00:00Why do we have to go up there and fly around?
00:04I mean, we've already been to the moon.
00:06We've already landed on it.
00:08Can't we just send another ship up there and go back?
00:13Well, we're a bit rusty when it's been 50 years since you've done something.
00:17You need to validate some tests and test some life support systems
00:21and test some propulsion and communications and navigation systems before you land again.
00:27So that's what this crew will do.
00:30Half a century on, I mean, you know, when we first did this,
00:33a computer that could do as much as my iPhone wouldn't even fit in this studio.
00:39I mean, we've had such incredible technological advances that it seems to me it should be a lot easier this
00:46time.
00:46But I'm getting the sense that that's not the case.
00:50That's right.
00:51This is a $4 billion proof of concept as part of a larger mission
00:56that doesn't have a fiscal architecture that we've seen before.
01:00This is the first time the Congress will have to sustain a multi-administration program at this scale for this
01:09long.
01:09It just happens to be complicated with multiple vendors and with the technologies that NASA wants to study.
01:18As we get more advanced technologies and the missions become more complex,
01:22there are obviously a lot of other cultural and systemic issues that come up with the vision.
01:30NASA's vision just changed last week.
01:32Rather than putting up a gateway, which is a bit like a space station around the moon,
01:38they will be landing on the moon with multiple robotic missions and a lunar base soon.
01:45So with changing priorities, that also aids or adds to the complexity.
01:52I have to say $4 billion sounds like a drop in the bucket from a government that spends like $170
01:57billion to fund ICE.
01:59But I guess it depends what your priorities are.
02:02What do we get in return for that money, Asanae?
02:04What's the benefit coming out of this program?
02:08There are a plethora of experiments.
02:10I do want to highlight one for your audience.
02:13There is an avatar, organ-on-a-chip investigation aboard Artemis II.
02:19And what it will do is it will measure human response to deep space radiation.
02:25And this is a commercial windfall for the pharmaceutical modeling sector,
02:31for the biotech R&D sector, and for the space bioeconomy at large.
02:36And you can conduct this research without having to land on the moon.
02:40So that's one of several experiments that the astronauts will conduct.
02:44And we will see a number of gains in a number of sectors, including the space sector.
02:50You will have SpaceX and Blue Origin also that are preparing to support the Artemis program.
03:01So there are a number of large stakes here.
03:04We're also not above a little healthy competition.
03:08Last time it was the U.S. versus the Soviets.
03:11Now the Chinese are looking to get to the moon by the end of this decade.
03:18How important is that competition?
03:20Do we also work together?
03:22And who wins?
03:25You know, generationally, there seems to be a seismic shift in space races.
03:32You're right.
03:33Fifty years ago, it was about racing to the moon and who had better technology.
03:39But today, with over 50 nations that are signatories to the Artemis Accords,
03:43what we're seeing is that countries want to go together.
03:47And the question today isn't whether America beats China to the moon,
03:51but whether that alliance really holds up.
03:54We have a Canadian astronaut, Jeremy Hansen,
03:57who's joining three U.S. astronauts on this journey.
04:00And that's a first for us.
04:02And so that alliance is proving to be strong.
04:05And we look forward to a strong cooperation as we go together,
04:09given the geostrategic environment we're facing today.
Comments