Is Lockheed Martin Responsible for Delaying America’s Moon Mission

Lockheed Martin Responsible for Delaying America’s Moon Mission

Five years ago, President Donald Trump pledged to send Americans back to the moon by 2024. However, after five years have passed, American astronauts are still waiting on Earth. While Artemis I launched successfully and headed towards the moon in 2022, it didn’t actually land there, and no astronauts were on board.

Now, it seems like we’ll have to wait until at least 2026 before we can finally touch down on the moon.

When will NASA return us to the moon?

So, what’s causing the delay? Firstly, it’s about getting all the necessary components ready for a moon landing: a Lunar Gateway space station orbiting the moon, an Orion space capsule with astronauts to connect to it, and a SpaceX-built Human Landing System (HLS) to transport astronauts to and from the moon and the Gateway.

Another crucial aspect before a moon landing is testing.

Numerous parts of the entire system must undergo testing before the moon landing can proceed. SpaceX needs to demonstrate that its Starship can reach orbit and then travel to the moon. The HLS must show it can land on the moon and then launch back to the Gateway. Additionally, an Artemis II mission, with astronauts onboard this time, must be conducted to travel to the moon and return to Earth.

Also Read | Surprising Greenhouse Gas Emissions Detected from Restored Wetland

Why is Lockheed Martin so successful?
Why is Lockheed Martin so successful?(space)

In simple terms, there’s still a ton of work left to do for Project Artemis to succeed. With the current pace of progress, it’s just not feasible to achieve a moon landing this year, or even next year. NASA acknowledged this reality earlier this month, admitting that they need to be realistic.

So, a moon landing in 2024 is off the table. The same goes for 2025. NASA has now set its sights on 2026 for the moon landing.

The Orion Trouble

After the Artemis I mission, Lockheed Martin’s Orion space capsule encountered a problem during reentry: part of its heat shield was lost. NASA spent much of 2023 investigating the “root cause” of this issue but hasn’t found a solution yet.

Further issues arose with the batteries in the space capsule’s abort system, along with design flaws in the circuitry controlling motor valves in the spacecraft. Interestingly, Ars Technica noted that this valve circuitry is crucial for determining when Orion is prepared for the Artemis II mission. However, any issues related to heat shields bring back memories of the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, where a damaged heat shield led to the spacecraft’s demise during reentry.

Introducing the New Lunar Calendar

According to NASA associate administrator Jim Free, the updated plan is to delay Artemis II, the crewed mission to orbit the moon and return to Earth, to 2025. Artemis III, the crewed mission to land on the moon and return to Earth, is now scheduled for 2026. A fourth crewed mission, Artemis IV, will conduct a second lunar landing in 2028.

Free elaborated that, along with the previously mentioned issues, NASA needs to practice fuel transfers in orbit to prepare Starship for its journey from Earth orbit to the moon. Additionally, a NASA contractor requires more time to develop next-generation space suits for the astronauts. The most concerning challenges revolve around issues with the Orion spaceship, constructed by Lockheed Martin, which transports astronauts from Earth to the Lunar Gateway and back from the Gateway for landing on Earth.

Implications for Investors

Currently, Lockheed Martin bears the brunt of delaying Artemis II and, consequently, Artemis III, thereby pushing back America’s lunar return. However, these delays might not be the sole concerns for investors regarding the timing of future space missions and the anticipated revenue streams worth tens of billions of dollars.

Once Orion’s issues are resolved, attention will pivot to SpaceX, its Super Heavy booster rocket, and its Starship spacecraft. Can SpaceX successfully launch Starship into orbit without mishaps? Can it master the logistics of orbital fuel storage and refueling? Can it conduct enough launches to stockpile sufficient fuel in orbit for two separate HLS landers to embark on their lunar journeys?

And can it accomplish all of this in time for a 2026 moon landing?

Presently, SpaceX asserts it can achieve these objectives, and NASA trusts in SpaceX’s assurances. If successful, SpaceX will secure the milestone of landing astronauts on the moon after half a century, enhancing its technological superiority over other players in the space industry. Moreover, it will unleash a torrent of contracts for numerous space companies engaged in Project Artemis.

Despite the setbacks, it’s merely a matter of time.

As the Earth gets warmer and sea levels rise, the environment changes. Scientists think that one good thing about this is tidal wetlands in estuaries might make less methane, a strong greenhouse gas. This happens because more seawater coming in makes it harder for microbes to make methane in these habitats. However, biologists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and UC Berkeley have found evidence that challenges these ideas. After studying 11 wetland areas and looking closely at the microbes, chemicals, and geology, they found that one wetland area getting a bit of seawater was releasing more methane than expected – even more than any of the freshwater areas. This discovery shows that the processes controlling how greenhouse gases are stored or released in natural landscapes are more complex and unpredictable than we thought before. The study was published in mSystems. Tringe and her team collected soil samples from the 11 sites and used high-throughput sequencing to study the DNA of different organisms like bacteria, viruses, and fungi. They examined the genes in the sequences and matched them to known functions. For example, they found genes related to nitrogen metabolism or genes from bacteria that use sulfate in respiration. Then, they created models to understand how the genetic information, along with the chemical factors in the soil and water, might be linked to the methane emissions they observed. In most areas, ranging from freshwater to full seawater salinity, the amount of methane released decreased as more saltwater mixed with river water. However, at one site restored in 2010 from a seasonal grassy pasture for livestock grazing back to its original wetland habitat, the team noticed higher methane emissions despite a moderate increase in saltwater influx. The higher sulfate content in seawater, containing sulfur and oxygen ions, compared to freshwater, led to the expectation that increased seawater influx in these environments would reduce methane production. This is because methanogens, which use CO2 for cellular energy production, are expected to be outcompeted by bacteria using sulfate instead. In both scenarios, methane production increased. Tringe's laboratory recently collaborated with Marcelo Ardón of North Carolina State University to study the microbial communities in those soils. Tringe adds, “So I think these experimental manipulations are reaffirming the idea that seawater intrusion has more nuanced effects than just sulfate addition, and there are also more intricate factors involved in ecosystem restoration.” The research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) Early Career Research Program award to Tringe and the DOE Joint Genome Institute. Previous post Surprising Greenhouse Gas Emissions Detected from Restored Wetland
Dynamic Chemistry: Donald Glover and Maya Erskine Shine in ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ Spy Series Review Next post Dynamic Chemistry: Donald Glover and Maya Erskine Shine in ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ Spy Series Review

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *