Editorial - Shoot money to the moon? Yes, please!

This article is provided to you free of charge. If you want to support our team, subscribe now.

For the first time in over 50 years, humankind is returning to the moon and I have to stop myself from being a hater. I'll be honest with you. I had actually intended to use this editorial to vent my frustration at just how much money the Artemis mission to the moon is costing: Artemis II alone is expected to cost four billion US dollars. In total, the long-term costs of the programme are estimated at well over 86 billion US dollars. That's a lot of money for a mission that aims to station humans on another celestial body. Wouldn't that money be better invested in measures to protect our own planet, the Earth, and stop climate change?

The research surprised me. Because space exploration brings us far more benefits down here on Earth than many, including myself, would think. It even helps to save people and protect the Earth.

NASA alone employs around 18.000 people, the majority of whom work in research, and invests billions of dollars in research and development every year. Its European counterpart ESA, as well as China and Russia, also invest large sums in inventing things that make life in space possible and easier. And these things also simplify life on Earth – and will perhaps help to make it possible in the long term.

NASA, for example, developed battery-powered tools and handheld hoovers because there are no power sockets in space. The cameras in our smartphones are also based on NASA imaging technology. UV filters on sunglasses, scratch-resistant lenses and protective films for displays originate from space research. Infrared thermometers, which were originally used to measure the temperature of stars, are now used to take a temperature.

All practical, but not earth-shattering, you might think. But it gets even better.