Slashdot Mirror
Panel Recommends Space Science, Not Stunts
wisebabo writes "A panel reporting to President Obama is recommending that we skip landing on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to the L1 Earth-Moon point, then perhaps the L2 Earth-Sun point, then a Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). While in Mars orbit, the astronauts could send robotic probes to land on the surface, which could be much more effective than current rovers without the 10-minute time lag to Earth. I, for one, whole-heartedly agree that this approach would lead to 'the most steady cadence of steady improvement,' and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving Earth orbit for 40 years). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas — perhaps a rendezvous with a comet, or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter, assuming they figure out radiation shielding — to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best; robots on one-way trips down into a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit."
I hope so. This should have been done IMHO in 1973.
People who have gone to the Air and Space Museum in DC may remember the "Skylab" space station there, which was actual flight hardware. What they may not realize is that this space station, the third state of a Saturn V, was intended to support manned deep space flight, starting with a Venus flyby in 1973. The idea was that the Saturn V third stage would be launched fueled, would be used to send 3 astronauts towards Venus (thus emptying it of fuel), the astronauts would then take up residence inside and the weight taken by the "LEM" in Lunar flight would have been used for food and other provisions. It would have been risky, but it could have been done.
I also remember discussions at about the same time about going to some of the Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) - even then, some were energetically easier to reach and return from than the Moon. Again, there is no need for a LEM (Astronauts could just space walk over in the weak gravity of any NEA), and the LEM's mass would have been used for provisions. All of this could have been done, if the USA hadn't have turned its back on space exploration 40 years ago.
The moon is a dead end - tackling deep space is the real future!
And what are you going to do once you get there? Come back and proclaim it's a dead end?
I want a house on the Moon to visit for the weekend.
we need a good reason to show why it is important for the economy and/or national security to have human presence in space, if humans in space became fundamental to one of those areas we are half way to conquering space, the other half (most difficult part) being having a compelling reason to travel to other star systems and built self sustaining stations elsewhere than earth orbit and surviving long enough as a civilization to achieve those goals
see the situation with the satellites now, they are fundamental for the economy and national security, if due to space debris a multi billion cleaning operation is required, the arguments in the congress will be about the cheapest or safest or more efficient way to do it, newer about the need to do it
Actually the public were very keen on the Mars Rovers, even people who don't normally take any interest in science. That's because they were achieving something interesting. I can't think of anything from the ISS that has really been that interesting.
It's the pointless "Let's spend billions sending people up a few miles to circle the earth in a dangerous tin can for a few weeks" stuff that people don't give a shit about. A lot of stuff that the astronauts on the ISS do seems to be research into "why do things keep breaking and why do we keep getting sick?". Not really the sort of thing that gets people fired up.
actually according to the math laid out in an essay in "A Step Farther Out" (ISBN-10: 0441785832, ISBN-13: 978-0441785834) once you get to orbit it just expensive, rather then ridiculously expensive to go anywhere else from there.
basically roughly half the cost to go anywhere is just getting to orbit.
too bad i'm ac and this might not be seen.
Earth-Moon L1 has a significantly different view than LEO space station. It's about 2/3 the way to the Moon, you can see the full face of the Earth and always have a waxing/waning moon in the other direction. In LEO you have the Earth covering about 180 degrees of the view at all times, saturating visibility (but providing warmth and some shielding).
While a Mars flyby might not seem exciting, Mars orbit, Phobos and Deimos would provide huge photo-ops along with science. Additionally Mars' moons have the entire history of Mars available in the form of rocks blasted off the surface. We can do Mars science, including sample collection and return, without ever going to the surface. Personally I'm all for landings, but orbiting can be done sooner and with great results.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Footprints on the moon isn't a photo op.
It's a pathway.
Not to mention the moon has plenty of Helium 3, which would make it worthwhile to set up as a mining colony. You could then add robotic miners for asteroids which the moon facility could process and possibly make the moon base self sustaining and maybe even profitable. This would also allow us to test the feasibility of setting up similar operations farther out in our solar system.
If we are gonna be spending money on space, why not find a way to help augment our dwindling resources here on earth while learning more about our place in the universe? It seems like a win/win to me. I'm sure science could learn a lot from core samples retrieved by the robot miners, With a base on the moon you could set up a nice lunar observatory, possibly manufacturing the required materials on site, there are many ways in which a moon base could help us learn much about the solar system and beyond while sustaining itself and providing earth with valuable resources.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Well, a lot can be said for sending a steady stream of supplies to the surface of Mars in preparation of a landing.
It'd be simpler and probably safer to send stuff in small clusters. That way if something goes wrong you haven't put all your eggs in one basket. You'd have to space out your delivery sites so you don't crush everything by something smashing into it, including your own stuff.
Expensive, sure. But you'd learn a lot, merely in terms of the number of launches needed.
Not to mention the moon has plenty of Helium 3, which would make it worthwhile to set up as a mining colony.
Helium three has no known use, with the exception of the trivial amount used in low-temperature science.
While, in principle, the fusion reaction D+3He --> 4He+p would be a nice reaction, in practice the ignition barrier to this reaction is twice as high as the ignition barrier to the D+T --> 4He+n reaction... a reaction that we can't achieve breakeven for. There's little use in going to the moon to get the fuel for a reaction that we don't know how to do.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes, but you can use efficient, low power engines rather than big heavy rockets.
No, you can't. The van Allen belts are a nasty region of space. Big heavy inefficient rockets will power past them in a matter of hours. Efficient, low power engines take weeks to build up enough energy to rise above them. Anything weight savings you may get from the fuel would just be consumed by the radiation shielding around the crew cabin and life support systems.
The whole reason we should go to the moon is to build a launch facility, to facilitate these deep space missions.
sending robots (and researching more advanced robots) is way more cost-effective for now. So why not stick to that for the time being and forget about sending creatures that are so obviously unsuited for life on other planets into space?
Because if we follow your logic, we will NEVER develop the technology for sending people to other planets. Saying "we don't currently have the technology, so let's focus on doing other stuff and revisit this in a few centuries when we magically have the technology without ever having worked to achieve it" is ludicrous. We have to start somewhere, and somewhen, and take the baby steps necessary to get to that magical future of human exploration. I think that this plan and now are as good a starting point as any - there are almost certainly better but this likely has the best chance of gaining critical support. It certainly beats shelving manned exploration indefinitely.
If I had my druthers, there'd be more emphasis on sustainable environmental systems (waste recycling, food production, etc) to allow long term human habitation in the void of space or on the moon with minimal shipments of resources. With such technologies sufficiently advanced, we can build a large moon base that could then be used to cheaply build and launch robotic probes. With this base, it could bring into reach a space base at L1 (or anywhere else in Earth orbit) to take advantage of various gravity strengths, etc. From these two bases, harvesting asteroids and comets for raw materials becomes feasible, as does longer term human space travel (trips to Mars and the outer planets) by utilizing the environmental systems developed for the bases and the low gravity construction and launch facilities. Where we go from there depends on our needs at the time, but the foundation I believe should be built now and I believe that it relies heavily on such environmental sustainability systems.
I also think that dozens of small, mostly stationary, probes scattered throughout the solar system that can be used in concert would be an excellent use of resources. They would provide views of our solar system that are typically obstructed here on Earth and in Earth's orbit, and they could be combined using technology similar to radio telescope arrays here on Earth (http://www.vla.nrao.edu/) to provide a truly LARGE virtual telescope for viewing extra-solar objects. They could also later serve as repeaters for intra-solar communications. Of course, launch costs might be high, relegating this to a "post-moonbase" timeline.
Oh, was that my outside voice?