dgraywatson

We are being mooned again by NASA, a mission in 2027, fifty-five years after the last Apollo mission left the lunar surface in 1972. Twenty years ago George W Bush in a State of the Union declared that the space programs goal was ultimately a mission to Mars, but before that a return to the moon by 2010 was the immediate priority. Since then, other than some unmanned landers and probes, but we haven't been back. As we moved into the second decade of the 21stC and the Shuttle program was wound down, there was a greater emphasis for the moon, nevertheless, NASA has been spinning wheels for 20 years talking about going back as the missions always get cancelled or shelved.

However, with the Artemis program, the new mission statement was for an eventual landing in penciled in for 2020. The plan was to send four astronauts to orbit the moon which would be a 10 day long trip and followed up with a second mission which would then land two astronauts on the lunar surface for a specified period of time and then return to the orbiter. This whole expedition could last as long as 30 days in total. Yet it's 2025 and the moon landing has now been pushed back to 2027 and looking at it on balance, it's a fair bet that the mission to the moon will probably be delayed yet again due to budget cuts or for some unforeseen technical difficulty.

The Artemis program is certainly more ambitious than the Apollo missions as over the long term there is to be a permanent space and docking station orbiting the moon "Gateway" which would be used to receive incoming ships and launch landers to the moons surface. As we move into the 2030's, another even longer term plan involves a moon base with a nuclear power station providing it's energy. As things currently stand the four crew members that have been earmarked for the mission are three Americans and a Canadian.

In going forward the astronauts that will be part of any Artemis mission will be closely scrutinized by certain parts of the media and political class. With identity politics currently a top priority, all of the personnel chosen will have to tick off the boxes of the various identity blocks that take preference over experience and qualifications. All the crew were of the Apollo missions were men, so there will be a determination to fast track others to make up for that imbalance. There was a good reason for that, the Apollo missions were extremely dangerous and not a joy ride or some routine scientific mission. In many respects Apollo in reality were were military missions, using technology that would be considered primative and wouldn't even be considered safe today. This was why Air Force and Navy pilots who would be prepared to risk their lives were preferred over scientists. Although many of them had academic qualifications ie aeronautical degrees and phd's, they were all carefully vetted for suitability for the Apollo program. The astronauts were all risking their lives on a hazardous expedition to the moon, it wasn't a sure thing at all. All the missions were operating with technology that was at the very edge of it's ability, for example the explosion in the Service Module during Apollo 13 ended up turning it into a desperate mission to save the crew. With a combination of the efforts on the ground at Mission Control and the skill of the astronauts on board were able to get them safely back to Earth. It was all a close run thing which was noted in Jim Lovell's memoirs who was the commander of that mission (who just died at age 97).

That all being left aside, the aspiration of having a nuclear power station being put together by robots and astronauts, would nevertheless be a huge physical and technical undertaking. It's unlikely that uranium will be extracted from the earth and then transferred to the moon on a NASA rocket, for obvious reasons that would be a non-starter. That would mean that the Uranium would have to be mined on the moon. One can't imagine this being done on a unilateral basis from one country, unless they were prepared to ignore the 1967 International treaty governing the moon. It's not for the USA to either take anything from the moon nor to give it away and it's hard to see environmentalists on Earth not having something to say over the notion of mining for uranium there. They certainly aren't going let the USA or an international coalition to embark on that without a fight.

There will be a big emphasis on scientific discovery and exploration, but its difficult to believe that commercial activities would be put on the back burner for too long. One suspects that over the long term that NASA will have to make some concessions to accommodate space tourism which would be masquerading as a scientific mission, or a combined mission. The moon will definitely be a place where rockets and space ships will be able to travel to with relative ease in the future.

Yet as early air travel found the hard way, there was the occasional mishap with air planes falling out of the sky. It's likely that trips into space or to the moon might face some technical problems from time to time or else a disaster once in a while. Even if all the kinks are ironed out it will always be an overarching concern in the long run, if you don't believe me, ask the crew and passengers of the Titanic submersible in 2023.

Elon Musk seems to have lost interest in the moon and is focusing on his long term plan to go to Mars. Mars is a massive endeavor and even if qualified astronauts volunteer to go on a mission there are huge obstacles to over come on getting there. As far as the moon is concerned it's the only place humans can travel to and I can't see that changing for a long time, it's the only place we can get their quickly with the least risks. I'd like to see a feasibly study of what would the likely failure rate of some of these missions.

Although for what reason other than the obvious explanation of exploration and science - it's not clear why a permeant base on the lunar surface needs to be established. The moon is dead, there is no life on it and there is no life anywhere else in our solar system - at least intelligent life. Commercial interests will ultimately take priority over science and the bottom line this is all going to be decided on the basis of financial priorities by the parties involved in this. If the money is available, they'll move forward , but if it isn't, don't be surprised if the time line for Artemis is stretched out well beyond what they've planned.

In the early 1970's the Conservative government was consistently hamstrung by industrial disputes with the Trade Unions, which twice culminated in a showdown with the coal miners. By early 1974 an election was called where the theme of the Conservative campaign was "Who Runs Britain". The result was not them, as the electorate decided to switch horses. The conservatives lost their majority and had to hand over the keys to number ten to the Labour party. Having a very narrow overall majority, the Labour PM decided to call an election in the autumn of 1974 asking for a mandate to continue governing and that gamble paid off as they increased their majority.

The following year the Conservatives elected their first female leader, Margret Thatcher the former Secretary of state for Education, an outsider by the bookies, never the less saw off many well established candidates. Although she graduated from Oxford with a degree in chemistry, became a qualified barrister and spoke like a member of the Royal Family, she came from the market town of Grantham and was the daughter of a green grocer, not your typical back ground for a Tory.

Thatcher would have plenty of time to play herself in to the leadership role as she had to wait till 1979 for the next general election, where the Conservatives won a comfortable 40 plus seat overall majority. Thatcher as all leaders do, found that it's easier to be the opposition leader than it is to be PM, although governing is more exciting, it's much easier to throw rocks at the government. By 1982 Thatcher's tenure looked like it would be coming to an end, a rocky economy, rising unemployment, high interest rates and inner city riots dogged here government. However, it was the Argentinian invasion of the British dependency the Falklands isles that the final nail was ready to be hammered in. With this national humiliation, the vultures were waiting, ready to drive the stake through the heart. Yet by good fortune, Sir Henry Leach, the number two in the Admiralty, was on hand, a fierce opponent of the naval cuts that the government had announced the previous year, who persuaded the PM that a naval taskforce could be mustered and the islands could be retaken. Thatcher was impressed and it was announced the following day during an emergency session of parliament that a task force would set sail on Monday April 5th 1982.

The Argentinians surrendered on June the 14th and the British prevailed. After facing a political near death experience, Thatcher had a change of fortune, she was not only a war leader, but a successful war leader - the "Iron Lady" was for real. The coal miners strike of 1984 is where the conservatives were able to settle some old scores, after facing down the National Union of Miners (NUM) for nearly a year, the strike was called off in early 1985. It wasn't just war and industrial relations that went her way, by 1987 the economy was booming - the UK had never had it so good. As always, these things never last forever and eventually a sharp downturn in UK's economic fortune , the unpopular "community charge" and fights with senior members of her own cabinet over Europe, all began to weigh her down. Despite three election victories in a row, Thatcher's political halo fell off and she was forced to resign as leader in November of 1990.

Thatcher tip-toed away to the sedate and dull House of Lords, often the final resting place for worn out and discarded politicians and public figures, however the shock of a new leader after 15 years would surface as. Only a few weeks before standing down, one of Margret Thatcher's final significant policy decisions was to sign Britain up to the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). This was the flag ship program of the government's economic policy for fighting inflation. It had been recommended by senior economic advisors as well as new PM John Major who as chancellor was a big supporter of the ERM. Eighteen months later, defying the polls, John Major led the conservatives to an unprecedented 4th general election win. Despite a sluggish economy they were thrown a lifeline with the Labour party leader not being able to close the deal with the electorate and a huge turnout of 75% seemed to benefit the Conservatives. However, that would be the high point of John Majors premiership, as only a few months later the UK were forced to leave the ERM in September of 1992, Sterling was devalued against all major currencies but in particular against the US Dollar and German Deutschmark. After dogmatically sticking to their guns for months and insisting that there was no alternative to staying in the ERM, there was suddenly an abrupt change of heart and the resulting devaluation of Sterling allowed the treasury to lower interest rates. Rather than rescuing the UK from it's economic wow's the ERM was see to be responsible for exacerbating it. The previous high interest rates had hurt the economy, and this loss of confidence was all made worse with firms adjusting to the sharp devaluation and higher costs by laying off workers and consequently led to a rise in unemployment over the next few months. The housing market which had been in a slump for a couple of years got even worse, resulted in a continued fall in house prices and an increase in foreclosures. This blunder and economic ismanagement would not forgotten by the electorate and it would be something that would be hung around the Conservatives neck for many years to come.

By 1995/96 the economy slowly recovered but the better mood in the country did not help the Conservatives, as their poll numbers continued to flounder. The infighting between back benchers over Europe and leadership challenges only showed the Conservatives as the gang who couldn't shoot straight. Yet there was something else going on, there was a staleness with them, they seemed out of ideas and looked tired in government. By contrast the Labour party invigorated by a new leader and energized by a younger generation were passionate and promoted a new start, a turning of the page. By the 1997 the Conservatives went down to their worst ever election defeat since 1945 and entered a period of opposition.

Their new leader William Hague was the victim of media ridicule and handicapped by a booming economy, low interest rates, a reenergized housing market and a general feeling of optimism, the Labour party won an unprecedented full second term in 2001. Haig resigned and his successor Ian Duncan-Smith a European sceptic lasted two years before he was replaced by Michael Howard. Howard was a solid leader, a good parliamentarian and returned some discipline to the party, but had to go up against a Labour party who were now a war party in government. By 2005 Labour won a third term and David Cameron the former Etonian and Oxford graduate, became the new Conservative leader. By 2007 Tony Blair resigned as leader PM and (went on to make millions in the private sector), and Cameron after a rocky start found his feet as opposition leader. Also, the war in Iraq wasn't going well and with economic storm clouds on the horizon, followed by a banking collapse of 2008, the conservative party seemed to be finding it's voice.

Although the Conservatives were the largest party in the 2010 general election, they had to enter into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats to form a government. By 2015 they won an overall majority, however only got 36.9% of the vote. The Conservatives were hemorrhaging votes to UKIP under the leadership of Nigel Farage, so the Conservative government decided to hold a referendum over the UK's membership of the European Union. There were two reasons for this, firstly a vote to remain would settle the issue once and for all and secondly once the referendum was won, UKIP who had been calling for a referendum for a number of years would be put out of business. The leave campaign unexpectadly won 52% - 48% which not only stunned the political establishment but put the government in an awkward position as 90% of the cabinet openly campaigned to remain. The PM David Cameron resigned as did a few other front benchers and this started a downward spiral for the conservatives. Terresa May became PM and within a year, went to the country to get a mandate and narrowly won but with a reduced majority.

After May resigned in 2019 Boris Johnson became PM and he had a few turbulent few months as members of his own party crossed the floor and left the conservative party and the government lost it's overall majority. This would normally result in a vote of no confidence in the government but the opposition leader decided not to call one, an unusual position to take (which turned out to be a massive unforced error by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbin). After months of a "zombie" government an election was called at the very unusual time of December but never the less, campaigning to leave the EU and Nigel Farages newly formed Brexit party agreeing not to stand against the conservatives won a large overall majority with 43% of the vote. This was the best result from the Conservatives government since the 1980's. This also was an eventful and unhappy time, the UK voted to leave the EU, but covid would dominate politics for the next two years and after that fizzled out, the Conservatives went through two more leaders and limped to a general election in 2024 where they suffered there worst defeat since the mid 19thC with only 24% of the vote. So there you have it from 1970 - through to 2025 where today they are languishing in the polls despite an unpopular government.

Ian Botham was England's best cricketer between 1977-1992, and it might be fair to say that he was probably the best cricketer in the world too. Being in the game an "all rounder", somebody who could bat and bowl as well as being a skilled slip fielder, he had all the attributes for that claim. The only black mark against him was his tenure as England captain, where over twelve tests he didn't win one and suffered a drop in form, as his batting and bowling averages took a tumble. Botham had actually made is test debut against the Australians in 1977 and had toured their with England two years previously, so he was familiar with the Australian players and their abilities. However, what was noticeable in the test series in 1980 against the West Indies, is how much weight he'd gained, living up to the nickname "Beefy". This clearly had an effect on his game, but managed to shed some pounds over the winter and came into the summer series against Australia in better shape. After being well beaten in the first test and a lack luster draw in the second test with Botham getting a "pair" in that test, decided to step down as captain sensing that the patience of the selectors was coming to an end and didn't want to suffer the indignity of being fired. It had been a disappointing 18 months, but out of posterity over his previous impressive record playing for England, kept his place in the team. That would be a crucial decision because they concluded that unburdened by the responsibility as captain his from might return. This proved to be the case, as Ian Botham's form returned right out the gate batting to a reasonable 50 in the first innings of the 3rd test, but all his England's colleagues struggled to get into double figures. England being forced to go into bat again, proved to be as difficult as it's meant to be, with another England collapse pending and the humiliating prospect of losing on the forth day loomed very large. Botham went to the crease and slogged his way to 146 not out, as he and two or three tail enders scored a total of 356 runs were finally bowled out on the morning of the fifth day and left Australia needing 132 runs to win the test and take a 2-0 lead in the series. A 132 runs was tricky on the last day with the wicket breaking up after five days, but in reality it wasn't a talk order, it all should have been a routine shoe in. Indeed when it was 50 for no loss it looked like a forgone conclusion, but Australia underwent a transformation that is unprecedented in the history of International cricket. There was a complete collapse as Australia crashed to 111 all out, 18 runs short of victory.

The 4th test although not as dramatic as the third followed a similar pattern as Australia needed 151 on the last day but were bowled out for 121, again another batting collapse. Ian Botham didn't have the best test with the bat but made amends with the ball and took 5 wickets for 1 run in Australia's second innings. In the fifth test England got a reasonable 230 in the first innings and Australia were bowled out for 140 and managed to avoid the follow on. In England's second innings they scored 404 runs with Ian Botham racking up 114 and this left Australia needed 505 runs to win the test match on the fourth day on a good batting wicket. Despite two century's from the Australian batsmen they were bowled out for 404 , 100 runs short and England won.

In the 6th and final test Botham didn't have such a good test with the bat but took 9 wickets overall in both innings and was helped out by batsmen Geoff Boycott, Allan Knot and Mike Gatting, both sides finishing the test series with a draw. It's not just one of English crickets most memorable events but you could easily make the case that it was an amazing and inspiring sporting comeback. To be facing a 0-2 deficit after three tests and then win out 3-1 was an incredible turnaround. With the third test almost lost to England a remarkable 149 not out by Ian Botham in the second innings and Bob Willis 8 wickets for 43 runs an incredible spell in one of the greatest performances by an English fast bowler in a test match. A lot of credit has to go to captain Mike Brearley, who never being the most proficient opening batsmen never the less made it up with great leadership skills and the ability to motivate his players and bring out the best in them at the right time. The indispensable player through out was Ian Botham who either with the bat or the ball, either delivering it or catching it (8 slip catches in the last three tests) was the difference between both teams over the test series. He always seemed to make the crucial play's when the team needed him.

Ian Botham himself was barely into his 5th year of test cricket, whether this was his finest hour, well that's a subjective opinion. He would continue to play for England for well over another 10 years and he had many memorable and impressive performances. By the mid 1980's encouraged by his manager the eccentric and bizarrely dressed Tim Hudson, he took a bit of a physical transformation, growing his hair out and dying it blond. Perhaps taking a leaf out of Jeff Thompsons blonde locks it was part of him marketing himself not just as a cricketer, but as promoting his celebrity status. Botham got into trouble for insulting Pakistan saying after coming back early from that tour with dysentery, that is a place "you should send your mother in-law for two weeks all expenses paid". Of course that was a joke, but as usual certain paranoid people didn't find it funny and he was accused of being racist and insulting to women. Which was a stupid claim because despite being offered a lot of money to play in South Africa during apartheid, he refused to go. Never the less Botham was an integral part of sporting achievement for England's cricket team through out that period, a credit to the sport, a great player and a proud Englishman.