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.
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
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.
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.