Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Moon United States

US Commits To Landing an International Astronaut On the Moon (arstechnica.com) 49

Posted by BeauHD from the group-effort dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Commits To Landing an International Astronaut On the Moon More

US Commits To Landing an International Astronaut On the Moon

Comments Filter:
  • Any word on which nonbinary of color will get the honor?

  • They commited to nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @03:37AM (#64098235)

    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)

      by nicubunu ( 242346 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @07:02AM (#64098473) Homepage

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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)

      by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @07:53AM (#64098537) Homepage

      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.

      • You beat me to it - Japan, and for the reason you said. Hugely pivotal alliance going forward. Let's invest in that alliance in aerospace and cultural ties.

      • >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)

          by RobinH ( 124750 )
          I don't buy that logic. The Ukraine war and China's actions during COVID show that the promises of globalization were an optimistic fiction. The trend of less war that we experienced throughout the world over the last 80 years has come to an end, and there's going to be a lot more conflict. North America is unique in that it's mostly insulated from the coming turmoil due to two big oceans, and two friendly American neighbours, not to mention a US military that's still extremely potent. Should Canada neg

          • >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

            • > 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)

                by RobinH ( 124750 )
                The American political system is built around distribution of power. It's kind of ironic but Biden actually accomplished more of Trump's stated foreign policy objectives than Trump did because Biden's a life-long politician and actually knows how to operate the Washington apparatus. Tweets don't actually equal policy. None of that has changed since Trump left, so I don't think Trump will be anymore effective if/when he's in office again. He would need to replace the heads of a lot of other organizations

    • Funding is the issue. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @08:51AM (#64098629)
      Ignoring your hate boner about Kamala Harris for a minute,

      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.

    • 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)

    by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @03:45AM (#64098245)

    I fully support launching every single member of Hamas to the moon. No oxygen needed. They can hang out with the Nazis already there.

  • 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)

    by bosef1 ( 208943 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @08:39AM (#64098609)

    I didn't RTFA; did we also commit to bringing them back?

  • 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)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Friday December 22, 2023 @11:36AM (#64099031)

    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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close