very much up for debate.
NASA’s lunar program has some thorny issues. These include the Artemis Accords: a set of rules for using the moon. Countries that want to send their people there with Orion should sign it. Such a set of rules is definitely useful, but it should be negotiated at international level and not prescribed by a state. Germany is rightly reluctant to sign here, but will not do so forever.
The costs are also a concern. The new moon program has already demanded well over 20 billion dollars. Each launch of an SLS Orion tandem costs four billion dollars. Six are currently planned, but more are needed for the promised “long-term” return to the moon with a manned station.
It is wise to ask critical questions on a regular basis: do we really want to continue the program, do we find cheaper alternatives, do we find other partner countries that will bring money with them? Before Artemis is “too big to fail” and puts an undue burden on households.
Above all, however, is the question: What are the astronauts supposed to do up there for weeks or months? Answers such as “do geological research” or “be faster than China” will hardly satisfy taxpayers in the long run.
