Slashdot Mirror
On to Mars
Russ Paielli writes "The always brilliant Charles Krauthammer has written a great article in The Weekly Standard on why we should forget the space station and head for the moon and Mars. But space funding will have to be increased. The recently lost Mars Polar Lander cost $165 million, which seems like a lot--until you realize that the movie Waterworld cost more." Update: 01/30 11:38 by E : Link became broken, now it's fixed. Enjoy.
This sounds nice, but this is a real dumb idea (sorry to say). Only someone who doesn't understand space technology would have suggested this. To start with, we currently do not have any vehicle capable of breaking Low Earth Orbit. It would be at least 10 years before we could return to the moon. The only other alternative for going to the moon is using a Saturn V rocket. And I doubt NASA would use 20+ year old technology to send a group of astronauts to the Moon. As for Mars, this is just dumb. We still know nothing about this planet. Hell, more than half of our probes have failed (I know about the faster, cheaper idea...). But without a few more major successes in the probe category and certainly a method of escape for astronauts venturing to Mars, it would be little more than suicide for anyone to think about going up there now. However, one of the more feasible plans would be designing Space Stations for the Moon and Mars. Originally, the Apollo missions were for man to go to Mars, not the Moon. However, due to the race to the Moon, something got lost, and Mars and all 3 space stations (Earth, Moon, and Mars) got canned. The Saturn V was designed to be a Space Station as well as a "Space Ship". When we made it to the moon and the Russians had already spent all of their cash getting there. It didn't hold the same place for the politicians as it did when we were "beating the communists". Budget cuts and a perceived failure with Apollo 13 caused NASA to kill all outer space (as opposed to inner space...low orbit) missions. BTW, it's not costed, it's cost.
Station:
Microgravity/Freefall. This is useful, makes interesting things such as growing crystals and studying the possible effects of a prolonged space voyage possible.
Moonbase:
Gravity. Its easier to work with some gravity.
Raw Materials. Hopefully there'll be sufficent amounts of raw material to make building craft on the moon viable. This could reduce launch costs greatly.
The trouble is, I dont think that the shuttle is capable of landing on the moon. In AC Clark's stories he mentioned shuttle-type rockets to get into orbit, then simple, non-atmosphereic shielded ships to go from an orbital station to the moon.
IMO we need both.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
The only way, I'd say, to mobilize public support needed for 'going outer space' the old-fashioned, exploring way, is when there's another war or semi-war were 'we' need to get 'there' before 'they' do (whoever and where-ever). That, not the spinning off romance, was the reason for the Apollo Project in the first place.
That's also why, contrary to what the article says, it isn't at all surprising that people lost interest, once having beaten the Sovjets to the moon. It has indeed cost huge amounts of money and not all people are fascinated by science fiction.
Was there meant to be a link to the article and not just the mag? No missing this time either. Anyway.../ mag_5_19_00/krauthammer_cov_5_18_00.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/magazine
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
- Fund a trip to the Moon out of pocket. (He who pays gets a window seat).
- Invite six twenty-somethings of diverse lifestyles, races, and sexual orientations to join the crew.
- Film and web-cam everything.
- Earn even more gazillions marketing this thing.
- Use the profits to fund "Out of the Real World II" -- the trip to Mars.
billg are you listening? This would do wonders for your PR.$165,000,000 = one lost space exploration device.
$165,000,000 = free lunch programs for all of the needy kids in the NYC region for a decade. These kids will not eat lunch otherwise.
Well if we're going to throw out numbers...
$1,300,000,000 = one Stealth Bomber that we never use or probably even really need (or just the one that crashed).
$1,300,000,000 = free lunch programs for all of the needy kids in the NYC region for over 75 years.
Which is more important to YOU? Really now, if people are going to start bitching about Government spending, I hardly think NASA is the place to start.
$165,000,000 = free lunch programs for all of the needy kids in the NYC region for a decade. These kids will not eat lunch otherwise.
Which is more important to you? What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
Since when do we not have the resources to do both? It's not like this is an either-or proposition. "but what about the needy children?" We can feed them _and_ go to mars!
--
There is no technical reason that we could not establish permanent bases on the moon, Mars, or on an asteroid. The fact that we could send manned missions to the moon with less than 10 years lead time (from the idea being first proposed) suggests that we can develop the technology.
It is unlikely that NASA would be able to execute such a mission. Unfortunately, the space agency is no longer the can do group it was in the 1960's. Instead, it has grown into another Bureaucratic monster, more concerned with maintaining its funding that searching out new, expansive goals.
We can expect privately funded space launch services such as Rotary Rocket or Cerulean Freight Forwarding Company within the next five years. With these and other companies providing access to low earth orbit, there will be a ten fold decrease in the cost off access to space. This will allow more activity in space, which in turn will encourage more launchers to provide access. It is quite likely that Space Vacations will be available for the affluent inside the next ten years, with costs as low as $100,000 per person for a two week stay in a space.
There are groups who want to move permanently into space. Eventually, we will be going to the moon, Mars, the Asteroids, and elsewhere. If you are interested in promoting space, I recommend that you join one or more of these organizations.
Folks, if you really care about this subject, posting your response here isn't going to help. For the most part, you're 'preaching to the converted' and the people who need to read your words aren't reading this.
NASA's, ESA's, CSA's, NASDA's, etc. budget has been slashed to ribbons over the past decade and albatrosses like Space Station are just going to keep making the situation worse. If you Really Care(tm) about seeing space technology move forward (ie: if you're sick of the 1970s Space Shuttle dog-and-pony show and "Faster, Better, Cheaper - Work Smarter Not Harder" stuff) and would prefer to see something more useful than a foreign aid package parceled up as a "science project" be the result of decades of brilliant engineers' work, then write your government representative and let THEM know.
Writing isn't the only thing you can do (and by writing, I mean a physical piece of paper with ink or toner, placed into one of those foolish envelope things and given to the postal service of your choice -- a disk full of 2k e-mails doesn't quite have the same impact when furiously waved about in Congress). You can also:
Visit schools and give a classroom presentation on technology (it can be exclusively about space technology, if you'd like -- you probably know more about it than the teachers). Why not call the principal of your local high / public / middle school and ask for a half-hour of lecture time? I was surprised, when I first asked, at how happy they were to have an outside visitor stop by to tell the kids a bit about the 'real world', and not have it involve drugs or 'anger management'. I was also shocked when bright 17 year olds were asking me if there were already human bases on Mars! Keep in mind: in just a few years, these are the people who will vote in your next rep.
Ask to visit your local member of parliament, congressman, senator, etc. in person. It sounds like a long-shot, but they're often open to the idea of taking a half-hour to speak with 'regular folk' when they have the time, and if you're not ranting about saving the spotted Albanian tree-toad or asking for cash, they're surprisingly open to hearing about your world-view. Why not take an afternoon to have a pleasant chat with a politician about the practical applications of space technology and the means by which it will help the nation and (in some cases) their district? Try to tone down the 'human destiny in space' schtick though - most people will just think you're a loon.
Suggest that others do the same! Suggest to them that instead of watching another episode of Star Trek, they can spend the hour crafting a letter to their government representative and make a step towards seeing the fiction become real. If we each do that (maybe even once every few months), a few billion bucks might find themselves tossed into a useful program.
Remember folks: More and more of us weren't even born when N. Armstrong set foot on the Moon. Let's do something to ensure we're not all dead before it happens again.