Slashdot Mirror
How NASA Will Bomb the Moon To Find Water
mattnyc99 writes "A few weeks ago we got first word of NASA's plan to crash a spacecraft into the moon next February. The new issue of Popular Mechanics has an in-depth look at the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite and its low-cost, lightning-fast mission prep — even if delays have pushed it to late February or early March. Quoting: 'Andrews had no budget for an expensive lander to seek water, and conditions in the eternally dark polar craters would kill rovers, with temperatures close to minus 300 F. Instead, Blue Ice and its partners at Northrop Grumman came up with a concept to bring the lunar floor out in the open.... Since engineering precision hardware would break the budget, the LCROSS team had to make existing components work together.'"
With each story about the new age of space exploration that appears on Slashdot, I get this underlying feeling that there is a sharp disconnect from reality at work. Reality is that we are on the edge of a massive change in energy use. A massive decrease in energy use. And space exploration will be one of the first government programs to be cut as a result.
It's not that space exploration by itself consumes a large amount of energy; it's that the vast network of support systems that space programs depend on will be starved for energy. Energy as in oil. Oil that is becoming expensive and will continue to get more so (and not in a linear fashion as we have been seeing). If the oil becomes difficult to get out of the ground, everything becomes massively expensive. Priorities will have to be set:cruel decisions will have to be made. And the space program will be the first to go. When food prices triple ,gasoline is rationed, stock prices tank, and house prices fall by half, people have to make choices on what they must buy with the money that they have. Space exploration is the lowest priority.
Space exploration only appears to be an essential component of the progress of mankind when there is plenty of food, peace, and an economy growing 3-6% a year. When these conditions disappear, so does the appeal of space travel.
Given this reality, NASA should concentrate only on projects that can be completed with useful results within a short time frame. Certainly no more than five to ten years total. That means no more fantasies about moon bases and Mars manned missions. If NASA commits itself to these hugely expensive but largely symbolic projects, they will most likely find themselves cut off from funding in the middle of the 20-30 year projects. With no lasting results to show for the expense.
Like the Soviet space program when the USSR collapsed. If the USA didn't bail them out with heavy subsidies, the Russian space program would be nothing more than an embarrassing memory now.
When the consequences of global warming, oil depletion, and overpopulation become fully manifest in the next ten to twenty years, NASA funding will disappear faster than the Hummer in the era of $5/gallon gasoline.