NASA's New Mission to the Moon 283
mattnyc99 writes "Popular Mechanics has a new, in-depth preview of NASA's Orion spacecraft, tracking the complex challenges facing the engineers of the CEV (which NASA chief Michael Griffin called 'Apollo on steroids') as America shifts its focus away from the Space Shuttle and back toward returning to the moon by 2020. After yesterday's long op-ed in the New York Times concerning NASA's about-face, Popular Mechanic's interview with Buzz Aldrin and podcast with Transterrestrial.com's Rand Simberg raise perhaps the most pressing questions here: Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? And will we actually stay there?"
Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:1, Insightful)
Good question (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Race is over (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but there are other benefits. Learning how to colonize space would be a biggie in my book. Besides, if we can't go to the moon, we don't stand a chance at going to Mars, Europa, Titan, or possibly beyond our solar system. The moon is the first step.
Re:Good question (Score:3, Insightful)
The government pays pioneers to open up frontiers that are then exploited by commercial entities. It's been this way for thousands of years. Why should it change now?
It's also a dress rehearsal for Mars... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a largely non-obvious reason for using the same basic vehicle for both mission sets.
Reversal of opinion in the internet age (Score:4, Insightful)
We have a lot more information than the last 3 moon attempts. Time was the only answer you could know about right and wrong was what you could think of on your own based on what you saw in the sky and how much spare cash you had.
Now the answers for everything are downloadable. You don't need to come up with your own answers because the internet has the answers for you. The change in where our information comes from has changed our opinions.
Not Necessarily (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, it sounds to me like just another round of pork from a President and party that has been damaged by the Iraq war. After all, much of the Republican base is located in states with NASA facilities (California and Maryland excepted).
Besides, the plan is so long-term that I'll be very surprised if it survives the next three Presidential terms.
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:2, Insightful)
Honest question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:3, Insightful)
L5 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Colonizing the moon is a drastically different undertaking from colonizing Mars. The moon is essentially a vacuum. It's cold. It has no useful resources to speak of (and no, He3 won't be useful any time soon). 1/6th Earth's gravity. And it's fairly close.
Meanwhile, Mars has water. And abundance of minerals. A thin atmosphere containing useful gases. A surface temperature that actually breaks the freezing point occasionally. Double the gravity of the moon. And it's so far away that getting there has proved to be a surprisingly difficult undertaking.
Honestly, the idea that colonization of the Moon will tell use anything useful about colonizing Mars is, frankly, silly. The methods that would be used for the two projects are *completely* different. Meanwhile, we can't even build a self-contained biosphere on *Earth*! Maybe we should try tackling that drastically simpler task before we start planning Moon bases.
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the lunar surface the better investment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even under the most dire/optimistic scenarios a lunar facility isn't gonna be much of a viable 'lifeboat' for generations yet. Indeed if things go seriously awry it's probably the most untenable place to be for any calamity except a fast-acting/highly-virulent/fatal terrestrial biohazard, and then you'd likely just get to live somewhat longer and die a premature death of a different cause. After a terrestrial catastrophe a lunar facility likely won't contribute much to future generations but an interesting monument. Rather a planet of 6 billion with a huge biosphere has so much more in the way of odd nooks & corners for refugees & resources.
Except a lunar facility is going to be markedly different then anything space-based. Significant gravity, a surface, 2 week bright/dark cycles, huge dust & debris issues; except for lack of atmosphere they're almost entirely different problem sets. A space station is certainly the better R&D environment for spacefaring development. As to Martian R&D Earth as good, and substantially cheaper/more-amenable venue then the moon offers.
Except that asteroids are probably a far better materials supply source and can be got roboticly, with their materials easier separated, refined, and then sent on to Earth in space then from the moon. Furthermore while He3 is promising we've yet to achieve fusion that could take advantage of it and those power sats would probably do as good a job with less complexity then a lunar-fueled terrestrial fusion system anyhow.
Except any manned base is going to be fouling up the local environment and require far more support then just installing spares & alternatives for everything. Again, the moon is good, space is likely better.
Because the moon is the only possible frontier? Not our oceans, deserts, mountain ranges, arctic & antarctic regions? Not more abstract frontiers like science, technology, sociology, psychology, diplomacy, etc.?
I'm honestly not trying to be contrarian but your reasons strike me more as rationalizations. Nearly all could be done better/cheaper using unmanned systems or directly in space. I'd hate to see a lunar base become another dead end like our hopelesly compromised space station, doing expensive science of minimal import or quality.
what a difference 40 years makes (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash forward to 2007. Presumably, we know how to get to the moon, since we've done it before. Computing and aerospace technology have both advanced considerably in the intervening 46 years. But now, instead of getting there in less than 10 years, they want to take 13?
Something is seriously wrong with this situation.
Re:Before someone calls this a waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, yes, and yes. The problems you mention have no chance of destroying all life in the universe (to our knowledge). Keeping all life on one planet does have that chance.
Life itself is more important that starving orphans. There, I said it.
Sorry but no, will never happen. (Score:2, Insightful)
But manned spaceflight out of the orbit of the earth is in fact dead and over, forever, or if not, for the next 100+ years. No one wants to do it. Governments don't want to pay for it and we don't have the attention span for it. In fact I'd put money on the complete elimination of manned spaceflight by the year 2015. We will have officially spent enough money to piss everyone off by that time.
Phase 2 is the complete elimination of all space science, in space, by 2020. Expect that orbital telescopes, research satellites etc will all be defunded by then. Unless there is a commercial or military purpose for space science, it will be killed.
It was a pretty good run but now it's over. I grew up pouring over every detail, every photograph, every newscast, every lay science paper for everything associated with the Gemini and Apollo programs. I had a family member who worked in both programs. It was magic.
But by the time Skylab was discontinued it was clear that NASA was looking to get into the commercial heavy lifting business, ergo Space Shuttle. But NASA didn't bank on the expense and complexity of Space Shuttle, nor did they anticipate smaller payloads becoming the norm. So the Air Force became NASA's only paying customer. They're the only people who have a need for the capacity of Space Shuttle. So NASA is just treading water until Space Shuttle and ISS are killed off. They hope to have another heavy lifter online by then but if they don't then that's that. End of story. We'll be able to go the ESA or India, Japan, Russia or China for launch capability by then and NASA will have ceased to have a purpose.
Re:Race is over (Score:3, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, let's see. 1/6th gravity might be nice for some things. It does equate to 1/6th the difficulty in managing heavy objects. Vacuum is, amazingly enough, common for many likely working environments in space. We need practice; better to do it around a developed moonbase with medical facilities, manufacturing and so on than around some asteroid that has a lot of something we want, plus vacuum. It's not necessarily "cold", by the way, it is in vacuum, which is something else entirely. There is plenty of energy falling on its surface from which heat can be gathered. And power. In any case, it isn't like you're going to lie on the surface naked. Another thing is it is closer than anything else, and once we have a base there, going other places is a lot less costly -- launching from a 1/6th gravity well is much less costly than launching from a 1G gravity well. Not just into space in general, but to Mars, to Earth orbit, moon orbit, everywhere. There have been many suggestions about how to mine the moon's resources and get worthwhile products from them. Once there and we get a little practice, I have little doubt there would be more of the same. If materials can be obtained to build spacecraft, for instance, then we're WAY better off with a moonbase. It's a great place for telescopes, too. And RF research. And vacations (I'd love to have a 1/6th G environment to practice martial arts in, or to have sex in, or even to just turn backflips in.) As for creating a self-contained biosphere, you know what they say about necessity being the mother of invention.
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know where you got your information, but the moon has - at some point in it's orbit - the same relative velocity as the earth with regard to mars. This is unavoidable, as the moon orbits the earth, if you'll recall. Launching at the appropriate time will ensure no loss with regard to the moon's orbit. However, with 1/6th the gravity well, the same amount of energy will result in a higher velocity, or less energy the same, with regard to a trip to mars from there as compared to the earth. It's just math. And of course, there is no air resistance, no weather, and little air traffic to contend with.
How about not making the terrifically dim assumption that we can only do one of those at a time? Do you fall over when you chew gum? Sheesh.
Re:Is the lunar surface the better investment? (Score:4, Insightful)
All the more reason to get started sooner rather than later, then, eh? "Okay everyone, lifeboat drill in 2025!"
Except a lunar facility is going to be markedly different then anything space-based. Significant gravity, a surface, 2 week bright/dark cycles, huge dust & debris issues; except for lack of atmosphere they're almost entirely different problem sets. A space station is certainly the better R&D environment for spacefaring development.
Right. We wouldn't go anywhere in space where there's gravity, surfaces, or dust and debris, or extremes of bright or dark. Hello? Asteroids? Mercury? Mars? The outer moons?
And while you mentioned vacuum, you left out radiation (space station orbits below the Van Allen belts), and resupply issues (space station can be abandoned on short notice if necessary).
As to Martian R&D Earth as good, and substantially cheaper/more-amenable venue then the moon offers.
Looks like you've drunk Zubrin and the Mars mafia's koolade. Camping out in the Utah desert or the Canadian arctic tells you zero about living on Mars, no matter what Zubrin and his space campers say. Hey, I've been to the Space Camp in Huntsville. Sure, it was fun, but it taught me as much about flying in Shuttle as camping on Earth tells you about Mars. Low gravity, almost no atmosphere and what there is is toxic, radiation, 20 minutes (at best) ping times, temperatures cold enough to freeze CO2, a year to resupply or evacuate, and a year in zero gee just to get there, etc, etc.
Because the moon is the only possible frontier? I said "A frontier". It happens to be the closest where there's any "there" there.
Not our oceans, deserts, mountain ranges, arctic & antarctic regions?
Perhaps you don't understand the definition of "frontier"? People already live all of those places, and routinely exploit them. Any tourist willing with a few tens of thousands to spend, tops, can go visit without being particularly uncomfortable, and return home with photos and souvenirs. True frontiers are not for tourists, they're for pioneers. You know, the guys (and gals) who find new and unusual ways to die.
As for "abstract frontiers", well, pffft. Any society -- hell, any organism -- that embraces internal frontiers while ignoring external ones is already doomed.
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, perhaps I'm missing something, but in order to launch from the Moon to Mars, you need to get fuel to the Moon first. You can't make fuel on the Moon, after all. There's nothing to make it from. So you have to lift it out of Earth's gravity well. So, let's say you do that. So you burn a bunch of fuel to get a bunch more fuel out of Earth's gravity well and deposit it on the moon. Then, you launch from the Moon, burning yet more fuel to climb out of the Moon's gravity well, and a bunch more to make the shot to Mars.
So, tell me... where is the savings, here?
Remember the Parable of Zheng He (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's assume that all the money in the OECD spent by space agencies gets pumped into working on the aid shortfall, assuming the 0.7% GDP goal is the proper goal. That's about a $24 billion drop in a $50 billion bucket. The rest could be made up by a goodly chunk of Microsoft profit money, leaving them $10 billion. However, this is only assuming that the 0.7% is the only goal. There's also the problems of health care (that leftover $10 billion could give the 45 million uninsured Americans about $218 per year). Afterwards comes education, housing, and the impoverished in the OECD that would be overlooked by our 0.7%.
So the $24 billion would be a step in the right direction, but you forget what we buy with that money: a look over the next hill. The Chinese explored for a bit, arriving as far afield as East Africa and beginning colonies around their area of the world. They nearly dominated the East. After 30 years of this, they turned inwards and burned their fleets trying to achieved Confucian inner perfection. That insular behavior undid the progess achieved under their age of exploration. The Chinese never achieved the perfection they sought. In contrast, Europe achieved the wealth and power it sought, whether for good or ill, and now it and its transplant nations (the rest of the OECD) are the most prosperous in the world.
The $24 billion we spend wouldn't eliminate poverty if spent on poverty, but it may if it's spent on reaching upward and outward.
Re:Sextant? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the on-board computer smokes you would need the sextent to measure your orientation.
We did end it. They re-defined poverty on us. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of Africa would kill to get what the poor in the US have.
The only people starving in the US are nuts (anorexics, bulimics, crazy street people that won't take help).
We spend millions per year on free health care for fat 'poor' people. There are no fat poor people (truly poor).
Re:what a difference 40 years makes (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. The Taleban/Al Qaida don't have a space program.
Re:what a difference 40 years makes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? (Score:3, Insightful)