US Commits To Landing an International Astronaut On the Moon (arstechnica.com) 49
During a meeting of the National Space Council, Vice President Kamala Harris said an international astronaut will land on the Moon during one of NASA's Artemis missions. "Today, in recognition of the essential role that our allies and partners play in the Artemis program, I am proud to announce that alongside American astronauts, we intend to land an international astronaut on the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade," Harris said. Ars Technica reports: Although the National Space Council is useful in aggregating disparate interests across the US government to help form more cohesive space policies, public meetings like the one Wednesday can seem perfunctory. Harris departed the stage soon after her speech, and other government officials read from prepared remarks during the rest of the event. Nevertheless, Harris' announcement highlighted the role the space program plays in elevating the soft power of the United States. It was widely assumed an international astronaut would eventually land on the Moon with NASA. Harris put a deadline on achieving this goal.
NASA has long included astronauts from its international partners on human spaceflight missions, dating back to the ninth flight of the space shuttle in 1983, when West German astronaut Ulf Merbold joined five Americans on a flight to low-Earth orbit. This was seen by US government officials as a way to foster closer relations with like-minded countries. The inclusion of foreign astronauts on US missions also repays partner nations who make financial commitments to US-led space projects with a high-profile flight opportunity for one of their citizens.
Among the international partners contributing to Artemis, it seems most likely a European astronaut would get the first slot for a landing with NASA. ESA funded the development of the service modules used on NASA's Orion spacecraft, which will ferry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and back. These modules provide power and propulsion for Orion. ESA is also developing refueling and communications infrastructure for the Gateway mini-space station to be constructed in orbit around the Moon.
A Japanese astronaut might also have a shot at getting a seat on an Artemis landing. Japan's government has committed to providing the life-support system for the Gateway's international habitation module, along with resupply services to deliver cargo to Gateway. Japan is also interested in building a pressurized rover for astronauts to drive across the lunar surface. In recognition of Japan's contributions, NASA last year committed to flying a Japanese astronaut aboard Gateway. Canada is building a robotic arm for Gateway, but a Canadian astronaut already has a seat on NASA's first crewed Artemis mission, albeit without a trip to the lunar surface.
NASA has long included astronauts from its international partners on human spaceflight missions, dating back to the ninth flight of the space shuttle in 1983, when West German astronaut Ulf Merbold joined five Americans on a flight to low-Earth orbit. This was seen by US government officials as a way to foster closer relations with like-minded countries. The inclusion of foreign astronauts on US missions also repays partner nations who make financial commitments to US-led space projects with a high-profile flight opportunity for one of their citizens.
Among the international partners contributing to Artemis, it seems most likely a European astronaut would get the first slot for a landing with NASA. ESA funded the development of the service modules used on NASA's Orion spacecraft, which will ferry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and back. These modules provide power and propulsion for Orion. ESA is also developing refueling and communications infrastructure for the Gateway mini-space station to be constructed in orbit around the Moon.
A Japanese astronaut might also have a shot at getting a seat on an Artemis landing. Japan's government has committed to providing the life-support system for the Gateway's international habitation module, along with resupply services to deliver cargo to Gateway. Japan is also interested in building a pressurized rover for astronauts to drive across the lunar surface. In recognition of Japan's contributions, NASA last year committed to flying a Japanese astronaut aboard Gateway. Canada is building a robotic arm for Gateway, but a Canadian astronaut already has a seat on NASA's first crewed Artemis mission, albeit without a trip to the lunar surface.
Re:All applicants welcome (Score:4, Funny)
You don't really 'get' soft power, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
What language does a "European" speak?
Because of Hollywood, English has become a relatively standard language across Europe. It's too expensive to dub every Hollywood movie in native tongues, so instead they're subtitled. The end result is that a ton of people in Europe learn to speak English because they see their language in print and hear the dialog in English. You can go anywhere and somebody speaks it. In many countries in the north, almost everyone I've encountered is more or less fluent, even the Scottish. I learned German in high school
Re:All applicants welcome (Score:5, Interesting)
As TFA notes, they will give it to a nation that has contributed to joint projects with NASA. Japan built some of the ISS, and sent supply ships to it. The ESA has been involved in a number of joint robotic missions. Canada supplied the arm used on the ISS and I think on the Shuttle too.
There will likely be some major contribution to that particular moon mission as well.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Darn! That rules out Trump on every single criteria. So unfair!
You want Trump to be the first octogenarian billionaire POTUS to land on the moon?
How often Trump gets mentioned is a bit concerning to me, he must really get under people's skin. Personally I thought he'd fade into the background like most any former POTUS did, and probably should. It's especially odd for Trump to get much mention given his age, if Biden's age is a concern as POTUS then Trump's age should also be a concern. Clearly Trump doesn't get as easily lost as Biden but there's no telling on when
Re: (Score:1)
You're been living under your nuclear rock so long you didn't notice Trump is leading the Republican primaries by a long way. And beating Biden in head to head polls for the Presidency?
Maybe all the radiation has given you brain cancer.
What on earth made you think Trump should have faded away?
Re: (Score:2)
They also want a president that is all powerful. A monarch who rules by decree. They're in a world that they want a candidate's campaign promises to be true, even if the promises are impractical, impossible, illegal, etc. So they listen to Trump immediately proclaiming that he's hindered from enacting policies by is own team he appointed, and therefore it must be the "deep state" that prevents dictators from dictating. There is no "deep state" here, other than "the law" that even the president must abide
Re: (Score:2)
You want Trump to be the first octogenarian billionaire POTUS to land on the moon?
Yes, provided NASA leaves him there.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody mentions Trump as many times per day as Trump rally attendees. Anyone still going to his rallies to watch him stumble over words is the true sufferer of DTS.
Re: (Score:1)
A bit of plagiarism is compulsory when we're DEI'ing THE MOON!
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the best will be sent (Score:2, Funny)
They commited to nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
When JFK made his "we choose to go to the moon" speech he was a newly elected POTUS that made a statement of landing someone on the moon before the end of what would be his second term in office. Kamala Harris isn't anything JFK. I see it is wise for the White House to have Kamala Harris make the announcement because she's young enough and not term limited to where it would be impossible for her to see this goal to the end. She can campaign on this promise in the future, saying that she made the promise of landing on the moon and if she's not POTUS then she will be powerless to make the promise happen.
Now, there was power in the JFK speech because it was a promise to get Americans on the moon. Kamala Harris promised to put someone that is not an American on the moon. Can anyone explain to me why I, as a voter and taxpayer, should care about putting someone that is not an American on the moon?
Maybe I could find a reason to care about this if Harris committed to putting someone from a specific allied nation on the moon, someone from a nation that did plenty to aid America in our endeavors to explore space, improve our economy, or provide for national defense. I don't know which nation that could be but if I had to choose a nation right now then I'd choose Canada. Canada has been a very friendly nation, has aided us in national defense with NORAD, provides considerable trade in both directions over the border, and has every expectation to do so in the future.
We could create an alliance with Canada to return people to the moon, and as part of that alliance there will be a Canadian astronaut as part of the mission. Hell, I'd even say that the Canadian should be the first off the lander to put boot prints in the lunar dust. We already have American boot prints on the moon so any "first" is already gone there. Let a Canadian be the first person on the moon in the last 60 years. If they can pull their weight on getting humans to the moon, and back to Earth safely, then let a Canadian be out of the lunar lander first. By "pull their weight" I would assume that to be proportional to their population or something, not necessarily do half the work or provide half the funds.
Harris committed to nothing because she failed to name the nation where this astronaut came from. For all we know they might claim that someone from Puerto Rico is an "international astronaut". I could see that happening to prove some political points, like trying to argue for Puerto Rico as a state than its current status as a territory, protectorate, or whatever legal term would be used. The more I think about it the more I believe that it will be a Canadian that ends up going to the moon. I just wonder why Harris failed to make such a commitment now. Did Canada do something that would remove them from the running?
Re:They commited to nothing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone explain to me why I, as a voter and taxpayer, should care about putting someone that is not an American on the moon?
Perhaps you want your country to be a respected world leader, not a world bully. And is not like that mission will put one single person on the Moon and that person will be a foreigner... The mission will put a team on the Moon, one of them may be foreigner, but all others will be Americans.
Maybe I could find a reason to care about this if Harris committed to putting someone from a specific allied nation on the moon, someone from a nation that did plenty to aid America in our endeavors to explore space, improve our economy, or provide for national defense. I don't know which nation that could be but if I had to choose a nation right now then I'd choose Canada.
Don't you think it would be too early to pick? Maybe more than one country will want to contribute.
Re: (Score:1)
Please demand this of China and their space program. Or any other country. Space missions are an issue of national pride and always have been. To fund a non American on a clearly American mission is to become the cucks of space.
Re: They commited to nothing. (Score:3, Interesting)
China is a communist dictatorship, they need Chinese people on the moon even if it kills them purely for the propaganda.
The only people that think nationalism is icky and bad these days are far-left wing Americans and nobody else in the world thinks like them. Literally nobody. Not the Europeans, they are very protective of their newly established EU national identity, not any Islamic country, not China or India or any African nation, not Russia, not even Ukraine. People in the west have deluded themselves
Re: (Score:2)
Please demand this of China and their space program. Or any other country. Space missions are an issue of national pride and always have been. To fund a non American on a clearly American mission is to become the cucks of space.
Or, and I know this is gonna rub some folks the wrong way, but hear me out. Or maybe this is an effort to show the world that we're all in this together. It's an olive branch, albeit a flimsy one, and an effort to show we're not doing this for us and us alone. A tiny touch of hope for us all.
I know that's not the way most think these days in the west. We're much more focused on our hate-spiral for the rest of humanity. It's kinda nice to see one politician say something that doesn't try to stoke the flames
Re:They commited to nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Canadian, I appreciate the sentiment. But I also have to point out that while we've been solid allies, both out of practical necessity and shared values, Canada has not *always* joined the US in all international endeavours. For instance, while Canada took part in the Korean war, we didn't join the Vietnam war, and while Canada took part in the first gulf war, and the Afghanistan war, we didn't take part in the second gulf war. (I actually agree with my country's choices here, just to be clear. The second gulf war didn't have multi-lateral support from the UN, and Powell's speech to the UN where he was supposed to provide evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq was embarrassing. Canada had legitimate reasons to support multi-lateralism particularly at that time.)
While Canada does cooperate a lot on intelligence gathering, our military is pitifully under-equipped, and we fail to meet the agreed-upon NATO budget target of 2% of GDP spent on defence. We're not the only country in NATO not to fulfill the budgetary promise, but we're a wealthy country and we *could* if we chose to. Canada has *finally* gone ahead with a purchase of F-35 fighters, which should help revitalize our air force, but right now we're flying older model F-18s that can't even integrate with other NATO forces.
If I were in your place, I wouldn't give Canada a boots-on-the-ground seat on a moon mission without Canada stepping up to the plate with NATO spending commitments. The trip around the moon that Jeremy Hansen is getting is, in my opinion, a more appropriate geopolitical gesture, given Canada's history with the US. As for who should receive such a gesture (to the surface), I suggest you consider Japan, who recently made a tough choice between falling under the Chinese or American spheres of influence, and made a resounding statement by siding whole-heartedly with the US, and they're now a key ally in our shared goals of containing an aggressive China in the 21st century.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>while we've been solid allies,
This previously useful fiction was gutted during the Trump administration. While Republicans are in control, we're not an ally, we're a weaker state to be dominated and exploited. We've had 4 years to diversify our economic connections and while it's not practical to do so completely, hopefully we're in a better position this time around. Just in case.
Canada shouldn't be making any commitments to the US that last longer than a term of their government, because that is exa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>I don't buy that logic
Trump started a tariff war with Canada and labelled us a 'security risk' to get it done.
I'm not advocating turning on the US, just recognizing that we are not valued as allies by half the US population, or at least approximately half of the meaningful votes. That half would gladly screw us over as hard as they can and cheer the effort.
We recognize it's in our best interests to cooperate, but the next administration down south has shown they don't understand cooperation at all. I
Re: (Score:2)
> the next administration down south
Sorry... "a potential next administration down south".
Let's not get too certain about it, hope remains.
Re: (Score:2)
Funding is the issue. (Score:4, Interesting)
The big reason they want to make it international is to get international funding for the project.
What people forget (or like to ignore) about JFK is that the moon landings were largely funded by ICBM research. Technologies that went into the Apollo program were developed in hand with ballistic missile programs. If not for the need to compensate for the "missile gap" in the 1960s, the Apollo program may never have reached fruition.
As there's no need to develop better ICBMs, the money to develop and make a launch system needs to come from somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone explain to me why I, as a voter and taxpayer, should care about putting someone that is not an American on the moon?
Is there any reason you have to care about putting an American on the moon? What purpose does it serve?
Figure that out first, then figure out whether or not that thing is unique to people of a single nationality.
I fully support this (Score:4, Funny)
I fully support launching every single member of Hamas to the moon. No oxygen needed. They can hang out with the Nazis already there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we send their primary funder Benjamin Netanyahu too? If so I'm all for it
"US commits"... not even crap to github (Score:2)
Quite seriously, "US committing" these days is like an ADHD kid promising to do his chores. Yeah, he may even be serious and honest about it, the problem is he'll have forgotten about it the next time a cute squirrel passes his way.
As soon as some "crisis" (read: overhyped crap nobody gives 2 fucks about 2 moments later) hits the "news" (I'll use the term very loosely and with the utmost leeway here), everyone will have forgotten about it. Just like they forgot about the "crisis" come the next "crisis".
Just to check... (Score:4)
I didn't RTFA; did we also commit to bringing them back?
Just checking: Is an "international astronaut" (Score:2)
the same as a foreign astronaut? The former just somehow sounds better, right? ...Or does the term refer to someone who has been launched from within more than one country? ;-)
The commentary is illustrative (Score:3)
Just looking over the comments tells me that pretty much everyone who commented thinks this is a dumb idea but people with mod points insist on down-modding them. If the modders think it's a great idea, step up and say so.
So when do they announce a midget? (Score:2)
It looks like we're going to be spoiled for choice when it comes to Famous Firsts on this mission. I'm eager to see just how far this is going to go.