XPost: alt.astronomy, alt.fan.heinlein, alt.economics

from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/14/peregrine-lander-glitch-private-enterprise-moon-observer-editorial

The Observer view on the Peregrine lander: one glitch won’t keep private enterprise off the moon
Observer editorial
The delay to Nasa’s 10-year lunar programme gives us time to beef up the treaties governing the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources

Sun 14 Jan 2024 01.30 EST
139
It has been a grim time for lunar exploration. Scientists and space
engineers had earmarked 2024 as the year that humanity would begin its
return to the moon in earnest. An ambitious programme – largely funded through Nasa’s $2.6bn commercial lunar payload services (CLPS)
initiative – was drawn up. Its forerunner projects included the launch
of the robot lander, Peregrine, last week – to be followed by a crewed mission, Artemis II, that would put four people into orbit round the
moon in September. These missions would form the vanguard for a schedule
of further projects, both robot and crewed, that would lead to the
construction of a lunar colony some time in the next decade.

These pioneering aspirations have not had an auspicious start, however.
Shortly after its launch on Monday, mission controllers revealed that
Peregrine – despite a flawless launch – had suffered a critical loss of propellant and would fail to make a landing on the moon. Then came the
news that Nasa had decided to postpone its Artemis II mission for a year
“for safety reasons”.

A year that was expected to herald a breakthrough in lunar exploration
is already looking tarnished, with its setbacks triggering accusations
that space engineers no longer have the will or ability to return to the
moon. We had many successful lunar landings last century, after all. Why can’t achieve we them today, asked critics. Is the right stuff missing?

Such censure is unfair, however. Nasa has taken a very different path
from the one it followed during the heady days of the Apollo missions.
This time it has put far more onus on private enterprise. Peregrine, for example, was built and launched by commercial companies – in contrast to
the entirely tax-funded moon missions of the 60s and 70s.

From this perspective, private industry – albeit with some Nasa support
– is expected to take most of the risks and so reap most of the
benefits. And although the loss of Peregrine was a major mishap,
observers say that companies should quickly acquire the expertise that
will bring future missions to successful conclusions. They point to Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket launch programme as an ideal example of how
commerce can move into the market for space ventures.

There is a danger that a completely unrestricted rush to exploit the
moon could have unwelcome consequences
In opening up the moon to commercial exploitation, it is right that
enterprises that take risks there also get the benefits – though there
is also a danger that a completely unrestricted rush to exploit the moon
could have unwelcome consequences.

The lunar surface features several sites that are ideal for carrying out
key scientific research, including gravitational wave investigations and
black hole observations. Many lie in areas where, it is believed, there
could be precious sources of water and minerals. Companies constructing colonies are likely to home in on these sites and ruin their unique
scientific potential, astronomers will warn UN officials later this month.

A working group set up by the International Astronomical Union will seek
a strengthening of international treaties that cover the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources.

Such negotiations are likely to be protracted but are crucial if
humanity is to avoid destroying sites that are unique to the moon and
science.

Despite last week’s setbacks, the lunar exploitation programme will
proceed, and great care will be required in controlling how it proceeds
over the coming decade.

--------------
From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners
have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the
public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different.
We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism
is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.

And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of
a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name
of neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means
calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making
clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.

From threats to election integrity, to the spiralling climate crisis,
to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualise, investigate
and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news
organisation with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a
fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.

Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free
journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because
of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no
outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford
to pay for news, or not. If you can, please consider supporting us just
once from $1, or better yet, support us every month with a little more.
Thank you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)