NASA’s massive moon rocket will cost taxpayers billions more than projected
NASA auditor warns Congress
NASA’s auditor didn’t mince words when he told lawmakers Tuesday that the space agency’s lunar program is going to cost a ton more per mission than initial projections suggested a decade ago.
“We found that the first four Artemis missions will each cost $4.1 billion per launch, a price tag that strikes us as unsustainable,” NASA Inspector General Paul Martin said.
Artemis is the name of NASA’s lunar program. It represents a series of missions for which the agency is developing its Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule
Motley Fool article
NASA's new $4 billion rocketship may not be long for this world.
When Sir Richard Branson announced last year that his company, Virgin Galactic, would begin charging $450,000 a ticket for tourist flights to space and back, minds boggled at the price tag. But if $450,000 sounds like a lot of money to you, you'd better sit down before I tell you how much it will cost NASA to send astronauts to the moon again.
That's $1,025,000,000 per astronaut.
NASA's incredible inflating price tag
This is according to NASA Inspector General Paul Martin, head of the Office of Inspector General of the National Aeronautics Space Administration (the OIG of NASA, for lovers of acronyms). Testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics earlier this month, Martin confirmed the findings of an OIG audit of NASA performed late last year.
In particular, he confirmed that "the current production and operations cost of a single SLS/Orion system [will be] $4.1 billion per launch for Artemis I through IV.
Space.com
Is SLS worth the cost?
NASA's new megarocket comes with a mega price tag
The powerful rocket's debut comes after a long series of delays and cost overruns.
SLS is scheduled to lift off this morning (Aug. 29) on Artemis 1, the first mission in NASA's Artemis program of moon exploration. If all goes according to plan, the 322-foot-tall (98 meters) rocket will lift off from NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) here on the Space Coast, sending an uncrewed Orion capsule on a six-week journey to lunar orbit and back.
Seeing SLS on the pad is surreal for space fans, who for years had to make do with renderings of the powerful launcher. And those digital illustrations and animations have changed over time, along with the envisioned purpose and destinations of the deep-space rocket.
NASA began developing the SLS in 2011, just after the cancellation of its Constellation moon program, which would have used an Ares rocket to send Orion to the International Space Station (ISS), the moon and eventually Mars.
Back then, development of the giant rocket was budgeted at $10 billion, with an expected debut voyage in late 2016. But development costs, budget issues, design changes, political hurdles and other bumps in the road delayed the rocket's first launch to 2017, then 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and, finally, to 2022.
A lot has happened in space over the decade-plus of SLS development, including the emergence of commercial cargo and commercial crew missions to the ISS, the introduction of reusable rockets by SpaceX and an exponential buildup of new private space companies. So far in 2022, there have been 37 launches from KSC, the overwhelming majority of them conducted by SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.
In 2016 — the same year that SLS was originally supposed to launch for the first time — SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk revealed the company's design for its next-generation deep-space transportation system, a huge rocket-spaceship combo known as Starship.
Starship will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever built when it comes online, Musk has said. Ultimately, he envisions hundreds of Starships landing a million people on Mars in the coming decades. So far, only a handful of the company's Starship prototypes have gotten off the ground, none of them on orbital test flights. But a full stack Starship orbital test flight is expected before the end of this year.
If that mission is successful, SpaceX will have taken its super heavy-lift vehicle from the drawing board and into space in far less time than it took NASA to do the same with the SLS. SpaceX's goal is to build an entire fleet of Starships and launch multiple vehicles on a daily basis, at an average launch cost of $1 million or thereabouts.
NASA sees considerable potential in Starship, last year tapping the vehicle as its lunar lander for Artemis 3, which aims to put astronauts down near the moon's south pole in 2025 or 2026.
The Deep Seas Should be Prioritised over Space Exploration
We are searching for oceans underneath Jupiter’s moon, yet only 5% of our deep seas are explored. Debate about whether space exploration resources should instead be put into investigating our deep seas has been ongoing for the last half-century. An excessive amount of money is pumped into space programmes, while the deep seas are neglected. The world seems to have forgotten the beauty that lies beneath the still surface. We are searching for extraterrestrial life when our oceans are the place where life on earth originated. We have marine creatures that look more alien than anything we can imagine in science fiction. Hydrothermal vents are teeming with strange creatures that we have only recently discovered. Giant crustaceans and amphipods dart through the darkness like shooting stars, while translucent squid float like asteroids.
Sadly, one frontier is prioritised over the other. NASA’s budget is roughly 150 times more than that of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA). When the moon mission began, there was mass discontent, as Americans were living in poor conditions, while the government got its moment of glory. This is a global issue as Pakistan has put $43 million towards its space programme, while 1/3 of its citizens live in poverty. This will prevent the nation from taking any significant strides toward helping its people. The space race has always been a political game, with countries competing to see who can conquer space first. It is purely a show of strength, while ordinary citizens do not benefit. In a time of shrinking budgets, can the taxpayer afford to put people into space for the pride of their country?
People argue that space exploration has given us new technologies, however, this statement is misleading. Technologies such as GPS and mobile phones were not found in space, they were developed here on earth, from resources that came from earth. They were made by people determined to explore. If more money was invested into ocean exploration, we could develop new technologies, but also find more natural resources and species that could benefit all of humanity. Furthermore, space exploration has a negative impact on the environment. The amount of emissions put into the atmosphere during a single launch is immense. Moreover, space junk is left abandoned in space and on the moon, as if hiding our planet under a carpet of litter was not enough. On the other hand, exploring our oceans is an exciting quest that will increase the health of our world.
Unlike space, the ocean can provide many essential resources. For example, the Japanese black sponge produces a substance that can block tumour cells at the late stage of breast cancer. Additionally, chemicals were discovered in our oceans that help with asthma, inflammation, and skin irritation. Scientists have also found bacteria in the Bahamas that have antibiotic properties. However, we have only identified 1/3 of all marine life, which means the oceans have a lot more potential for solving our problems. Therefore, ocean research helps with medicine far more than space exploration. Furthermore, the oceans are our single largest source of protein. If properly managed, the oceans will help with food security, while there are no plants on mars. Most importantly, temperatures are rising on our planet and species are disappearing. The ocean stores carbon and is extremely important in the fight against climate change. It provides half of the oxygen that we breathe. Thus, more money should be invested into geoengineering research that examines the oceans’ carbon absorption capacity. There are no solutions to climate change in space, however, our entire carbon cycle is controlled by our oceans. Entire ecosystems will collapse if this problem is not solved, and while our oceans can help, fumes from space exploration only exacerbate the issue. Therefore, it is essential that we broaden our understanding of our oceans.
Achieving Sustainable Development Goal No. 14 could require spending $175 billion per year. (world's cost, not U.S.)
In 2015, 193 countries agreed on 17 global objectives for ending poverty and protecting the environment by 2030. These Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) included SDG 14, to "conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development."
A new study by two former diplomats with the CONOW Competence Centre for International Relations published in the journal Marine Policy estimates that to hit the targets needed to achieve this SDG the world must spend $175 billion per year.
Reducing marine pollution will take more than half the money needed, according to the paper. At over $90 billion, that cost includes programs to clean up ocean trash, better manage waste and improve wastewater treatment plants. It also means investing in research on biodegradable plastics, all while working to limit plastic pollution of any kind in the first place.
About one-fifth of the needed funding, the researchers say, is for protecting and restoring wetland ecosystems, coastal habitats, coral reefs and other environments. For wetlands, that could entail setting aside new areas under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty (PDF) that aims to conserve wetland wildlife and ecosystem services.
For seaside ecosystems, it could mean investments in integrated coastal management. This approach brings together scientists, managers, community members and other stakeholders to cooperate on unified oversight and administration of activities in coastal areas, aiming to balance competing interests for sustainable development — all while prioritizing the preservation of biological resources and ecosystems.
Other priorities, the study says, are promoting sustainable fishing, directing resources to low-income island countries, supporting efforts to manage fisheries and fight pollution, and dealing with climate change, which acidifies oceans.
At the UN's first Ocean Conference, businesses promised just 8% of commitments to take action on SDG 14.
To estimate the price tag for achieving the goal, the researchers drew heavily from a 2012 report (PDF) by countries involved in the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international conservation treaty. The authors adjusted the report’s marine conservation cost estimates for inflation, while noting the high degree of uncertainty for some estimates.
Can we make these big investments? While the data are hazy, the researchers estimated that the money pledged right now for ocean conservation totals just about $25 billion yearly. If that uncertain estimate is correct, it leaves an annual funding gap of around $150 billion.
At the United Nations’ first Ocean Conference in 2017, 44 percent of commitments to take action on SDG 14 came from governments, while 20 percent came from non-governmental organizations. Businesses promised just 8 percent.
The biggest commitment was from the European Investment Bank, which committed $8 billion to help small, developing island nations become less vulnerable to climate change.
To bring the needed funding and urgency to SDG 14, the researchers issue 10 recommendations:
Acknowledge how wasteful lifestyles mar our oceans, then shift our culture and consumption in a more sustainable direction. "For too long we have taken nature for granted, and this needs to stop," the study states.
Keep SDG 14 on local and international political agendas. The last few years have seen more attention, which is a good development — if it continues.
Invest in institutions that can implement ocean solutions, particularly in developing countries.
Put effort into developing knowledge and technology that builds the capacity to protect ocean health.
Target spending better. This could be accomplished in part by ending the some $20 billion in harmful subsidies to fisheries. At the same time, decision-makers should bring the SDG 14 targets into more development and environmental policymaking.
Scale up traditional funding. Most of the money spent on biodiversity efforts, the report says, come from national governments and international organizations, which could mean big impact if these states and groups up their contributions even further.
Engage the private sector. Businesses might help do their part by paying for ecosystem services or investing in financial innovations such as blue bonds.
Get more money from philanthropists, who the research estimates currently contribute just $1 billion per year to ocean health.
Support trust funds dedicated to ocean conservation.
Coordinate overall financial efforts for SDG 14 by working for sustainable ocean financing.
"Our Ocean is vital for our ecosystem and for our economy," the researchers write. "It provides us with most of the oxygen that we breathe, water that we drink… and is the foundation for an economic activity estimated at around $3 trillion per year." Given that reality, the price tag of saving the sea seems worth it
.png)
