It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Sunday, August 28, 2022
Economist who got it spectacularly wrong on Brexit says ‘Liz Truss is nearest thing we’ve got to Margaret Thatcher’
"Patrick Minford is such a marginal view even within academia. His views are Economics equivalent of ‘flat earth.’"
The Government can look forward to a post-Brexit windfall worth £135 billion after the UK leaves the European Union, a report claimed in 2017.
The Economists for Free Trade (EFT) group said Brexit will be “overwhelmingly positive” for the British economy provided the Government adopts the right policies.
The EFT – headed by Professor Patrick Minford – says the priority for the Government should be to bring down trade barriers with the rest of the world once Britain has left the EU while reducing the burden of regulation and taxation on firms and individuals.
Yes it is that Patrick Minford who is calling Truss the new Thatcher,
Back in July BBC’s Nick Robinson interviewed Liz Truss.
He asked: “Will borrowing billions of pounds, you say over £30billion increase or decrease inflation?”
Ms Truss replied “My tax cuts will decrease inflation.”
Mr Robinson interjected: “Really? You don’t point to a single Chancellor or a single Governor of the Bank of England, a single leading economist who thinks that cutting taxes with borrowed money does anything other than increase inflation.
Ms Truss hit back: “Patrick Minford. He’s written an article about it this weekend.” Who is he?
In 1981 over 300 economists wrote a letter criticising Margaret Thatcher’s disastrous economic policies, Minford defended the government and received a letter from Thatcher congratulating him for his efforts.
John Spiers wrote on Twitter: “Liz Truss just told Radio 4 that she wants to follow the advice of Patrick Minford, a fringe economist who said that for Brexit to succeed economically we would have to get rid of farming and manufacturing and live with much bigger wage inequality.”
Now he has told the Times that Liz Truss is the nearest thing we have to Margaret Thatcher.
Edinburgh computer experts struggles to pay bills despite bringing in a decent wage
Mark Perrie is struggling with the increases to his food and fuel bills but worries that another rent hike could force him out of the city and move back to Motherwell
Mark says he worries another rent increase could push him out of the city
An Edinburgh computer expert is struggling to live in the capital despite having a well-paid job as the cost of living continues to put the squeeze on people’s finances.
Mark Perrie has a daily struggle to keep his head above the water and says it’s “beginning to look like” he will have to move out of the city. The 26-year-old earns £36,000 a year and has a take home pay of about £2200 a month.
He said that most of his salary is taken up by paying his rent, council tax, food, clothing and other daily expenses.
The computer programmer lives in a one-bedroom flat in Dalry, two years ago he saw his first rent rise from £625 to £669. However, he now expects the rent to increase to over £700, which he says he cannot afford.
Mark says he is considering moving back to Motherwell and commuting to save on accommodation costs. His flat uses an electric fire and his monthly fuel bill has risen from £50 to £110.
Food costs, too, have almost doubled from £60 a week and his usual lager is now more than twice as expensive. Mark says it’s now cheaper to buy fast food than cook meals from fresh and he has stopped going to restaurants.
Speaking to the Daily Record, the computer programmer said: “I am struggling and the cost of living really began to bite in the last two months.
Get all the latest news and headlines from Edinburgh, Fife and the Lothians sent straight to your inbox twice a day by signing up to our free newsletter.
The morning newsletter arrives every day before 9am and the evening newsletter, manually curated by the team, is sent at 6.30pm, giving you a round up of the most important stories of the day.
To sign up, simply enter your email address into this link here and select Daily News.
“When you meet other people who are in the same situation, you can see anxiety about the future.
“When I moved to Edinburgh, the rent on my flat was the cheapest I could find. I do not feel that I am getting value for money.
“The amount I am paying is a lot for one person and there is no central heating.”
Mark enjoys cooking, particularly making vegetable curries, but the cost of ingredients has recently shot up. Instead he finds himself picking up a pizza to feed himself.
He said: “These unhealthy foods are cheaper but they are better value for money.
“I like to make a red lentil daal but I can’t afford that any more.
“For example, the price of something like a pepper has gone up from £1.10 to £1.70.
“These are small things but they all add up. When I was living in Motherwell, the price of a pint of Carlsberg was £2.15 and it’s now £5.
“Things are bad enough for me but I can’t imagine what it must be like for someone with children and getting them fed.”
Mark’s biggest worry is another rent increase.
He said: “I don’t want to commute or live in some satellite town but it is beginning to look that way.
“There needs to be more purpose-built affordable accommodation for people. The housing system that we have is just broken.”
What Does the Afghan Taliban Gain from Mediating the TTP-Islamabad Peace Talks?
Following two days of indirect peace talks hosted by the Afghan Taliban in Kabul in early June, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)—an umbrella group of more than a dozen distinct Pakistani Taliban factions first formed in 2007—declared an indefinite extension of a ceasefire with the Pakistani government. The ceasefire extension, the second in two months, is reportedly the longest in the terror group’s history.
However, the ceasefire has not been strictly observed. According to the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies, TTP militants reportedly carried out 33 attacks which killed 34 people and injured 46 others in July, an increase of seven attacks compared to June. Islamabad, for its part, has been accused of continuing to target the TTP. In April, Pakistani war planes carried out a strike on the TPP in Afghanistan. On August 8, a roadside bomb exploded in Afghanistan’s eastern Paktika province, killing senior TTP leader Omar Khalid Khorasani and other senior militants Mufti Hassan Swati and Hafiz Dawlat Khan. The TTP claimed Pakistani intelligence agents were responsible for the attack.
The TTP and Islamabad have previously engaged in peace negotiations to no avail and the Taliban’s role in this process has not made the prospect of a long-term peace agreement much more promising. The Taliban have provided the TTP with a safe haven since coming to power one year ago and the TTP has been vocal in its allegiance to and admiration of the regime’s approach to governing. Following the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul, the TTP was emboldened to violently reassert influence across Pakistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) that border Afghanistan. Additionally, senior Afghanistan Taliban cabinet members—particularly Minister of the Interior and Haqqani Network leader, Sirajuddin Haqqani—have demonstrated support for the TTP, insisting that Pakistan address the group’s “grievances.” This close connection was confirmed when the Haqqani Network acted as a mediator between the government of Pakistan and the TTP in earlier negotiations in 2021, as well as in the current talks.
In this ongoing round, the TTP has asked for Pakistani government forces to pull out of former tribal regions of the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, the release of TTP fighters in government custody, and the revocation of all legal cases against the terror group. The Pakistan government wants the TTP to eventually disband and to sever its ties with ISIS in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In terms of the latter condition, the Taliban would significantly benefit from weakened ties between the TTP and ISIS given the terror group’s continued threat to Kabul.
In May 2022, the U.N. published a report stating that the TTP constitutes the largest component of foreign terrorist fighters in Afghanistan, with troops numbering approximately several thousand. Additionally, the Taliban and the TTP maintain deep historical and ethnic connections and strong affiliations with al-Qaeda. Although Pakistan provided the Taliban with decades of support during its years of struggle against the U.S. and Afghan government, since returning to power, the Taliban has frustrated their former benefactors and may now be reassessing their ambitions in the region.
Immediately upon returning to power in Afghanistan, the Taliban released 780 TTP prisoners, including the former deputy head, Molvi Faqir Muhammad. The released prisoners significantly boosted the TTP’s troop size but also provided the Taliban with scores of militarily skilled supporters. Given the increased number of high-casualty attacks by ISIS-K throughout Afghanistan, it is fair to presume the Taliban is incentivized to maintain TTP loyalty. The Afghan Taliban stands to benefit from any scenario that prevents the strengthening of ISIS-K, which has challenged the Taliban’s ability to govern and has severely compromised Afghanistan’s national security. However, the prospect of an actual peace agreement could potentially backfire, as some hardline TTP members might defect to ISIS-K. In fact, from the onset ISIS-K welcomed a significant number of former TTP fighters.
Aside from security concerns, the Taliban’s role as mediator may also be impacted by dire economic and environmental circumstances—as well as international skepticism of the regime’s credibility—which continue to plague Afghanistan. Afghanistan is facing severe economic struggles and drought, causing almost 23 million of its people to become dependent on humanitarian aid. If the Taliban can facilitate peace between enemies within the region, they may soften their international reputation and persuade the U.S. as well as other states and donors to unfreeze Afghan funds.
While the Taliban has taken on the role of a mediator in the peace talks, it is uncertain if the Taliban has been anything but self-serving in this process. Although it is unreasonable to assume TTP attacks will immediately cease following another peace agreement, given that various factions within the TTP see a ceasefire critically, it is critical to consider whether the Taliban will ever hold the TTP accountable for their continued violence. The TTP recently stated that it seeks real peace in Pakistan, and that it is neither anti-state nor working for anti-Pakistan powers. However, it is uncertain to what extent the group will cooperate with Islamabad when their ultimate goal is to replace the elected government of Pakistan with an emirate based on their interpretation of sharia. The first peace agreement between the TPP and the Pakistani government signed in May 2004 necessitated a ceasefire that only lasted 50 days, and others in 2006 and 2008 also failed to end ongoing extremist violence.
The Taliban’s unwillingness to crack down on the TTP demonstrates why their role as a negotiating partner is concerning for U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the region and beyond. The Pakistani government, distracted by an internal political and economic crisis and a growing insurgency in its southern Baluchistan province, fueled by U.S. manufactured weapons flowing out of Afghanistan, may see current negotiations as it best short-term option, albeit not a long-term solution. Although few details of the negotiations have emerged, one thing is certain, the implications of the Taliban’s actions will extend far beyond South Asian regional security.
Pakistan Military Establishment in collaboration with Afghan Taliban launched Sting-Operation on Pak-Afghan Territories
Based on intelligence information, Yasir Waziristan, who was on the list of the leading commanders of TTP who opposed the creation of political vacuum and security gap in Waziristan and all Pashtun areas and peace talks with the Pakistani army. As the peace talks between the TTP and the Pakistani army started in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan on July 26, some leading members of the TTP opposed these talks. Because some of the conditions offered, by the Pakistani army during the peace, negotiations were not acceptable to the TTP and some of the prerequisites of the TTP were also not acceptable to the Pakistani army. That is why several leading leaders of TTP, including Khalid Umar Khursani and Yasir Waziristani, have expressed their opposition to peace talks with the Pakistani army.
Therefore, they were continuously killed in various secret attacks in different areas of Afghanistan such as Khaled Omar Khorsani, Hafiz Doulat and Mufti Hassan were murdered in an airstrike in Paktika province, nonetheless the Afghan Taliban cited the roadside mine explosion as the cause for their death. The death of TTP’s Waziristan intelligence chief Aqabi Maulvi in Kunar was due to an airstrike in Kunar province, but still the Afghan Taliban mentioned the roadside mine explosion as the motive for killing of Aqabi Maulvi.
In addition, on August 23, Yasir Waziristani was mysteriously slaughtered in Kandahar province, in the southwestern zone of Afghanistan, including three of his colleagues, but the Afghan Taliban are still silent. However, currently Mufti Noor Wali Mehsud’s relations with the army and intelligence network in Waziristan have been wired and security meetings are held every Wednesday in Waziristan in the regions near Khost province on the bordering areas of Afghanistan.
Hence, leading members of the Haqqani network representing the Afghan Taliban, representatives of Kashmiri fighters supported by the Pakistani intelligence network, representatives of jihadist groups of Bangladesh, and representatives of jihadist groups from Gulf countries and Middle Eastern countries are participating in these meetings, without any obstacle. Having said, there is a political vacuum and security gap in Waziristan and according to the potential plan of the ISI and the Pakistani army, there will be such kind of a political vacuum in the whole of Pakhtunkhwa that the Pakistani army and intelligence network could operate accordingly.
Moreover, if any government political party or any civil society groups intervene in Pakhtunkhwa and tribal areas, then they will be targeted thru terrorist attacks by Hafiz Gul Bahadur and TTP fighters. Especially, Mahmoud Khan Achakzai and Manzoor Pashtun who are, currently planning to unite their political parties against this gap to save the Pashtun region from being victimized for the advantage of the military and intelligence networks of Pakistan.
Meanwhile, Afghan Taliban on their part has started house-to-house searches in the northern parts of Afghanistan to smoke out all those elements, who could pose threat to the Taliban’s establishment. Among others Taliban whipped out several members of security bodies of the former regime. Furthermore, they widened and expanded the operation-Sting, while arresting, torturing and murdering majority of those, who are not aligned to violent extremist ideology.
BOOK REVIEW
'The Afghanistan Papers' exposes deceit in the conduct of a long, futile war
NCR Hundreds of people gather near a U.S. Air Force C-17 transport plane at the perimeter of the international airport Aug. 16, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan. More than a year after the Taliban takeover that saw thousands of Afghans rushing to Kabul's international airport amid the chaotic U.S. withdrawal, Afghans at risk who failed to get on evacuation flights say they are still struggling to find safe and legal ways out of the country. (AP photo/Shekib Rahmani, File)
The images of Kabul's chaotic fall to the Taliban one year ago this month may well frame our collective memory of the 20-year war in Afghanistan — images that left many Americans unsettled and embarrassed. "I felt ashamed to be an American," one family member told me recently about the U.S withdrawal.
That is understandable, since many Afghans who assisted the U.S.-led war effort, such as language translators, were essentially abandoned.
Though the Taliban takeover of the Afghan capital had been expected, it unfolded "more quickly than we had anticipated," President Joe Biden rather plaintively said the day after the Aug. 15, 2021, downfall.
THE AFGHANISTAN PAPERS: A SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR By Craig Whitlock 368 pages; Simon & Schuster $30.00
Yet, as bad as the U.S. withdrawal was — in what was a very stark and early embarrassment for Biden's young administration — the real shame was the conduct of the war itself, a fact overwhelmingly supported by the damning evidence in Craig Whitlock's bestselling The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War.
Though published as last August's events unfolded, the book still deserves our attention and gratitude a year later. Based on Whitlock's reporting that originally appeared in The Washington Post, The Afghanistan Papers shares a lineage with the Pentagon Papers, which exposed similar duplicity and deceit in the conduct of the Vietnam War.
As with the Pentagon Papers, legal wrangling became part of the narrative of what we know now. The Post successfully sued the U.S. government to obtain the documents on which the reporting is based — official government "lessons learned" interviews with hundreds of military officials, diplomats, aid workers and Afghan government officials.
In his introduction, Whitlock said the Post argued in court that "the public had a right to know the government's internal criticisms of the war — the unvarnished truth."
The unvarnished truth, not surprisingly, is damning — and the echoes with Vietnam are striking. The interviews, Whitlock said, "showed that many senior U.S. officials privately viewed the war as an unmitigated disaster, contradicting a chorus of rosy public statements from officials at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan.”
In other words, they knew what Whitlock calls "the false narrative of progress" was exactly that — false.
It is true that the American-led forces achieved a relatively quick victory in defeating the Taliban in late 2001. But after that, the U.S. mission in Afghanistan became unglued, with no one quite sure what it was about anymore. "In a jarring disconnect, the United States and its allies could not agree whether they were actually fighting a war in Afghanistan, engaged in a peacekeeping operation, leading a training mission, or doing something else."
Was the enemy al-Qaida or the Taliban? How long would it take, long term, to claim ultimate victory? Could victory result from helping rebuild Afghanistan?
20210825T1130-VATICAN-AFGHANISTAN-EVACUATION-1506940.jpg A U.S. Marine escorts a child to his family during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport Aug. 24, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan. (CNS/Handout via Reuters/U.S. Marine Corps/Sgt. Samuel Ruiz)
President George W. Bush vowed after the post-9/11 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan that the United States was not going to engage in rebuilding a country that had been war-battered for decades. But that's exactly what happened. Allowing for inflation, the U.S. spent more in Afghanistan that it had in Europe following World War II.
Yet, as Whitlock writes, "Instead of bringing stability and peace, the United States inadvertently built a corrupt, dysfunctional Afghan government that depended on U.S. military power for its survival."
If that's a core truth about the 20-year conflict — that the U.S-supported Afghan government, like the U.S.-supported government in South Vietnam, was a feckless and corrupt ally — there are ancillary truths.
One is that Afghan government troops were just not up to the task of battling and prevailing over a committed insurgency. Most joined the army to collect a paycheck; few said they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the U.S-supported government. "Many collected their first paycheck and disappeared. Others showed up, but without their uniform, gear or weapon, having sold them for extra cash," Whitlock writes.
That was not the only way Afghans used the invasion for their own purposes. In one telling anecdote, the owner of a construction firm had a brother who belonged to the Taliban. "Together, they built a thriving business: the Taliban brother blew up U.S. projects, and then the unwitting Americans paid his sibling to rebuild them," Whitlock writes.
These kinds of facts were well-known to American officials, but all three administrations overseeing the war constantly papered over the reality on the ground. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations all broke promises about the war, and all three lied to the public.
Donald Trump's eagerness during U.S. talks with the Taliban to claim a public relations victory and garner an eventual photo op with the Taliban (which didn't happen) seems characteristically silly.
Less silly was the Obama administration's damning pattern of lies upon lies. In the "lessons learned" interviews, military officials "described explicit and sustained efforts to deliberately mislead the public,” Whitlock writes of the Obama administration. "They said it was common in the field, at military headquarters in Kabul, at the Pentagon and at the White House to skew statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case."
While conclusions like that are the bread and butter of this impressive work of reportage, the book offers sharp insight into some of the underlying cultural gaps that also led to the U.S. failure.
U.S. efforts focused on propping up a centralized government. But Afghanistan had no real experience or history with a successful centralized government — ethnic identity and family ties are the country's bedrock. In rural areas it meant little that Hamid Karzai was president, Whitlock notes. One Army officer said the situation was almost comical, saying it reminded him of the Monty Python sketch in which “the king goes riding by some peasant in the dirt and the king rides up and says, 'I'm the king,' and the peasant turns around and says, 'What's a king?' "
The encounter between Afghans and Americans was always fraught: camouflaged U.S. troops with their reflective eyewear “could evoke the extraterrestrial,” Whitlock writes. “For probably 90 to 95 percent of the Afghans that I interfaced with, we might as well have been aliens,” said one army officer.
A U.S-led poppy-eradication program (to curb the drug trade) was bound to fail. In one province, perhaps as much as 90% was income derived from selling poppy. "Yeah, of course they’re going to take up weapons and shoot at you. You just took away their livelihood. They have a family to feed," said one U.S. officer whose quote is one of several in the book that show that not a few U.S. personnel empathized with, and even respected, "the enemy." At the same time, Whitlock is mindful of the sacrifices of American troops, often naming individual acts of courage and valor.
Even so, Afghans often felt looked down upon by the Americans. One governor of Kandahar province said a U.S-led hand-washing humanitarian project was "insult to the people. Here people wash their hands five times a day for prayers."
Americans, meanwhile, struggled to understand the place they had invaded — a country where those in rural areas live in mud huts and don't have electricity or running water. "You go there and you think you’re going to see Moses walking down the street," said one army officer.
Not surprisingly, time meant different things to Afghans and Americans: Afghans were mostly indifferent to the Americans’ efforts to control time. "We're trying to force them to do things on our time which to them, they don't understand," said one army officer.
Time, of course, ultimately worked to the Taliban's favor. They were masters in patiently waiting things out and preparing for the moment when the United States would simply leave — as the Russians and British had before. In a 2006 classified diplomatic cable, one Taliban leader confidently, and rightly, said of the U.S.: "You have all the clocks but we have all of the time."
Time ran out, as did patience on both sides. The U.S. public grew weary of this "forever war." Meanwhile, many Afghans — maybe most — ran out of patience for U.S.-supported warlords. "Washington's tolerance of their behavior," Whitlock writes, "alienated and angered many Afghans who saw the warlords as corrupt, incorrigible and the root of the country's problems."
While the Taliban could, of course, be "just as cruel and oppressive" — treating women as "chattel," for example — to many Afghans they were simply the lesser of two evils. One civilian adviser to the U.S. said ruefully: "We didn’t know the population was thrilled with the Taliban kicking the warlords out."
But they were, and given the course and contours of U.S. policy, last year's Taliban takeover was probably inevitable. (Though that doesn't mean, a year later, that the results are happy, especially for women and girls, who are experiencing a new era of oppression.)
"By allowing corruption to fester, the United States helped destroy the legitimacy of the wobbly Afghan government they were fighting to prop up," Whitlock writes. "With judges and police chiefs and bureaucrats extorting bribes, many Afghans soured on democracy and turned to the Taliban to enforce order."
Others, of course, were never enamored of any side but astutely opted to be patient. One senior Afghan defense official recalled meeting with a group of Afghan tribal leaders "who could not stand either side."
"Their response was that we don’t want this corrupt government to come and we don’t want Taliban either, so we are waiting to see who is going to win."
Ultimately, after a long and futile war, the Taliban garnered the prize — but almost as if the Americans, in a sad example of hubris, had never even been there.
Chris Herlinger is the New York and international correspondent to Global Sisters Report and also writes on humanitarian and international issues for NCR. He reported from Afghanistan in 2001, 2002 and 2007. His 2007 report for NCR can be read here. His email address is cherlinger@ncronline.org.
UK ‘Twelve wasted years’: Times columnist goes VIRAL with Tory criticism
'We didn't get Brexit done. We didn't grow enough food, or generate enough power. We did bugger all' - and that's from The Times...
Quite literally, The Times are a-changing. The right-leaning newspaper has often gone into bat for the Conservative Government – but it seems that their support for the party is far from being unconditional. You’ll find the best takedown of the Tories this week in The Times…
Writer Matt Chorley has seen his latest column take-off on social media. The disgruntled writer has ripped into the Tories, blaming them for a ‘wasted’ 12 years in power. In a single paragraph, the wordsmith eviscerates those who have been in charge for the last decade or so.
The Conservatives were put back into Number 10, in 2010. This election victory ended 13 years of Labour rule. Since then there have been a further three elections, with the Blues coming out on top each time. On two occasions, they needed coalition support. ‘It’s 12 wasted years’
Both the Liberal Democrats and the DUP have propped-up Tory governments in recent years. However, since 2019, the party has gone at it alone. And what a fine mess we’ve all had to endure over the past three years…
Britain is now standing on the precipice of a bleak future. Energy prices are soaring uncontrollably, food bank usage is at an all-time, and our beaches are covered in shi… sorry, ‘sewage’. The most serious problems blighting Blighty are all linked to their political policies. ‘The UK has done bugger all – and whose fault is that?’
So it’s perhaps no surprise that even The Times are taking a swipe at the Tories these days – especially with Matt Chorley behind the keyboard. The political commentator is happy to give both barrels to anyone, and he certainly didn’t hold back here:
“For all the noise and fury of the past decade, very little happened. We didn’t fix the roof while the sun was shining. Or the leaking water, or pot-holed roads, or even the housing market. We didn’t solve the productivity puzzle, nor did we extinguish burning injustices.“
“We didn’t get Brexit done. We didn’t grow enough food, or train enough people, or generate enough power. We didn’t make the microchips or build the tunnels to beat the world. To quote one keen spotter of political activities, ‘we have done bugger all’. And whose fault is that?” | Matt Chorley, for The Times
The most surprising thing about the response to today’s column has been senior Tories from very different wings of the party, former cabinet ministers, getting in touch despairing both about the state of their party, and the empty vessel about to be put at the head of it— Matt Chorley (@MattChorley) August 27, 2022
NASA's Artemis 1 mission on track for launch despite lightning hits
NASA's new moon rocket remained on track to blast off on a crucial test flight Monday, despite a series of lightning strikes at the launch pad.
The 322-foot (98-meter) Space Launch System rocket is the most powerful ever built by NASA. It's poised to send an empty crew capsule into lunar orbit, a half-century after NASA's Apollo program, which landed 12 astronauts on the moon.
Astronauts could return to the moon in a few years, if this six-week test flight goes well. NASA officials caution, however, that the risks are high and the flight could be cut short.
In lieu of astronauts, three test dummies are strapped into the Orion capsule to measure vibration, acceleration and radiation, one of the biggest hazards to humans in deep space. The capsule alone has more than 1,000 sensors.
Officials said Sunday that neither the rocket nor capsule suffered any damage during Saturday's thunderstorm; ground equipment also was unaffected. Five strikes were confirmed, hitting the 600-foot (183-meter) lightning-protection towers surrounding the rocket at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The strikes weren't strong enough to warrant major retesting.
"Clearly, the system worked as designed," said Jeff Spaulding, NASA's senior test director.
More storms were expected. Although forecasters gave 80% odds of acceptable weather Monday morning, conditions were expected to deteriorate during the two-hour launch window.
On the technical side, Spaulding said the team did its best over the past several months to eliminate any lingering fuel leaks. A pair of countdown tests earlier this year prompted repairs to leaking valves and other faulty equipment; engineers won't know if all the fixes are good until just a few hours before the planned liftoff. If Monday doesn't pan out, the next launch attempt would be Friday.
After so many years of delays and setbacks, the launch team was thrilled to finally be so close to the inaugural flight of the Artemis moon-exploration program, named after Apollo's twin sister in Greek mythology.
"We're within 24 hours of launch right now, which is pretty amazing for where we've been on this journey," Spaulding told reporters.
The follow-on Artemis flight, as early as 2024, would see four astronauts flying around the moon. A landing could follow in 2025. NASA is targeting the moon's unexplored south pole, where permanently shadowed craters are believed to hold ice that could be used by future crews.------
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
RELATED IMAGES Storm clouds roll in over the NASA moon rocket as it stands ready for launch on Pad 39B for the Artemis 1 mission at the Kennedy Space Center on Aug. 27, 2022, in Cape Canaveral, Fla. The launch is scheduled for Monday morning, Aug. 29. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
Lightning strikes Artemis I launchpad ahead of Monday launch
As NASA prepares for the first launch of its new Space Launch System rocket on Monday, lightning has been observed striking the launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida where the rocket is currently waiting. The lightning struck towers around the rocket which are designed to steer current away from sensitive hardware, and NASA says it is performing an assessment to check whether any systems have been damaged by the strikes.
Lightning and thunderstorms were seen in the area throughout the afternoon of Saturday, August 27. A video shared on Twitter by meteorologist Nick Stewart shows the lightning strike in slow motion, with what appears to be three consecutive strikes to the launch pad’s lightning towers:
Lightning striking around the pad was also captured in an image by photographer John Kraus:
NASA confirmed that there were three strikes on the lightning towers in total, one hitting Tower 1 and two hitting Tower 2. “Initial indications are that the strikes were of low magnitude,” NASA wrote. “A weather team has begun an assessment that includes collecting voltage and current data, as well as imagery. The data will be shared with a team of experts on electromagnetic environment efforts who will determine if any constraints on vehicle or ground systems were violated. Engineers will conduct a walkdown at the pad tonight, and if needed, conduct additional assessments with subsystems experts.”
The lightning towers are part of a lightning protection system in place at the launch pad for just such an occurrence. They are 600 feet tall and are designed to channel electricity down into the ground and away from any rocket, spacecraft, or supporting hardware that is on the pad.
A similar lightning strike happened in April this year when the Space Launch System rocket was on the pad at Kennedy for its wet dress rehearsal. Four lightning strikes hit the lightning towers, and one of these turned out to be the most powerful lightning strike ever recorded at the site. There was no damage to the rocket during this event as the lightning towers did their job.
Now, teams will continue their preparations for Monday’s launch including powering up the rocket’s core stage and charging the batteries for the Orion spacecraft.
NASA's massive moon rocket poised to launch Monday morning
Social Sharing
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Reddit
LinkedIn
'It's no longer the Apollo generation. It's the Artemis
A full moon is in view from Launch Complex 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on June 14. The Artemis I Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft are scheduled to liftoff no earlier than 8:33 a.m. ET Monday morning, with a two-hour launch window. (NASA/Ben Smegelsky)
The countdown is on.
NASA's massive rocket, called the Space Launch System (SLS), is ready to blast off Monday morning from Cape Canaveral, Fla.
Atop the rocket sits Orion, the spacecraft that will eventually take astronauts to the moon.
This mission — dubbed Artemis I — is a critical test of several things: how SLS performs; how Orion performs; and how its heat shield holds up upon re-entry after travelling to the moon and coming in at extremely high speeds.
All of this is to pave way for Artemis II — scheduled for 2024 or 2025 — when four astronauts, including a Canadian, will orbit the moon.
NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) sits at launch pad 39B ready to blast off to the moon. (Turgut Yeter/CBC)
The rocket is set to launch no earlier than 8:33 a.m. ET Monday morning, with a two-hour launch window.
During a mission briefing on Saturday, Jacob Bleacher, chief exploration scientist for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, said, "Buckle up everybody. We are going to the moon."
Mike Sarafin, mission manager for Artemis, said the feeling around the Kennedy Space Center has become increasingly energetic.
"As our zero hour approaches for the Artemis generation, we do have a heightened sense of anticipation, and there is definitely excitement among the team members," he said. "We've noticed just the overall mood and focus within the team is definitely a positive one."
This is a mission more than a decade in the making. Former U.S. president Barack Obama made the announcement of the SLS rocket in 2010, with a goal of flying in 2016. The dates for SLS — as well as cost overruns — plagued the giant rocket for years.
However, this isn't the first ride for the Orion capsule. It was launched on an Delta IV Heavy rocket in December 2014 in an orbit around Earth, splashing down just over four hours later.
The Delta IV Heavy rocket with the Orion spacecraft lifts off from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Fla., on Dec. 5, 2014. (Steve Nesius/Reuters)
But this will be an entirely different trip for the capsule. When Orion returned for its test, called EFT-1, it re-entered the atmosphere at roughly 32,000 km/h. This time, after its 42-day mission, the capsule will be pushed to its limits coming in at a blistering speed of 40,000 km/h, reaching temperatures of up to 2,800 C.
Long-term exploration
Everyone on the team is cognizant that Artemis I is a test: that things could go wrong, but that they will learn from it.
"We're mindful that this is a test flight. And we're mindful that this is a purposeful stress test of the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System rocket. It is a new creation. It is a new rocket and it is a new spacecraft to send humans to the moon on the very next flight," Sarafin said.
"This is something that has not been done in over 50 years and it is incredibly difficult."
After Artemis II is Artemis III, which will put boots on the ground and, as NASA is keen to stress, put the first woman and the first person of colour on the lunar surface.
The Artemis program is a long-term goal to send humans back to the moon and beyond. NASA has Mars firmly in its sights. But they're not planning on doing it alone.
Unlike the Apollo missions, this is an international effort. The European Space Agency has provided a service module for the Artemis program, and Canada is providing Canadarm 3 to the Lunar Gateway, a space station that will orbit the moon and serve as an outpost, a kind of jumping-off point for astronauts travelling to the moon or Mars.
"There's a big, big universe to explore. And this is just the next step in that exploration. And this time we go with our international partners," Bill Nelson, a NASA administrator, said in a briefing on Saturday.
"It's no longer the Apollo generation. It's the Artemis generation."
NASA says the goal for the Artemis program is to one day land on Mars. But first, the space agency needs Artemis missions to once again land on the moon.
Based in Toronto, Nicole covers all things science for CBC News. As an amateur astronomer, Nicole can be found looking up at the night sky appreciating the marvels of our universe. She is the editor of the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the author of several books. In 2021, she won the Kavli Science Journalism Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science for a Quirks and Quarks audio special on the history and future of Black people in science. You can send her story ideas at Nicole.Mortillaro@cbc.ca.
To the Moon and beyond: NASA's Artemis program
2022/08/27
How the US plans to return to the Moon
Cape Canaveral (AFP) - The Artemis program is NASA's plan to return humans to the Moon as a stepping stone for an eventual voyage to Mars.
Twelve men walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972 and one of the goals of Artemis is to put the first woman and person of color on the lunar surface.
The first test flight of an uncrewed Artemis rocket is to take place on Monday.
The name Artemis was chosen to echo that of the Apollo program.
Artemis, in Greek mythology, was the twin sister of Apollo and a goddess associated with the Moon.
Here is an overview of the Artemis program:
Artemis 1: test flight
Artemis 1 is a test flight of the 322-foot (98-meter) Space Launch System rocket and the Orion crew capsule that sits on top.
Blastoff is scheduled for 8:33 am (1233 GMT) on Monday from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Mannequins equipped with sensors will take the place of crew members on the flight, recording vibration, acceleration and radiation levels.
Orion will orbit the Moon before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean.
Artemis 2: first crew
Planned for 2024, Artemis 2 will be a crewed flight that will orbit the Moon but not land on the surface, similar to what Apollo 8 did.
The four members of the crew will be named before the end of the year. A Canadian is expected to be among them.
Artemis 3: Moon landing
The third Artemis mission will be the first to put astronauts on the Moon since Apollo 17 in December 1972.
NASA, for the first time, will land a crewed spacecraft on the southern pole of the Moon, where water in the form of ice has been detected.
Previous Moon landings took place near the equator.
Artemis 3 is scheduled for 2025 but may not take place until 2026 at the earliest, according to an independent audit of the program.
Starting with Artemis 3, NASA plans to launch crewed missions about once a year.
SpaceX Moon lander
NASA has selected Elon Musk's SpaceX to build the Moon lander for Artemis 3.
SpaceX's Starship, which is still under development, will serve as a shuttle from the Orion crew capsule to the lunar surface and back. Gateway space station
The Artemis program also calls for the construction of a space station called Gateway that will orbit the Moon.
The launch of the first two elements -- the living quarters module and power and propulsion system -- is planned for late 2024 at the earliest by a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
Orion crews would be responsible for assembly of Gateway.
Astronauts would spend between 30 to 60 days in Gateway and would eventually have access to a lander that would allow them to travel to the Moon and back.
Gateway would also serve as a stopping point for any future trip to Mars.
Destination Mars
The ultimate objective of the Artemis program is what NASA calls the "next giant leap -- human exploration of Mars."
NASA will use knowledge gained from Artemis about next generation spacesuits, vehicles, propulsion, resupply and other areas to prepare for a trip to Mars.
The goal is to learn how to maintain a human presence in deep space for a long period.
Creating a "base camp" on the Moon is part of the plan with astronauts staying on the lunar surface for up to two months.
While a trip to the Moon takes just a few days, a voyage to Mars would take a minimum of several months.
Why Nasa think Monday’s moon launch will change space exploration forever
NASA’s next-generation moon rocket, the Space Launch System with its Orion crew capsule perched on top, at pad 39B in preparation for the Artemis I mission at Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Photo: REUTERS/Joe Skipper.
Eoghan Moloney August 28 2022
Nasa’s most powerful rocket in history - the Space Launch System (SLS) - will blast off from Kennedy Space Centre in Cape Canaveral on Monday afternoon.
This marks a new era in Space exploration for Nasa. The first launch of the new SLS rocket, which is entitled Artemis 1, is the beginning of the US space agency’s aim to put astronauts back on the moon within three years.
What is so special about the new rocket?
It is the most powerful rocket ever made, for starters. It will generate 3.9 million kilos of thrust, enough to keep around 22 jumbo jets in flight.
The rocket will reach close to 6,400 kilometres per hour in just two minutes. Within eight minutes, it will be travelling at close to 29,000km/h. Fast enough to circle the entire planet in approximately 80 minutes. Top speed will be around 36,000km/h. To put this into perspective - it’s the equivalent of travelling from Dublin to New York in roughly eight minutes.
The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket will create the most force ever generated by a rocket when it lifts off on Monday. During testing of the SLS in Utah, the engines generated so much heat it fused desert sand into glass.
The lift-off will be broadcast live on Nasa’s website and YouTube channel and it is scheduled to take off at approximately 13:33pm Irish time. What’s so special about this mission?
Tomorrow’s blast-off is the first real test of the SLS rocket. Nasa thinks it can carry the unmanned Orion spacecraft around the moon and back, but tomorrow they will find out for sure. This has a lot of folks nervous at Nasa.
Nasa Administrator Bill Nelson told CBS News on Sunday: "I'm afraid that people think it's routine. But when those candles light off, it's anything but routine. It is a high-wire act all the way up. ... This is a big deal. And it is beautiful. And it is a monster. The size just overwhelms you”.
And if it’s successful?
If it does what Nasa believes it will, the SLS rocket will lead to humans travelling further than ever before from earth and will also see more astronauts and equipment sent to the moon at quicker speeds for exploration.
Artemis III in 2024 will aim to be the first mission to put a woman and a person of colour on the moon, Nasa said.
“The next step is to start sending people on bold missions to the Moon and beyond. As SLS evolves over future missions to unprecedented accommodation of payload mass and volume and unrivalled performance, the rocket will allow Nasa to send missions to deep space and reach distant destinations faster than ever before.
“On its second mission carrying Orion and astronauts, Artemis II, SLS will send Orion and its crew farther than people have travelled before, around 250,000 miles from Earth, 10,000 miles beyond the Moon.
“On the third flight, Artemis III, SLS will send Orion and astronauts on a mission in 2024 that will land on the Moon. Americans along with their international and commercial partners will use the Moon as a proving ground to test technologies and prepare for missions to Mars,” Nasa said of the mission.
Could things go wrong?
You bet. Nasa are quite worried ahead of Monday’s launch, which is anticipated to attract up to 200,000 in-person spectators to Florida.
"This is a very risky mission," Jim Free, Nasa's associate director for exploration systems development told reporters on Saturday in Florida.
"We do have a lot of things that could go wrong during the mission in places where we may come home early, or we may have to abort to come home.
"Our potential outcomes on Monday are that we can go within the window, or we could scrub for any number of reasons. We're not going to promise that we're going to get off on Monday,” Mr Free said.
Currently, forecasts are showing an 80pc chance of good weather around launch time. There’s a two-hour window in which Artemis I can launch or the plug has to be pulled. How long will the mission last?
Six weeks. It’s anticipated the Orion spacecraft will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere on October 10 after getting within 60 miles of the moon on day six and then orbiting it for a number of weeks, before, hopefully, splashing down into the Pacific Ocean.
