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."
I'm not a space nut, but why did NASA stop going to the moon in the first place? Its been a couple decades since our last moon landing, no?
Each in due time. Start with the Moon and Mars. Eventually we'll (personally) explore the whole galaxy...
...folowing by USSR was bad new for US space science.
Send a chinese in space, and all of a sudden, space is interesting.
Can americans be rulled without an official enemy ?
This doesn't have anything to do with China's manned space mission, does it? I mean, now that China's got a man up in space (albeit temporarily), the USA wants its domination of space back?
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
The moon is the next logical step for humanity. Why? Because its close, mainly. A permanant base on the moon will allow us to reach the rest of the solar system easier. There are tons of resoures that can be tapped on the moon, helium-3, for instance. Once we are on the moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, and the asteroid belt would seem like reasonable destinations for humanity. We are so rapidly using up our resources here on earth, that is no alternatives are found, we will be doomed. Sure the costs and teh risks are astronomical (no pun intended), but the rewards should surely outweigh any such cost. The trick will be finding someone to foot the bill in order to get started.
in-sig-nificant
Probably one of my favorite Astronomy Professors at the University of Arizona. He's never satisfied with the status quo. I know of other projects he's spearheaded, and he is always pushing the envelope of Astronomical Engineering.
Ideas like "faster" mirrors for sky surveys (and asteroid watching) - where the limitation is that the mirror would gather so much information at once, its too fast for modern computers to process, and modern busses to transport.
This is just one more example of ideas he's been dotting over.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
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
For anyone interested, this story's author, apsmith, also wrote a longer, more detailed version of this story entitled "Politicians Catch The Space Bug", available here. It's an excellent read.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
"The Case for Mars", which makes the arguement that we should ignore the moon and instead head on out to the fourth planet.
His arguements:
1) In terms of energy, it's easier to go to Mars from LEO than the moon. (Takes longer, though.)
2) Mars is a more interesting destination: because it has an atmosphere, a lot of engineering obstacles are solved because you can do all sorts of nifty engineering tricks to steal resources from the air.
3) The moon is dead, and has always been dead. Mars, on the other hand, perhaps even once supported life. With effort on our part, perhaps it could again.
Anyways, go to the Mars Direct site.
-Brett
After the final lunar landings in 1972, NASA and the nation were at a crossroads. We landed on the moon but this was partially to make sure the Russians did not do so first. With the "Great Society" in the works and Vietnam still raging, the space program was put on the back burner in favor or funding for social programs and military expenditures. Russia never went to the moon and it looks to be at least until 2010 before China might try, thus there was no political incentive to sacrifice pork projects or "social" programs in favor of expanded space projects.
Though the Space Shuttle was supposed to reduce space travel costs dramatically and allow for low-cost LEO (Low Earth Orbit) launches, the costs proved so much greater than expected that NASA spends most of its budget maintaining the aging fleet and is hard-pressed to spare the cash for developing new launch vehicles. It was thought that space stations launched via space shuttle would be used as waystations to revisit the moon, but as the shuttles cost so much to move around, that plan became bunk fairly quickly.
We must return to the moon. Its natural vacuum and near-constant illuminated surface allow for massive energy and chemical manufacturing. Deadly plagues and other research requiring isolation could be done easily on our moon with minimal fear of contaminating the earth should their projects go awry. Telescopes on the far side of the moon would give us a new view of the universe uninterrupted by light (and for SETI et. al not so many electronic signals interfereing). If nothing else, the He-3 and solar resources could eventually help reduce our dependence on limited fossil fuels to run our economy. Some of the readers remember the OPEC crisis and no one wants those conditions to return. Finally, the moon serves as a waypoint to exploration of Mars and the Asteroid Belt, both of which contain abundant resources that could satiate our world's demands for resources far beyond the lifetimes of anyone reading this.
I'd like to hear from people who do not want to go back to the moon. Most of the soical programs they advocate funding in place of space exploration have their own difficulties, but maybe there are other reasons they have which get little/no attention.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
We definitely need a moonbase. It's going to get very expensive if we keep on launching probes from Earth. Imagine how much fuel you're wasting just to get something up to escape velocity. If we build a moonbase, and use that as an assembly/construction point, then we can dedicate that much more money to better sensor arrays, cameras, etc.
Not to mention, a moonbase is better than a space station because a space station has to correct it's orbit every so often, there's so much garbage in the space close to Earth, etc. At least the moon is a stable platform where we can build stuff on. Hell, perhaps we can find a cave or something and build laboratories inside that. That way, even if a rogue object hits the moon, the labs will be relatively safe.
We can also build better telescopes. Imagine a telescope on the moon. A scope on Earth has to contend with the irregularities of the atmosphere, etc. But a moon telescope, forget it. Clear view all the way to Andromeda.
What happened to all the dreams back in the 1970's? Wasn't there all sorts of notions about how soon man was going to have massive bases on the moon, etc? Now fast forward to 2003, oops sorry, no go.
.....is well put at this website.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
What exists on the Moon that cannot be found or created at a price tag magnitudes lower on the Earth?
When we talk about going to the Moon, we're talking about Billions of dollars. That being said, I'm a _HUGE_ space and astronomy nut, but I do not see how going there will improve anything other than our nationalism. Perhaps it may help open the way for future cost effective space travel, BUT we are by no means anywhere near the point where we can justify the govt subsidizing such expenditures because the gains are VERY far away.
Yes, space gave us Tang and Velcro but putting Shuttles into orbit and people on the Moon have not cured _any_ diseases. I would *love* to see Americans on the Moon again and I'd even be willing to help front the bill, BUT the Country does not consider this important.
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.
Nope. That's the major difference between americans and sheeps:
- Sheeps need the leader;
- Americans need the leader AND the enemy.
If you don't like it then come to live in Europe - somehow they manage to live without an enemy AND without a leader too.Less is more !
When NASA was preparing for the Apollo Project, it took the astronauts to a Navajo reservation in Arizona for training. One day, a Navajo elder and his son came across the space crew walking among the rocks.
The elder, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question. His son translated for the NASA people: "What are these guys in the big suits doing?"
One of the astronauts said that they were practicing for a trip to the moon. When his son relayed this comment the Navajo elder got all excited and asked if it would be possible to give to the astronauts a message to deliver to the moon.
Recognizing a promotional opportunity when he saw one, a NASA official accompanying the astronauts said, "Why certainly!" and told an underling to get a tape recorder. The Navajo elder's comments into the microphone were brief. The NASA official asked the son if he would translate what his father had said. The son listened to the recording and laughed uproariously. But he refused to translate.
So the NASA people took the tape to a nearby Navajo village and played it for other members of the tribe. They too laughed long and loudly but also refused to translate the elder's message to the moon. Finally, an official government translator was summoned. After he finally stopped laughing the translator relayed the message: "Watch out for these assholes. They have come to steal your land."
include $sig;
1;
IMHO, throwing some money at nanotube research is a very good investment, considering the myriad applications. However, designing your entire space program around a technology that may never be possible seems overly risky.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
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)
Mars should be the ultimate destination for the next 15 years, but the moon should be a launchpad. Set up a small outpost on the moon and expand it from that point to a tiny village until it becomes the biggest extraterrestrial city in the solar system (that we know of). The resources of the moon are invaluable in our world's future, for its demanding energy requirements can easily be met by He-3 fusion and beamed solar electricity.
He-3 is worth $4 billion/ton and there are over a million tons of it. That's $4 quadrillion dollars (yes, quadrillion). Not to mention the lower cost of solar array deployment and relatively easy delivery.
Let's not forget that the number of graduates in the science and math areas DOUBLED during the 1960's because people were inspired to study hard and do something amazing with their lives. For the past thirty years we've been inspired by "ancient" technologies of Apollo, including computers with CPUs slower than that in my PDA.
I would argue that the space program is what made America the technological epicenter that it is today, and a return to the moon and Mars would only rejuvenate interest in the sciences. I know it worked for me, and hell I have to watch Apollo 13 every few months to remind myself!
Let's just see what the nation's reaction is when a new NASA direction is declared. Also, the American MER landers are arriving this January, and from what I learned in my interview with lead scientist Steve Squyres, it's going to be quite a show. Get ready for the next space race, and America ought to take the lead. Why? I think it's in our nation's collective blood. America is a nation of pioneers and was founded as one, and there's a whole lot of universe left to explore.
Furthermore, I want my damn Millenium Falcon!
I wonder who would own the moon in the case that scientist actually found a strong resource that would be invaluable here on Earth, or something along those lines. Every country that has a space program would head on up there and try to stake their claim at the moon, and even countries that didn't previously have a space program would probably develop one if there was a valuable resource on the moon to be gathered.
Which brings me back to my original question, who would own the moon?
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog