Shortly after Sputnik 1 was launched in 1957 by the Soviet, NASA was born under Eisenhower. As an aerospace agency, it was mainly in charge of the american space exploration. That being said, the real suspected cause of the existence of such an agency was to race the Russians to the moon. NASA had at its disposal US$89 million; an incredibly large sum of money that would keep on growing to represent, at its peak, 4.41% of the federal budget. This is a surprising investment considering that, except the numerous technological advancements it brought to our society, it did not directly benefit the american society. Going to the Moon did not really solve any problems on Earth. But it was a fantastic achievement. One that would pave the road for further space exploration missions and research.
The important point in this is that the race to the moon was a political cock fight. But it served as an effective way to develop and advance scientific discovery in aerospace and many other fields. Of course, after the moon landing, after the race was won, NASA's budget (in % of the federal budget) decreased almost every year. Without this need for a political battle; without being provoked into investing in a battle or a race, research in space exploration was not prioritized over other "more urgent" problems...until today.
I have described the stakes of going to Mars in the previous post. When NASA reached the Moon, it had political support from all sides. Now that that's over, even if a mission to Mars is a great idea, problems are solved faster with a good financial support. As you know, it would take a regular ship 18 months to make the one-way trip to Mars. The primary problem with getting to Mars is propulsion. Making the trip last 45 days would solve problems such as radiation exposure, food, bone loss and boredom. But it's impossible. Or is it?
The national corporation Rosatom from Russia said that they are working on a nuclear engine for a rocket that could reach Mars in around a month and a half. Most of the problems for this type of propulsion system have been solved by 1967 when they were launching fission-powered satellites. Thrust will be produced by burning a chemical with the heat generated from the splitting of atoms. Why are the United-States not considering the same alternative? Maybe because nuclear incidents are disastrous (think about Chernobyl)? What would happen if this ship blew up during take-off? These questions led to a lot of policies surrounding nuclear power in the states.
Of course, is all of this possible? It might be too good to be true. The corporation has set 2025 as the due-date for a potential prototype. The only problem so far seems to be the budget of Rosatom. They were given about $700 million for the entire thing. That's 4% of NASA's budget for 2015. And remember, they have 10 years to build the thing with only that amount of money. Is it possible? Hopefully it is. All I know is, it will be a step forward towards getting to Mars.
That being said, this news might make the american government invest a lot more in NASA and in other space exploration programs. Like for the race to the Moon, maybe conflict will create great possibilities for scientific advancements. Are we at the starting line of
another historical race? Let's wait and see. The next ten years might be incredibly interesting for global space exploration as we move closer to putting a person on Mars.
For a bit more drops of future, check out:
