There is money for everything, but not everything is a matter of money

Spending $28 billion on the colonization of the Moon, or spending it on fighting climate change…

The headline is presented as a dilemma: if one, or the other…, but it is not such a thing. Both investments are possible and the facts show it, since there are resources to carry out both things at the same time. This week the first rocket with ARTEMIS I on board will be sent into space on its way to the Moon, as a first step, before a man and a woman set foot on the Moon again.

On the other hand, global warming caused by climate change due to its continued disturbance over the last two centuries continues to hit different regions of the planet hard, with floods, fires, droughts, crop losses, famines , disappearance of species, and deaths by millions of human beings blame climate change. Therefore, the world needs to reconvert itself to survive with an acceptable quality of life on the planet, which will require the investment of huge amounts of economic resources.

The truth is that financial resources are full, both for the conquest of space and for the fight against climate change in enormous amounts, and this is so because investment in both promises to be very profitable for investors in the future. far away, and both in one case and in the other, they expect to recover their money with the pertinent and expected benefit.

And how much will it cost to put humans on the Moon again?

Well, according to what Daniel Marín tells us in his interesting and careful Blog Eureka, for about 28 billion dollars, spread over the space of five years. Of this amount, most corresponds to the lunar module — or, in NASA jargon, the HLS (Human Landing System) — , which will cost about 16.2 billion dollars. The Orion spacecraft and the SLS rocket will cost about $7.6 billion. Logically, this figure does not take into account the previous investment already made in the SLS and in the Orion spacecraft (NASA has already spent 18.6 billion dollars in the SLS and 16.7 billion in the Orion spacecraft). The asymmetric distribution of costs is logical if we take into account that the HLS is a critical element and that it has received practically no attention until 2020, that is, just four years before the scheduled date for the first moon landing.

The ultimate goal of the first Artemis mission is to verify that the spacecraft is capable of performing the necessary maneuvers to ensure stability and safety during its journey to the satellite and to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere at high speeds without being damaged. The partial objectives are:
1. Test the thermal resistance of Orion
2. Check the operation of the Space Launch System
3. Verify that the communication, propulsion and navigation systems work correctly and that there are no failures that endanger the mission.
4. Guarantee the return to Earth of the Orion spacecraft
5. Evaluate other aspects of the Orion spacecraft:
– Evaluate its optical navigation system or the deployment of CubeSats, which will be used to study deep space during the trip.
– Evaluate the advanced guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) system, which will allow NASA to control the position of the spacecraft at all times.
– Ensuring the operation of the integrated Wi-Fi network is another objective, since it is this that allows the cameras attached to the wings of the capsule’s solar panels not to fail.

In short, what is being done is to test the new technological developments that are going to make possible the viability and safety of the ships that are going to transport men and equipment to the Moon in order to install a permanently inhabited station on our satellite , which is the final purpose, that is: the colonization of the Moon.

And what can happen if those $28,000 million are invested in the fight against Climate Change?

According to the 2014 Fourth Joint MDB Report, from the world’s six largest multilateral development banks (MDBs), more than $28 billion in financing was provided last year to help developing countries and emerging economies mitigate the challenges of climate change and adapt to its effects. The latest figures bring total commitments over the past four years to more than $100 billion.

In 2014, the six banks provided more than $23 billion for mitigation efforts and $5 billion for adaptation, according to the fourth Joint MDB Report on Climate Financing.

The document reveals the important role that the MDBs play in delivering development finance in a world shaped by climate change.

Among regions, South Asia received the largest share of total funding, at 21%. Latin America and the Caribbean, non-European Union countries in Europe and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia and the Pacific received 17%, 16%, 15%, and 10%, respectively.

About a third (36%) of total adaptation funds went to agriculture and green resource-related projects, and 40% went to projects in the areas of infrastructure (including flood protection), energy and built-up areas. The most common mitigation projects addressed renewable energy, receiving 35% of funding. Energy efficiency represented 22%. Banks also invested heavily in sustainable transport: 27% of total financing.

The report thus shows how the MDBs, given their ability to catalyze public and private finance, have successfully attracted and deployed climate change finance to support low-carbon, resilient growth in developing countries and emerging economies.

Conclusion:

There is money for everything, and it is certain that we will end up colonizing the Moon, and later the Planet Mars. But to win the battle against climate change, it is not only necessary to invest money, because all the money in the world is not enough.

We have to do what we haven’t done until now: Change our lifestyle, stopping burning, spending and consuming what we have and what we don’t have, and starting by being more respectful of our planet that welcomes us.

Definitely:
That there is money for everything, but not everything is a matter of money.

Sources: Daniel Marín (Eureka), World Bank (BMD Report 2014)