Delayed rocket launch leaves moon exploration hopes Earthbound

By Matthew Hillier, Staff Writer

It’s fair to say that space exploration has been on the back of everyone’s mind for a while now.

With two global conflicts, the repercussions of a global pandemic, and worries about recessions, depressions, and all sorts of economic disasters, the stars have seemed just a little too far away.

However, many were and still are excited for NASA’s Artemis moon missions.

The upcoming Artemis 2 voyage is expected to explore the lunar south pole for the first time. The crew of four astronauts Christina Koch, Victor J. Glover, Jeremy Hansena (a Canadian), Reid Wiseman, were assigned to loop around the moon and study the previously unseen side of Earth’s favourite orbiting celestial body.

The mission was planned to go ahead in late 2024. However, due to concerns for crew safety it’s been pushed back to September 2025.

These concerns stem from issues with the space capsule re-entry which arose during the re-entry, of Artemis 1.

Moreover, there are also issues with critical batteries aboard. These batteries, designed by Lockheed Martin, failed vibration tests. Meaning in a worst-case scenario, a space capsule’s power could fail during re-entry.

Top priority: Safety

According to CBS, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson told reporters that safety was the chief reason behind the delay.

“As we remind everybody at every turn, safety is our top priority…to give Artemis teams more time to work through the challenges with first-time developments and integration, we’re going to give [them] more time on Artemis 2 and 3”

It’s also important to note that Artemis 2 is just a test flight for Artemis 3. While 2 does have the important distinction of exploring the lunar south pole, it’s just a test for the main event, the first moon landing since 1972.

Unfortunately, a delay of Artemis 2 means a delay of Artemis 3 and we most likely won’t see a human on the moon until late 2026.

Unreasonable expectations

Raphael Slawinski is a professor of Physics and Astronomy at Mount Royal University. He notes the importance of changing public perception since the last moon landing.

“People sometimes have unreasonable expectations, we put people on the moon now more than 50 years ago. So, it seems like we have so many more capabilities. Our technology has vastly improved and computing power is bigger than what it was back then, so should space be easy?” he said.

“The answer is that space is still not easy. These delays are significant, not only due to the nature of the mission, but also because of the nature of the missions, funding, and development.”

Private-public partnerships

The Artemis missions are also unique because they are one of the first private-public partnerships in space travel. Though this had benefits in the missions progression, it has also affected the missions timetable.

Companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and the previously mentioned Lockheed Martin are all involved in some way or another with the development, funding, and construction of Artemis.

This means that instead of centralized development by one government body (NASA), critical components and manufacturing are outsourced to various corporations with their agendas, finances, and timetables.

An example of how this could lead to issues comes from the involvement of SpaceX, which has failed to meet deadlines and timetables due to the strain of development with other projects and previous issues with SpaceX launches.

This mission is certainly unique in more ways than one. It is the first mission to explore an undiscovered region of our moon, it’s the precursor to the first manned mission to the moon in almost 40 years, and it’s the first time public agencies like NASA have relied on private corporations for help in development.

Despite its delays, this mission is groundbreaking and exciting. However, the reliance on private corporations for development and funding could be viewed as a double-edged sword.

On one hand, it allows a section of scientific study and research to flourish when it has historically been neglected. However, less oversight, less direct involvement, and less “say” in the project means NASA’s role has been reduced severely. Additionally, this will likely establish a precedent for future space exploration and development. That being the necessity for private involvement.

Corporate involvement in space exploration and development will certainly speed things up in a way that is unprecedented to government-funded programs. Regardless, we will have to hold our breath and wait until 2025-26 to see how a privately backed NASA will define a potential new era of space exploration.