It’s from the National Review Online (I got to it from fark) and details the President’s intention to announce a new attempt to put American astronauts on the moon, perhaps with the goal of establishing a permanent base as a stepping stone to Mars.
I’m aware of the costs of another Lunar expedition and the fact that a great many people view the future of spaceflight as being unmanned probes.
But I’ve always felt that lacked imagination. Not to mention it’s inability to bring the country together behind the project. Sure, unmanned probes may bring back information more efficiently…but they’re dull. At least in the eyes of the public. Much more gripping to have astronauts up there getting the job done…from a public perception position, at least.
So…
Is this inspired by recent Chinese gains in space? Are we facing another space race in an attempt to prevent the Chinese from dominating orbit and the moon?
And more importantly…
Can it be done? And if so…how long will it take? Last time was less than 10 years from go to Tranquility Base.
And, on a political front…
Will this help, hinder, or be neutral in it’s effect on the upcoming election? LOTSA pork out there for space programs, you know.
Just to be there before the chinese, I knew the noise coming from China was going to make the US move again.
Before Dubya gets any ideas: I hope he remembers that getting to the moon did not save Nixon’s ass. Or to make everybody else forget about that war in Asia…
Nothing wrong with Lunar exploration…if it was REAL exploration and science. I’ll believe it when I see it though. As I recall, Bush was ALSO supposed to announce a bold new plan (and increased budget for NASA) for America to go to Mars…which never happened.
Personally, I think had he of done it THEN, it WOULD have been a bold new direction for the US, something I think would have helped America’s world image. Now? Now it looks like we are simply reacting to the Chinese…another footprints and photos mission that won’t really do anything. sigh
How will the Bushistas justify the expense? Will it be claimed that the program will stimulate the economy enough to pay for itself?
Imagine roll eyes smiley here
I agree with you on one point, but not the other. I think that greater effort should be spent perfecting highly “intelligent”, highly capable, long-lasting and robust unmanned devices. In the future, I think telepresence could tell us about as much about Mars as a human being actually there. That’s something where the R&D might have an quicker and more direct impact on our quality of life here at home - developing robotics, remote sensing, and quasi-intelligent quasi-autonomous machines might lead to scads of applications.
Besides, if the Chinese get too full of themselves in their moon base, we can just send our killer robots to get them. They don’t need oxygen, food, or water - only BLOOD!
You guys can laugh all you want about Space Race 2: The Do-Over, but I remain convinced that the drive toward a particularly uninhabitable goal will both spur current technology toward greater horizons and will allow mankind to confront and prevail over even tougher environments than those within which we thrive upon now with non-discretionary funding.
And if I might be so bold, I think that it’s highly probable that exploitable hyrocarbon resources might be discovered on the planet Jupiter (though admittedly deep within a man-prohibative environment, but not within an American-prohibative environment), were one to look more closely, and with the Air Force leading the way!! From the space nexus in Houston! God Worship Lester Del Rey!!!
Next time you get in a shipment of really serious drugs, Sofa, please remember what Big Bird says: sharing is good.
There will be no permanent base on the moon, at the very least, not anytime soon. Food, water, oxygen to the moon? How? Fed-Ex? At what, $1 million a pound? (I just know there’s a smartass out there who has the numbers. Come out, come out, wherever you are…)
Someday, sure, if we don’t fuck ourselves over totally first (50/50 is my guess, but this is an optimistic day…) But by that point in time we’ll be thinking of rocket powered interplanetary power with the same quaint nostalgia we think of Buck Rogers
Of course, no one has proved that Ming the Merciless is not linked to Al Queda!
From the OP:
---- Sure, unmanned probes may bring back information more efficiently…but they’re dull. At least in the eyes of the public. Much more gripping to have astronauts up there getting the job done…from a public perception position, at least.
I don’t buy this argument. The public has seemed to like the space probes sent to Jupiter, Saturn, etc.
I think a permanent video presence on the moon would be pretty cool. Likewise for a collection of robotic moon crawlers.
By the way, does anybody know what scientific goals would be served by another lunar visit?
Respectfully, I don’t think that the public finds them dull in all cases. Remember the Mars Rover? That little machine was on the news every hour, on the hour. NASA’s websites were flooded with innumerable requests for info. People loved it. I would have thought NASA would send several more like it, but apparently they only have a few in mind.
Imagine unleashing a fleet of 100 or more Rovers on Mars. Ones that don’t have their battery die in 4 weeks, which can actually keep going for some time via solar rechargeable batteries. Now, even imagine that you have a couple of “sacrificial” ones, where you let some average person control it for a day, as part of a contest.
Imagine using detailed panoramic cameras and microphones to set up a “telepresence exhibit”. Since it’s all data, several remote locations could do telepresence - local universities, for example. Great PR, and it would give a better feel for “being there”.
I think the reason most probes are seemingly dull is that they aren’t active enough, and there’s little way to bring the data back to the public in a media that is meaningful to them. Start developing probes that walk, hop, dig, fly, run, speed, and even race across the surface*, and people will sit in front of their TVs watching. And, maybe, appreciating.
High levels of R&D for development of these advanced mobile probes could be very beneficial for many sectors. These probes need power, so maybe we can send more money to solar cell and fuel cell research (not to mention battery research) - all of which are components of a strategy to reduce fossil fuel usage. Development of agile robots - ones that actually can match human agility - can reduce accidents for workers in confined spaces, rescue operations, or even saving kittens trapped in drain pipes. Communications with these probes would be a key factor, as the distance between Mars and the Earth is a large barrier, and the data transfer requirements needed are a bit large as well. Research into improving antennas, signal strengthening, other data transfer methods - maybe even an MPEG5 or 6 algorithm for sending the video - would be beneficial to communications.
If things went along far enough, it is possible that these machines could prepare and do groundwork for human habitation. Building a base seems like a tall order now, but maybe not in the future. Pre-built modules could be sent and put together on-site, perhaps - like a “human tube farm”.
It would be great if this thread was about pros and cons of manned/unmanned/any exploration to the moon and mars, and the politics of backing NASA and space exploration in general - rather than being yet another vehicle to launch flames at Bush. There’s only about 54,000 other threads for that stuff - it’s not like there needs to be another, right?
*And, I suppose, shoot and stab too, if we want to keep the moon and Mars safe from trespassers!
Now, don’t get me wrong! I’m positively queer for space exploration. I waited in agony for the Hubble, and damned near had a stroke when the announced it was the Mr. Magoo of telescopes. I enthusiasticly support all space exploration.
But a manned permanent outpost on the moon? Fuhgedaboutit! GeeDubya talks out of his ass so much, he has the only rectum in town that has had elocution lessons.
Our intelligence reports have shown us that Mars has been stockpiling weapons a master struction for ten years. We know that they have armed and ready missiles containg space viruses, nukyular bombs and, so help us all, 1920’s style death rays. We have also learned that Mars currently has a program to build a deathstar capable of blasting our planet plumb to smithereens in a matter of seconds. Not only that but we have reliable information that mars has tried to acquire uranium from Uranus [smirk]…
Ok that last part was just made up, but that does not change the fact that we must act now to liberate Mars from it;s oppressive dictatorship. We do not have time to wait for the Federation’s authorization. We are the Merkans, damn it. We’ll do whatever we want. We don’t need permission from those damn commie frog people on Neptune. We WILL liberate Mars from Darth Vader and we WILL liberate Mars from its valuable minerals and metals.
The moon has water, and therefore oxygen. Food can be grown.
Really, what changed about considering the moon as a destination is that it now appears that there may be huge reserves of water ice sitting just below the surface. That changes the whole economics of colonization. It’s an intriguing question: Let’s say it costs 100 billion to go to Mars. This would be a one-shot exploratory mission by a small group of astronauts, and the massive expense means that once that mission is over we may not afford another one like it for 20 years.
Now let’s say that same 100 billion could put a facility on the moon that had a nuclear reactor, ice-boring gear, hardware for electrolyzing water into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for rocket fuel. Hydroponic farms to supply a colony of 50 people.
Think of what we could learn from that. Earth moon orbital transfer would be mundane. We might build dedicated moon shuttles that move from the surface to lunar orbit and back again, fueled by hydrogen.
That sounds like a real presence in space, and a springboard for developing a truly utilitarian space infrastructure. And plenty of science could be done - deep space astronomy from the other side of the moon, lunar geology, prospecting, etc.
The moon might also make a mars mission cheaper. For example, you could assemble the ship in earth orbit and fuel it with hydogen mined from the moon.
Going to the moon first would probably push a Mars mission a decade or two farther back, but we’ve got lots of robot probes we can send. In the meantime, we could work on figuring out a way to make a profit from the moon, so that the entire space infrastructure can become self-sustaining. Once we reach the self-sufficiency point, it will grow of its own accord, and we’ll truly be a space faring species.
I find myself torn between glee at the idea of a new push into space, and nausea at the base political reasons for doing so. Let’s face it, if the Chinese hadn’t given us a wake-up call with their recent launch, Bush would gladly ignore any talk of lunar bases and push for pumping more money into SDI instead.
Communications with these probes would be a key factor, as the distance between Mars and the Earth is a large barrier, and the data transfer requirements needed are a bit large as well. Research into improving antennas, signal strengthening, other data transfer methods - maybe even an MPEG5 or 6 algorithm for sending the video - would be beneficial to communications.