Slashdot Mirror
The Case for the Moon
apsmith writes "Continuing the flurry of recent hearings on the future of humans in space, a Senate committee on Thursday heard testimony in favor of a return to the Moon. Former senator and moon-walker Harrison Schmitt and physicist David Criswell see the lunar surface as an immense energy resource, just waiting to be tapped. Astronomer Roger Angel sees the lunar south pole as the ideal astronomical observatory, with locations for telescopes 100 times better than anything we've done so far. And geologist Paul Spudis sees a lot of unfinished business on the Moon, to develop it as the "feedstock of an industrial space infrastructure." TransOrbital also sent written testimony."
There are large quantity of mineral and oxygen chemically stored in the crust of the moon. In another word, one nice place to do mining operation.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Beaming power all the way from the moon is one of the most stupid ideas I've heard. If you want solar energy that badly, you can mine the moon for materials but the most logical place for the solar collectors is Earth orbit. You'd get an order of magnitude better efficiency by not transmitting power over such an enormous distance.
But the article is facetious from the start; they claim the "only" way to keep up with power demand is through solar power. Whatever happened to nuclear? Reactors would easily cover any power demands for the next few centuries -- the next few millennia, if we ever get over the stupid dislike for breeder reactors.
Mars is where we need to go. I agree that NASA does need some goal if they are ever going to do anything useful again but if they're going to set a goal, it should at least set a potentially habitable planet as a goal with the Moon as a sub goal or a proof of concept.
.pdf) and the proposed Bill from Congressman Nick Lampson TX to restore Mars as a goal and put NASA on a schedule. Here are a few sample letters if you want to write your congressman.
Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and founder of the Mars Society has called for the mobilization of Mars exploration proponents to write their representatives on the future of post-Columbia NASA. From his announcement: 'This debate will play out over the next six months, and the result could determine the future of the American space program in our generation. Now is the time when anyone who cherishes hopes for a spacefaring future for humanity must step forward and speak up.'
This is happening alongside the recent testimony Zubrin gave to the full Senate Commerce Committee on Oct 29th (audio files here and the
Blaze a trail to the New World
I believe the relavent quotation would be:
"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain. Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
--John F. Kennedy
Going to the moon didn't really make much sense in terms of cost/benefit at the time, but if nothing more, it was quite symbolic of the age. Going to the moon, was in many ways, a direct response to the Soviet space program. It had some similar goals as the recent Chinnese launch -- much of the reason for going to the moon was to demonstrate the US' technological, scientific, and economic strength.
From a more idealistic perspective, it was because the US was given the dream, and challenge, of going to the moon.
John F. Kennedy,
Address at Rice University on the Space Effort,
September 12, 1962:
President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb. Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.
We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.
Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far out-strip our collective comprehension.
No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only 5 years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than 2 years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than 2 months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.
Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.
So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to
near-constant illuminated surface allow for massive energy and chemical manufacturing...... .... Telescopes on the far side of the moon would give us a new view of the universe uninterrupted by light
The moon has a 29.5 day cycle meaning that places on the moon experience about 15 days of daylight and about 15 days of night. The far side of the moon gets just as much (and just as little) sunlight as the near side. Only radio telescopes would see a big advantage on the farside by using the moon to block the Earth's noisy radio chatter.
Its a minor point, but it does have implications for what you can do on the moon and the special engineering challenges of the environment (e.g., storing 15 days of solar power).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I've always thought the Moon would be a great place for a telescope, and he lays it all out in detail, including:
He does miss one trick, which is that the moon itself provides the stiff structure required for long-baseline interferometry, which would be necessary to image planets around other stars.
It's really nice to see this idea wrapped up in a neat package.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Um, no, that is completely wrong. Apollo missions 14, 15, 16, and 17 all landed on the moon and returned safely. Please check your facts before posting.
See this NASA website for a brief overview of the Apollo missions.
First off, the air pressure, gravity, sunlight, and temperature in the upper atmosphere on venus is very close to earth's. It also has a ton of carbon based chemichals for sustained life and oxygen in such an environment could be easially extracted. If fact it is the closest in the solar system to earth.
Even though the upper atmosphere is mostly sulfuric acid, dealing with that is a lot easier than dealing with the vacume of space, lack of gravity, extreme tempurature shifts and almost complete lack of extra hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. A slightly pressurized oxygen baloon could easially float on it's own weight and sustain large city complexes, and if it leaked it could be fixed in due time and wouldn't immediately kill everybody.
But most importantly - life on venus would be self sustainable because there are loads of natural resources and absolutely no shortage of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and a variety of other elements. (not in raw form of course)
Sorry, but as intuitive as it may seem, the moon is NOT a logical jumping-off point for a journey to Mars. Orbital mechanics dictate otherwise. As the original poster said, go check out Zubrin's site, or better yet, read The Case For Mars. Zubrin addresses this misconception.
Curiouser and curiouser...
This site also has some interesting information on beamed-power research.
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
I keep hearing this, but somehow no-one has EVER demonstrated a working system. If microwave power transmission is such a panacea, how come we have never seen it done here on earth!!!!!!
Because microwave transmission is line-of-sight, so you can't use it on Earth for distances longer than about fifty miles, and it's cheaper to use copper wire for runs that short.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
doesn't mean it's not funny (and/or telling).
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
To answer some of my own questions, I did a little looking. It looks like a space elevator could be closer to reality than I expected.
From http://www.isr.us/SEConcept.asp?m=2
"With a concerted and well-funded effort the raw technologies could be ready in two years, further engineering would take three more years. Once construction begins it will take six years to complete construction and launch the initial spacecraft. Two and a half additional years will be required to build up the ribbon to a 20,000 kg capacity. "
This site is a very interesting read (IMO).
The space elevator can get you to geosynchronous orbit, and that's the major cost savings right there. Remember Apollo...huge Saturn V rocket to go to the Moon, teensy lunar module to get back. Take the space elevator to geosynch, and you just need the teensy module to go the rest of the way to the Moon.
He had been president for 7 months when the first moon landing occured in 1969. Nixon was asked by NASA in the early 1970s where he wanted to see the space program go.
The choices given to him were: Mars, a Moon Base, a cancelled program or The shuttle. Nixon chose the Shuttle, since, in (roughly) his words, he didn't "care about space, but it would look bad for the USA to end its space program"