Slashdot Mirror
Apollo Veteran: Skip Asteroid, Go To the Moon
astroengine writes "It's 40 years to the day that the final mission to the moon launched. Discovery News speaks with Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison 'Jack' Schmitt about where he thinks the Earth's only satellite came from and why he thinks a NASA manned asteroid mission is a mistake. 'I think an asteroid is a diversion,' said Schmitt. 'If the ultimate goal is to get to Mars, you have a satellite only three days away that has a great deal of science as well as resources. The science of the moon has just been scratched. We've hardly explored the moon.'"
The National Research Council came out with a report a few days ago which found that the inability for the U.S. to find a consensus on where to go is damaging its ability to get there. Bill Nye spoke about the issue, saying, "I believe, as a country, we want to move NASA from [being] an engineering organization to a science organization, and this is going to take years, decades. Now, through investment, we have companies emerging that are exploring space on their own and will ultimately lower the cost of access to low-Earth orbit, which will free up NASA to go to these new and exciting places."
"Alice, yer not going to an asteroid, but to the Moon!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
out of the defense budget, and go do both. The US is already the dominate military power on the planet, bar none, so I am sure they could trim the military budget by a tiny percentage without anyone who doesn't wear a brass hat noticing. Whats the saying? "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon your talking real money?"
Its nice to think that private enterprise will provide the means to get there (for whatever values of "there") but although its happening, its not happening overnight. NASA needs to continue doing it all themselves until business is established in orbit - otherwise we waste a few decades waiting for it. As well, think of all the scientific discoveries we might make during this moon mission series. The last one turned out pretty well didn't it?
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
is that all the Nazi scientists we hired to work at NASA have died off, hence no more innovation or progress.
We didn't go to the moon, and we never killed Bin Laden. Ye are fools!
I'm not sure there's any difficulties finding that consensus: People tell me where to go all the time!
I am officially gone from
The ugly reality is that our society has shifted toward one focused on inward spending and care, not outward focus and exploration. This was inevitable with the radical demographics change that has happened in the last 15 years as the Baby Boomers, who are something like 1:1.5 with Generation X and Millennial put together got to the point where they need to start retiring. Aging societies become inward focused, with the focus being on domestic spending, not "young activities" like exploring new frontiers at tax payers expenses.
An elderly relative of mine was complaining about the cost overruns on the F35, and I pointed out to them that the whole federal R&D budget across all departments was likely less than the $112B in Medicare fraud that the OIG for Medicare uncovered about six months to a year ago. Many of those overruns aren't even "fraud" but rather are caused by things like different government "stakeholders" coming in at the 11th hour to add new requirements on projects (IIRC, the F35 was almost done, and the USMC nearly killed it by demanding that they get their VTOL piece come hell or high water even though it was ready for NATO naval forces).
It was disheartening for them to hear the plain and simple truth: we are an aging society that is cannibalizing its stored wealth to lavish retirement and health care benefits on the older citizens. It is absolutely true that we don't have money anymore for foreign wars and big military adventures. It's also true that at present budget projections we won't have a budget for NASA, the NSF, federal law enforcement, the US highway system, education subsidies and anything else that doesn't revolve around pure entitlement spending for the massive waves of retirees hitting and about to hit the system.
I know I'm going to get -1 troll, but lets be honest here:
If NASA is about science, we need to leave the men on Earth. The science in NASA comes from the satellites in orbit, the probes through space, and the robotic landers. All the manned space flight does these days is suck up huge amounts of money, kill people, and produce scientific results that could either have been done by robots much more cheaply or are predicated on answering questions related to "what happens if you stick people in a 0-G environment for a long time..."
What could we learn about an asteroid from sending a person there that we wouldn't learn from sending a modern robot there? What could we learn from the moon or mars today that we couldn't learn from a robot?
For now, we should leave the manned space flight for rich tourists, and instead continue to develop our launchers and our robots.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Wow, Godwin's law in only 9 minutes!
Oh, no,no,no. It would have been a Godwin if he said that "Going to the Moon is what Hitler would have done." or "NASA acts like a bunch of Nazis."
But by making an implicit Ad Hominem attack on the GP, you are acting just like Goebbels.
I know for a fact we killed Bin Laden on the moon.
Tip of the day:
Stop people modding you down by starting your message with "I know I'm going to get -1 troll, but..."
Sent from my Tianhe-2 (MilkyWay-2).
"the upper horn [of the moon] split in two." ... "From the midpoint of the division a flaming torch sprang up, spewing out, over a considerable distance, fire, hot coals and sparks. Meanwhile the body of the Moon which was below writhed, as it were in anxiety, and to put it in the words of those who reported it to me and saw it with their own eyes, the Moon throbbed like a wounded snake. Afterwards it resumed its proper state. This phenomenon was repeated a dozen times or more, the flame assuming various twisting shapes at random and then returning to normal. Then, after these transformations, the Moon from horn to horn, that is along its whole length, took on a blackish appearance"
- Shortly after sunset on June 18, 1178, (25 June on the proleptic Gregorian calendar)
(The Cosmic Winter, Clube and Napier. Blackwell Publishing, First Edition (May 1990))
An elderly relative of mine was complaining about the cost overruns on the F35, and I pointed out to them that the whole federal R&D budget across all departments was likely less than the $112B in Medicare fraud that the OIG for Medicare uncovered about six months to a year ago.
Likely less than the $112 Billion in Medicare fraud? Could you cite sources for this and also sources for the OIG Medicare fraud?
What could we learn about an asteroid from sending a person there that we wouldn't learn from sending a modern robot there? What could we learn from the moon or mars today that we couldn't learn from a robot?
Quite a lot actually. Now, part of that is simply the reality that a manned mission is going to be orders of magnitude larger and more complex, just by definition.
For instance, sample return is basically built into a manned mission. If you add a sample return objective to a robotic mission the cost numbers are suddenly much closer (still not close exactly, but closer). The rate of exploration is also much, much higher for a manned mission. The Mars rovers, for example, were designed to move just 600 meters over their lifespan. They've obviously exceeded that, Opportunity has driven 20km so far after all. Apollo 17, on the other hand, covered that distance in a matter of days. A prolonged human presence would allow us to explore a larger area in much more detail than would otherwise be possible. Not to mention the possibility of bringing a real chemistry lab along for the rid (as opposed to the 'lab on a single camera' setups that robotic missions use).
Yes, a lot of those advantages would disappear if you spent the same on a robotic mission as you did on a manned one. But you also have to remember the human factor. Humans can perform repairs, investigate problems, spot things in the terrain, cover more ground, look at things from different angles (in a matter of seconds), etc, etc. Designing a robot that can do everything that a human can do as well as a human can do it, even ignoring the light speed communication issues, would probably be more expensive than just sending the human in the first place.
An elderly relative of mine was complaining about the cost overruns on the F35, and I pointed out to them that the whole federal R&D budget across all departments was likely less than the $112B in Medicare fraud that the OIG for Medicare uncovered about six months to a year ago.
This is a lie. Here is the OIG report and the years that they listed were from 2001 - 2010:
According to a study recently released by Office of the Inspector General (OIG), between 2001 and 2010, Medicare payments for Part B goods and services increased by 43 percent, from $77 billion to $110 billion. During this same time, Medicare payments for evaluation and management (E/M) services increased by 48 percent, from $22.7 billion to $33.5 billion. E/M services have been vulnerable to fraud and abuse. In 2009, two health care entities paid over $10 million to settle allegations that they fraudulently billed Medicare for E/M services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) also found that certain types of E/M services had the most improper payments of all Medicare Part B service types in 2008. The OIG report is the first in a series of evaluations of E/M services.
$110 - $77 = $33 million and that's the delta surely not all of that was fraud and some was natural growth and baby boomer retiring? Can you cite your sources before spouting off such staggeringly wrong figures?
forget going back to the moon as the purpose of NASA is to drive the development and use of new technology, which means the asteroid is the better choice. Heck it even gets us a foothold in space as the best way to build the vessel for that mission is in LEO (low earth orbit). Expand the god damn ISS into a proper space station folks and lets get working.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Skip Asteroid, Go To the Moon
Do not pass the LaGrange point, do not collect $2bn.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Just gear up and go to Mars, better yet concentrate and figuring out how to build the Fastest damn spaceship possible, something that can reach .5 the speed of light or faster, load some people on board for a one way trip and aim it at a nearby star. Lets stop wasting time looking at blurry pictures through telescopes and just get out there and see what we find.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
In fact, why are we sending a clone of Curiosity to Mars, when we could send it to the Moon instead? About all that would be required is an extra retro rocket (to replace the parachute, not the skycrane), and preferably some different instruments. (Atmosphere samplers not required.)
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Quite a lot actually. Now, part of that is simply the reality that a manned mission is going to be orders of magnitude larger and more complex
You answered the question that was asked, but not the question that should have been asked: Which brings more benefit per dollar spent . The robots are the clear winners. We may learn twice as much from a manned mission that costs ten times a robotic mission, but for that price we could launch ten robotic missions.
Another standard defense of manned spaceflight is that it keeps the public engaged. But I think the opposite is true. Every Friday I help out at my son's elementary school, and sometimes we talk about space. The kids are way more interested in Curiosity and New Horizons than they are about the ISS. If you ask these kids if they would rather see yet another manned mission to the Moon, or a robotic submarine in the oceans of Europa, I have little doubt which would win.
What could we learn about an asteroid from sending a person there that we wouldn't learn from sending a modern robot there?
We would learn how to send men there. Robots don't need life support, closed- or nearly-closed biospheres, or velcro. It's a lot harder to do, so we would learn a lot more doing it than simply the science goals of the mission.
These things are capital-H Hard, and if we ever want to know if we can - for instance - colonise another world, or travel to a distant star, we're going to have to work them out sooner or later. There will always be more urgent priorities at home, right up until the point that it's too late to do anything... "now" is always the best time to start.
Let's put a data center on the moon and get the whole world in on the project much as with the international space station.
also thinks climate change is not only a fraud, but a Soviet communist plot. No really. Just because he walked on the Moon doesn't make him a SPACE GENIUS. (tm)
The inevitable cost overruns of any human mission to Mars would pare down its science objectives to those now found on the ISS: attempt to do little more than keep the people on the mission alive. The main things such a mission would achieve would be to plant a flag, take postcard-worthy snapshots, and impede future science by contaminating Mars with a fecal microbes.
Most likely the other main benefit would be the gripping drama of the astronauts trying to avert disaster caused by one or more technical failures. It would be a government stimulus: Hollywood could make millions on an Apollo 13 sequel.
Automatic self-driving vehicle technology is currently advancing at an impressive rate. I'd bet a good amount of money that it we could have a robot on mars that drives as fast as the lunar rovers sooner and cheaper than a successful manned mission.
Of course, Curiousity is actually doing something other than just moving in a circle around the Earth.
Would the kids be more interested in Curiousity than they would be in six men on Mars?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
WTF Slashdot, he has no evidence of $112 Billion in Medicare fraud. None. And you mod him up? FFS I like how it was an "elderly relative" of his that he told off ... lol what horseshit this site has become.
The defense contractors were the ones who built apollo.
The defense contractor giants (military-industrial complex) certainly are the ones with the technical know-how and R&D plus production resources to build the ships, no argument there... but they have a repeatedly proven track record of doing things the most expensive ways possibly, in order to stuff their own pockets the fullest they can, while doing such projects.
I really think we should have a dual focus, neither of which involves Mars:
1. Permanent manned presence on the moon. It's ridiculous that we went there, poked around a little bit, and now we have folks saying we should basically forget about it and send manned missions to Mars? Huh? What a crazy waste of an opportunity to test out long-term space solutions nearby, where we can monitor things closely and have round-trip human travel.
2. Robotic exploration and mining of asteroids. It's silly to expect that every visit to every place in our solar system will have to involve people at all times. Asteroid mining may not be a way to get rich quick, but it's a big goal and realistic task that will further advance practical space exploration and travel.
Long-term, both of these tasks have to be privatized, just as airplane flight started primarily as government/military and became commercial. Once we've worked on long-term human habitation beyond earth orbit, and once we've been able to have industrial-scale machinery operating in conditions far from earth, then it would make sense to leave the moon and asteroids to companies and move on to Mars.
I think a lot of the Mars-or-bust folks took away the completely wrong lesson from the moon missions. The moon missions were one of the most inspirational things mankind has ever done, true. But we only half did it. I can't believe anyone alive at the time didn't believe that within 40 years, we'd have a permanent presence on the moon. That idea had been floating around for a century before the moon missions, and was foremost in most of our thinking.
But then, after poking around a bit and doing all kinds of circus tricks (drive a golfball, speed around in a vehicle, etc), we abandoned the moon and set our sights somewhere else. The resulting drop in achievements and public inspiration (including the desire for funding and the desire to enter science careers) is NOT because we didn't have humans going somewhere humans have never been before, risking their lives, it is because we didn't even try to achieve the expected and exciting goal of a permanent presence. We can't look up at the moon and know that people are living and working there.
The problem with low-cost, low-benefit science is decreasing returns. After a while, you've basically learned all you can without sending a manned mission.
Just look at Mars. Sojourner brought back a lot of data. Spirit and Opportunity sent back even more, but were also more expensive. Curiosity is sending back yet more, but at yet higher costs (the wheels on Curiosity are about the size of the entire Sojourner rover). Pretty soon we'll reach the point where sending people will be *cheaper* than sending a rover with similar capabilities. Arguably, we've reached it now.
PS: As a member of the "younger" generation, I can assure you that we would like plenty more manned missions. We just don't like things that have been done before. If you rephrase the question as "permanent moon base, or robotic submarine on Europa", we'd pretty much all pick the base.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/gil-scott-herons-poem-whitey-on-the-moon/239622/
Would the kids be more interested in Curiousity than they would be in six men on Mars?
Wrong question. Better question: Would the kids be more interested in six men on Mars, or dozens of robotic missions to all corners of the Solar System that we could afford for the same money.
For different reasons- one wants to shrink government, the other focus on social problems. Unfortunately since both agree on the result, there will be continuing pressure to shrink.
Yes, a lot of those advantages would disappear if you spent the same on a robotic mission as you did on a manned one. But you also have to remember the human factor. Humans can perform repairs, investigate problems, spot things in the terrain, cover more ground, look at things from different angles (in a matter of seconds), etc, etc. Designing a robot that can do everything that a human can do as well as a human can do it, even ignoring the light speed communication issues, would probably be more expensive than just sending the human in the first place.
That's assuming the public allows such a robot to be deployed too. I think purely autonomous space missions are going to be among the first victims of a genuine AI scare. At least on Earth, one can unplug the computer or heat it to the point it ceases to function. When it's on Mars, there's no such controls. And that's going to be scary.
They're more interested in Curiosity because Curiosity is on Mars. I can't speak for your kids, but I think I'd be a lot more psyched about *anything* we send to Mars over a bunch of guys in a tube in Earth orbit.
That said, I would be ten times more psyched to have men on Mars than rovers. If we had the money and the know-how to put men on Mars and we decided to put rovers instead, it would be very disappointing. Rovers are a great idea for recon and doing the necessary science, but I'd prefer to do more with Mars than use it as a really expensive geology lab.
"Better question: Would the kids be more interested in six men on Mars, or dozens of robotic missions to all corners of the Solar System that we could afford for the same money."
There's absolutely no question they would be more interested in six men on Mars. If not for the Science, it would basically be an amazing reality show, with real, proper heroes on a desolate and hostile planet, millions of miles from home. If done right, NASA would have several hundreds of millions (if not over a billion) of people across the globe tuning in to find out how their heroes were doing. I wouldn't be surprised if the total revenue (advertisement, DVD/Blueray sales, merchandising) went a long way towards actually paying for the mission.
Nobody is going to do that for a robotic rover.
If the end goal is to drive rovers around on Mars and never actually, you know, go there, then they can feel free to shut down the Mars program, because I honestly don't give a shit if there is life elsewhere in the universe if I am never going to meet it.
I think you've got your timeline of aviation backwards. It started as tinkerers in the back of their (private) bicycle shop, was pioneered by (private) individuals flying (private) planes in long-distance challenges to win (private) prize money. Now the two main builders of civilian aircraft are a huge conglomerate dependent on government contracts (Boeing) and an outright government-sponsored industry (Airbus).
0 1 - just my two bits
belters vs loonies
FIGHT!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If the end goal is to drive rovers around on Mars and never actually, you know, go there, then they can feel free to shut down the Mars program, because I honestly don't give a shit if there is life elsewhere in the universe if I am never going to meet it.
I've got a clue for you: With 99.999999% probability, you aren't ever going to another planet, whether NASA pays for a manned program or not.
They got a lot of nice girls there. AH!
And maybe a gambling house at L2. That should keep Bender busy. Just keep the stupids away from the flare guns.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
it would basically be an amazing reality show, with real, proper heroes
People said the same thing about the ISS. Sure people will tune in for the landing, but by the third day of watching rocks being analyzed, they will tune out. Everyone watched the Apollo 11 landing, but there was little interest in latter missions (except for 13, but only after it looked like they were going to die).
I wouldn't be surprised if the total revenue (advertisement, DVD/Blueray sales, merchandising) went a long way towards actually paying for the mission.
You need to get a grip on the costs involved. A one-way manned "go-to-Mars" mission (which the USA has ruled out) would cost more than $200B. A "go-and-return" mission would cost more than a trillion. Star Wars was the most profitable franchise in Hollywood history, and it has brought in less than 3% of that amount. This is leaving aside the question of whether we want the government copyrighting, trademarking and DRMing everything to do with space exploration.
Nobody is going to do that for a robotic rover.
Ask a kid about Curiosity, and you will usually get a meaningful answer. Tell the same kid that there are three people in space, and then ask him to name one of them. You will get a shrug.
"Some would say that the earth is OUR moon but that would belittle the name of the moon, which is, the Moon" - ignignokt. long live the moon.
What we learn about the moon was the question.
You've decided that complexity of the mission and the distance traveled by the manned vehicle determine the amount of scientific knowledge (about the moon) that will be gleaned. There's nothing in your argument that holds up under scrutiny, unless you are silently advocating for developing systems that might allow rapid colonization and/or industrialization.
I'm *not* in favor of colonization or industrialization of the moon. If *industry* wants to go there, so be it. NASA's only advantage in putting men in space-jammies on the moon would be to ensure they are developing the tools necessary for militarizing an installation there, and if you think Iraq was a boondoggle, then you ain't seen nothing yet.
We've already proven (think Biosphere II) that we don't understand living systems enough to build a self-sufficient, off-planet colony. And the expense of logistically supporting a lunar lab would be multiples of the cost incurred for the International Space Station (which is part of the reason it's international). The opportunity cost of redirecting funds towards manned exploration of the moon, from managing the more immediate needs of people here on earth would seem to dictate a more long-term, unmanned approach to such off-planet exploration.
The complexity is no less, the development of the automated systems no less valuable (here on earth) and the reduced risk/reward no less important to NASA.
I'd have to call this for ShanghaiBill, people care about new findings, not yet another dude somewhere where a dude was before. Sure, first dudes on Mars will be exiting, but that won't keep people interested, a steady trickle of new findings from a ton of high-return non-manned missions will do better.
Low benefit is bullshit. They are higher bang per buck, get over your man-fetish.
If you think those problems are worth solving, start solving them. Don't involve even more spending by requiring they be solved on Mars. ISS was said to solve problems related to living is space, just how much return have we gotten on that. Fuck, solve the radiation problem if you are going to bitch about how it will solve problems, currently we just can't effectively do it. I'm all for improving the engineering, but it won't be improved by wishing for a Mars mission or idolizing such, it will be solved by attacking those problems. You're like the people who claim that war is neccesery for rapid advancement, except you propose to start wars for the purpose.
....of AND!
Why is it an either/or? Theres a lot of people and a lot of space to expand into. Asteroid mining means collecting resources, already in space. In the short term, it will take a lot of resources to grab and start, but long term, every ton of iron prepared and used in space, is a ton of iron that doesn't have to be lifted out of our gravity well to get out there.
Clearly, the moon, as a huge satelite that already exists....hell yes. Lets get a colony up there already.
I always find it amusing all this talk of how no nation will own the moon, as if, once space colonies become self-sufficient they are not going to want to self-govern. Populations expand, and as soon as its possible to do so, there will be people lining up to ship out and start spreading their seed.
As it stands, we are sitting at the table with our entire bankroll. As a species, we are one bad beat away from total extinction until there is at least one self-sufficient colony. Not that any of us could really call that our problem...at least not personally.
Would be a nice one to feel we are on track to solving though, would like to think we can finally one-up the cockroach on survivability.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
NASA's problem is an internal identity crisis. When NASA was developed, whether it was obvious or not it had a purpose: develop weapons and military capability. NASA developed rockets that could put objects in space. While it could be used for sensors, or space stations, or whatever, those rockets could also be used for ICBMs and to launch spy satellites. It developed the Space Shuttle. While the Space Shuttle was a remarkable scientific achievement, it's purpose was to reduce the cost and increase the frequency of putting objects in space, again spy satellites. This is simply a product of the world; the entire global system during NASA's heydey was defined by the Cold War. While they did science in conjunction with that, it was rarely science for science's sake.
Now the Cold War is over, and the global system has changed. While for the most part it'sstill trying to define itself, the past two decades the world has mostly been defined by globalization and international integration. The world right now is mostly defined under the USA-China-European trading system. In essence, the world has moved from a military definition to an economic one. NASA should define it's mission in that sense.
The folks at NASA are unfortunately idealists, not realists, and sadly I see a lot of that on Slashdot. The truth is that Slashdot and NASA are not a represntative cross segment of the American populace, but it is the American populace through the government that provides it with funding. NASA folks want to conduct science for science's sake, but the providers of their funding don't really care about that, hence NASA's continuous budget woes. So it needs to center it's mission on what the American populace wants, and right now the populace is focused on economic matters; how they can improve their livelihood with new technologies and ideas. If NASA wants better funding, what it should be doing is finding a way to commercialize the moon. If NASA found a way to use the moon to transmit communication signals more efficiently than satellites, or generate power, or provide some other new form of technology that improves the lives of people or adds to the economy in some way, you'd see a fully functional moonbase in 5-10 years. And with a functional moonbase, that was able to fund itself through some economic benefit to the world, NASA would be able to launch hundreds of probes at asteroids, or place 1,000 hubble telescopes all over the moon taking pictures, or god knows what science could be achieved. But first it must redefine itself in the context of what the world is today.
I would be ten times more psyched to have men on Mars than rovers.
Then your enthusiasm is too low by a factor of forty. The Curiosity mission cost $2.6B. A manned go-and-return mission to Mars would cost over a trillion. That is 400 times more expensive.
Don't we all love to assign misspent money to our favourite cause? And they worked so damn hard for their misbegotten windfall. Suck it up DoD. We going to space. Cry babies.
A mall cop by any other name is still a mall cop, and the credibility gap endures.
It strikes me that space exploration is not the highest priority when your home planet has a burgeoning fever unless you're the sort of person pathologically averse to hanging around and nursing the sick.
Another decade or five and we'll know for certain whether the flowers are blooming in Houston. Space will still be there, waiting for us, I suspect.
There is a huge difference between 99.999999% and 100% as the first represents an effort to succeed, even if unlikely, and the latter represents someone not even bothering to try. I understand that we're not there yet, and may not be for decades, but the last thing I want is someone deciding the whole program is going to be about no more than driving some very expensive RC cars on Mars.
NASA is about science, but it's also there to put people on other worlds and to bring them back again. All of the science being done is great, but it loses a lot of it's appeal if you're studying things that you will never even experience because you have no chance of coming across them ever. Science is the means, not the end.
Getting people there is hard, dangerous, and it is expensive, just like almost anything else out there that makes living really worth the effort. If you have no adventure, you have nothing. I'm happy to tolerate lasers zapping some nondescript rocks on another planet if I feel that one day someone is going to be holding one of them in their hands, rather than them just being cataloged and referenced in a paper about Mars geologic or climate pattern theories which no one is ever going to experience.
...somewhere different. Plus, an asteroid gives us practice for visiting Phobos or Deimos.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm in agreement.
The one thing that baffled me about Obama's decision from the Augustine Commission was..
(1) They cancelled the Constellation program, because the Bush Administration and Congress didn't properly fund it enough, in order to meet its ambitious objectives.
Ok, fine. That's true. Bush and the Republican Congress launched 2 wars, spent a ton of money on Medicare, and cut taxes for the super wealthy. And they didn't raise any tax revenue, so the country put all this on the high-interest Amex credit card, with no preset-spending-limit.
(2) But then, Obama announces an Asteroid mission by 2020 and a near-Mars-vicinity mission by 2030.
So.. let me get this straight.
If it was so expensive to establish a Lunar Research Station, then, why didn't they just scale back its scope? If a moon mission is so expensive, then isn't an asteroid and Mars-vicinity mission even more expensive?
The missions to asteroids are important, as those space rocks are smaller, and the gravity isn't as great as the moon. So the local asteroid resources should be more easily extractable, perhaps. But, you have to deal with not having gravity to perform mining operations. So it sounds rather complex with current technology, and especially with the current lack of funding from Congress. Especially considering how rich people don't want to pay any taxes, and corporations hide their money in the Cayman Islands.
And as for a manned mission to near-Mars-vicinity, what exactly does that mean? That sounds like just sending a rocket to orbit Mars, and come back home. Or is it to get to Phobos, the Mars moon. Either way, unless you're gonna land humans on Mars, then just sending humans to orbit the planet is just stupid. We can send robots there for much cheaper, and have it do all the ground science for us.
So, if establishing a Lunar Research Station is expensive, then I'm sure sending humans to land on Mars is going to be a lot more expensive!
Or are we planning on performing another stupid Apollo-like-stunt such as sending humans to Mars for a few years, just to say that we did it; and then cancel the program after spending a ton of money. Then that's just stupid, and a waste of precious money. That money could have gone to establishing a Lunar Research Station instead, and to develop the infrastructure on the Moon, and get the costs of getting into space down.
NASA is about science, but it's also there to put people on other worlds and to bring them back again.
Says who?
For all you people who want to spend 10X the money on space exploration to get fewer scientific results because you insist on including a dog-and-pony show, I think NASA should sell pay-per-view tickets. If they get enough money to fund your stunt that way, then great. But don't make the taxpayers fund this Hollywood-style entertainment.
The asteroid mission is incredibly important as a proof of concept for a future mission to divert an earth impact asteroid.
I hate to break it to you, but if you told people that NASA never had any intention of putting a man anywhere else ever, you'd see the NASA budget evaporate much more quickly than it has already.
You know why that they originally got all that money? Pride and competition and getting people other places. People got bored with Apollo because they started landing on the Moon all the time. So what was the answer? Not go to Mars or an asteroid or something, but to stop Apollo. See what has happened to the space budget since then.
Science is great and all, but frankly, there is science right here on Earth that is going to be more useful to spend that relatively small amount of money on. In my case, I have no interest in NASA being "efficient" if that means stunting the goals we are reaching for.
Billions for worthy goals, but not one more cent for "science lab in space" mediocrity.
Sending people to stand next to flags on other planets is not a "worth goal". Sorry.
Sending people to stand next to flags is not a worthy goal. Agreed. And the fact that it is all they did on the Moon is disappointing.
Finding out that life existed on Mars is just as pointless. A great achievement, to be certain, but there's not really very far to go from there.
Now, sending people to stand next to flags after they have completed a habitat on that planet is a very worthy goal, because unless you want all your science to perish with the last people left alive and stranded on Earth when the end comes, you're going to want to get the hell off of the planet. Mars may not be far enough, but it's certainly the next step, unless you want to create artificial stations at a Lagrange point or something.
The problem is that the Moon has only two reasonable uses at this time:
1. A stepping stone to further exploration. Getting to the moon is a pain, but once you are there, you can construct facilities, shipyards and and use its resources and you don't have the gravity well issues you do with Earth. This is probably the best reason I can think of to not bypass the moon immediately. If you want a permanent space presence, you really want to build up the Moon as a convenient anchor for space infrastructure.
2. A military station. The Moon is the high ground. You put facilities on the Moon and with a little push from a launch rail, moon rocks become atom bombs courtesy of the force of gravity.
Colonization is not really going to be particularly great on the Moon. You have the same radiation issues you'd have in outer space unless you put all your colonies underground (which is possible, but not exactly pleasant for a permanent settlement).
It doesn't really matter anyway. Vague "mission plans" that reach 20 years into the future are just elaborate ways of saying that you don't really want to go anywhere.
Thanks! I have turned my my enthusiasm up to 400.
Seriously, I'm already a little annoyed that people think it's good enough to put a rover on Mars. I think it's awesome, but it's definitely not good enough. I was mostly enthusiastic about it because it demonstrated new ways to get bigger objects on Mars, as well as more effective exploration.
It is definitely worth a trillion dollars to put people on Mars, as long as they maintain that momentum. If you can put people on Mars, you're probably a good deal of the way towards being ready to set up a permanent infrastructure in space. Once that happens, you start getting access to space-based resources, and you can do all that science you really want to do even more effectively than you can now.
A manned program is in no way going to hurt a science program, and by developing these sorts of large scale technologies, you will get even more out of derivative robotic programs.
After their executions within the Pentagon central courtyard, abandon plans for Asteroid, Moon and Mars missions. Direct money, personnel and resources to a Titan return sample mission.
The ethylene and Kerosene can be sold to Exxon/Mobil after return for a very nice profit.
The problem is that the neo-cons have attempted to override him and are pushing NASA into being a jobs bill. O wants to get private space going. Once going, NASA will work with them, while getting us to asteroids and then mars. But does that mean that the moon is dead? Nope. It is INTENDED that private space will go to the moon.
So, why do I bring up the neo-cons? Because they want to waste money on Constellation, and now on the SLS., all while working hard to kill off private space. Throwing money at the SLS is a horrible waste. Instead, NASA wants to use that money for private space stations, tugs, and of course, a small space station on the far side of the moon. Now that sounds like a lot, HOWEVER, once we have the tug, fuel depot, and private space stations, then putting cargo and ppl on the moon is fairly trivial. And that is what NASA wants private space to do.
Sadly, Schmidt and his buddies are tied into the old space companies and they want NASA to send them LOADS of money (read profits) while doing what neo-cons want to do.
The good news is that when Falcon Heavy flies in 201[34], then it will be easy to kill off the SLS. Until then, it will be a pain.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And if you're hurting for funding, just vote someone out the airlock. You sir are a genius!
Life is not for the lazy.
The Apollo program and even the ISS provide something of precedent. That is, people are initially interested in the 'human interest' and then interest fades away. We can expect a similar thing to happen if humans ever go to Mars. We might label this the 'first' factor. Since Curiousity is not the 'first' (by a long margin) this would indicate that machines sustain a lower level of interest but over a longer period of time, and for more scientific reasons (Curiosity, Cassini-Huygens, Voyager and the others don't have any 'celebrity' factor, they are just interesting for being explorers).
Per dollar spent, not spending a dollar at all has the best benefit. Give it a try. Apply this to your food, for a few week.
Question: if you're not eventually going to be sending people into space, what's the justification for a tax-payer funded space program at all? The object of taxing people is to provide things that are useful to the public at large. If the intention isn't that people will eventually be going to live and work in space, or have some other practical human use for it, all you're doing is forcing the tax-payers to subsidize the curiosity of a few scientists and science geeks. Nice idea, but in today's economy pretty tough to justify. I like the space program as much as the next guy, but spending money on things that benefit no one but a select few are luxuries we can no longer afford.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Humans can also dig more than four inches into the soil, they can turn rocks over to see what is underneath, and can cobble together spare parts and cleaning materials to build an experiment that wasn't in the original plan.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin