I think the real point is, not that he finds the idea of us living in a "simulation" abhorrent or impossible, but that any theory from which such a conclusion logically follows is something that cannot be considered scientific - such a theory is exactly equivalent to a religious doctrine in which unexplained events are attributed to the supernatural (unexplained "miraculous" events in our universe could be just defects in the simulation, or even deliberate effects caused by the simulators, after all).
And that sort of thing just flies in the face of centuries of doctrine and methodology in science, about what science really is.
I think it's an interesting argument; I find myself somewhat inclined to agree - depending on the type of multiverse we're talking about, anyway.
Yup, the SFT guys have been doing a great job of getting these breaking science news stories out before slashdot, and written very informatively too. What do the editors here get paid for anyway?:-)
I haven't been posting to/. much lately - I'd thought it was just me, but it looks like we do seem to have lost rather a lot of the intelligent, thoughtful old guard lately. While there are a few thoughtful responses above, and most of the moderators seem to have done the right thing, the number of even >1 moderation inane comments on/. in this case is way higher than it ought to be.
Guys, next time you see anything relating to global climate change, go read some of the actual science on it (Google will be happy to help) before posting here, ok?
I guess that's not all that far on a galactic scale; still I'm extremely impressed that we can get images of what seems to be solar-system scale (actually the width was several hundred astronomical units across, so a few times bigger than our solar system - but it's a bright star too). High resolution imagery like that with just Hubble makes things like the proposed Kepler planet-finder telescope actually seem feasible to directly view planets around distant stars. We'll be entering a new age soon, where we'll actually know what our interstellar neighborhood really looks like. Wow!
Why is it these great stories about the Moon appear in the middle of the night when I'm sleeping! Oh well...
TransOrbital's lunar mission has actually been featured hereon slashdot a few times but nobody seems to remember private space ventures when public projects come up. Sigh...
Anyway, if you'll peruse those links to past/. articles you'll see that they had a long delay due to regulatory issues, but finally got the approvals they need around the middle of last year, and actually launched a test vehicle last December. The schedule is to do it for real later this year... so it should happen! Along with Smart-1.
Well, as others have already responded, your Earth-based perspective really doesn't apply to extraterrestrial resource extraction; yes, the primary purpose of mining the Moon would be for space-based uses, although ultimately, until we have a vital solar system economy outside this planet, funding will have to come from sales to Earth (tourism, retirement, science, energy (solar, He3), military benefits, etc.)
A lot of this has been analyzed in an interesting little publication known as the "Moon Miners' Manifesto", which has been publishing on these issues since 1986. Some older articles are available from the Artemis Databook - newer items require a subscription or membership in a partner organization such as the Moon Society.
The big problem is startup money - at least a few billion dollars just to get a base up and operating, with an additional $2 billion or so for each human visit. Estimates to get the lunar solar power system running to something like break-even start at about $150 billion... It's not going to be cheap, and government sponsorship of at least some of the process seems inevitable. It looks like China, at least, "gets it"...
David Criswell published a good review of the concepts for lunar solar power in the April 2002 issue of the Industrial Physicist. Mining and processing lunar silicon would allow a bootstrap process that could result in huge levels of power being available to Earth directly from the Moon. The recent Science magazine article on our energy future listed space-based solar power and in particular this lunar option as one of the most promising to resolve our energy problems over the next few decades.
The problem is getting any economic return requires a huge up-front investment - and no government or private body has yet stepped up to the potential opportunity. Maybe China will be it...
From some discussions I've been following on the Space Policy boards and at the Space Frontier Foundation (specifically, the proposal for a Space Flight Initiative) the major problems we seem to have with lowering the cost of human space-flight is the lack of (1) a real market, (2) investment capital, and (3) research dollars focused on the most likely ways to reduce costs, rather than exploring exciting new engineering technology.
Now NASA spends $2-3 billion a year on human spaceflight via the shuttle. If just 10% of that were redirected (or added on) to provide competitive grants to small companies that seem to have promising approaches to real low-cost human spaceflight (Armadillo, XCOR, JP Aero, etc.) - grants that provide the money without micro-managing, but repeat grants only awarded for significant progress (or even profitability) that would make a huge difference. Additional money in the form of prizes beyond the X prize (eg. first reusable orbital spacecraft with short turn-around) would also give these entrepreneurial approaches a huge boost.
What we need is a diverse human space launch environment that supports frequent (daily!) launch and brings the cost down to near-affordable for the adventurous tourist and real commercial applications. There are a lot of small companies that seem to be making progress to that goal - if it were really adopted by a government program (and perhaps it should be in a different department than NASA - Transportation, perhaps?) it could bring that day a lot closer.
But the way NASA has funded these things in the past, as the parent comment indicates, is never going to work...
Paul Spudis is one of my heros too (getting so much out of Clementine)...
I wish I knew more about the people behind this "NExT" strategy - anyway, I do think it could work, but there seems to be within-NASA competition of several proposals on ways to go forward. Somebody at a high level needs to take one of these and say "Yes, this is what we will do in the next 10 years"; starting at the President isn't bad, but actually I think Congress needs to know we care - write your senators and representatives, go meet with them, and let them know you think space exploration and development is important!
1. The martian atmosphere has about 1% of Earth's pressure, and does almost nothing to protect from radiation. It is also pure CO2 so your flying craft has to carry its full reaction mass just like a rocket - there is a possibility of aerodynamic lift if your craft has really, really big wings (and is really, really light) but in truth the atmosphere on Mars is a lot closer to the vacuum of the Moon than to Earth's atmosphere.
2. In any case, much of Earth's radiation protection comes from its magnetic field. Mars' magnetic field, however, is only 1/800 the strength of Earth's - so not much help there.
3. Mars is a lot farther from the Sun than the Earth, however, so radiation from the Sun is reduced (about a factor of 2). However, that also means solar energy is a factor of 2 lower - which means you need twice as many solar cells on Mars as on the Moon or near Earth orbit for the same energy use level. In any case, solar radiation (including from flares) is a lot easier to shield against than the 1000x higher energy cosmic rays - which are the same, or slightly worse, at Mars' orbit (less shielding from the Sun's magnetic field).
4. Colonization is not going to happen anytime soon without closing economic cylces - the settlers will not be able to produce everything themselves, and to balance their imports from Earth they will need to have some exchange in reverse. Whatever that economic exchange is, the proximity of the Moon makes for much shorter cycles, and therefore much faster payback on investment and growth, so even if the Moon has to rely more on Earth for food and materials than Mars would, the economic payback from developing the Moon will be far greater for at least the first few decades of development.
But really, we should work for both - our goal should be human development of the entire solar system. I've met Zubrin, and while he's a great Mars advocate, he is ready to acknowledge it's not the only destination out there!
Yup, a new focus is definitely needed
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There were some attempts at this last year - maybe this time around they'll be a bit more successful. The problem isn't really NASA itself - it's the way NASA is forced to play by congress, and ultimately, the US public. With public support for a clear goal, Congress wouldn't be able to play its corporate welfare games any more, and NASA should be free to actually get things done again.
The Space Exploration Act of 2002 seemed a great first step, but received very little backing. NASA's NExT group plans look very promising - but do they have any money, even in this year's budget? The goal should be human exploration, development, and settlement of the solar system. The National Space Society has a clear roadmap for space development, and a vision of people living and working in thriving communities in space - but membership there has been dropping for years. The goals actually are pretty obvious - what's needed is for the public to get behind them. Go join these organizations, write your senators and congressman! If you care about space, do something about it!
And goals which are supported by Congress and the people of the US. One such plan was attempted in the house last year: The Space Exploration Act of 2002. A similar vision of our future in the solar system was presented in the recent report of the presidential commision on the future of the US aerospace industry. NASA's own proposals include a NExT team project starting with a lunar L-1 point base and lunar surface base.
So what has happened to all these great ideas? Stifled (so far) for lack of public support! Write your senators and representatives - tell them you believe NASA needs a clear new mission! It doesn't require much or any increased funding - it just needs to get NASA up out of the pork-barrel mire it's been stuck in by Congress for the past 30 years!
Unmanned and robotic spacecraft are far from inexpensive. In fact, the manned spaceflight portion of NASA's budget has been less than half the total for quite some time now - see this fact sheet for more information.
I know the general public finds thrills in both robotic and human missions; the real problem has been the ultra-cautious and pork-laced patterns in which NASA has been forced to play by congress for the last few decades.
I remember from math competitions way back one of my favorite tricks was when an iterative problem looked like it lended itself to a difference equation, to solve the related continuous calculus problem, and then use that solution as a starting point for the difference-equation solution. Always worked much faster than anything else I could think of... Of course I was no expert in the calculus of difference equations, but this sounds really neat. And given how much application both calculus and difference equations have had in other areas of science, this could have big implications once somebody figures out what they are:-)
The Russians have the only space tourism business going right now, based on very old (and reliable) Soyuz technology. The Chinese design is apparently an improvement - they mention better heat shields for one thing. Note also that the Russian Soyuz capsules are only rated for 6 months in space and haven't gone beyond low Earth orbit; the Chinese have stated plans to to a bit more than that...
Also, it looks like David Livingston of The Space Show will be interviewing Paul Blase of TransOrbital from Moscow tomorrow (Dec. 22), to broadcast Christmas Day:
The December 25, 2002 Space Show program will feature Paul Blase, the Chief Technical Officer (CTO) of TransOrbital, Inc., the company preparing to send private missions to the Moon. Mr. Blase will be interviewed in Moscow, Russia on Sunday morning, December 22, 2002 at 9AM PST as he will have just returned from the Ukraine to witness the Dnepr launch with the mock-up TrailBlazer payload onboard. The Space Show, hosted by Dr. David Livingston, focuses on timely and important issues influencing the development of outer-space commerce and space tourism, as well as other issues that are of interest to us all. This pre-recorded edition of The Space Show will air 8-9 PM Pacific Standard Time, Wednesday evening December 25, 2002 on KKNW 1150 AM in Seattle and on the internet.
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: The December 25, 2002 airing of this edition of The Space Show will be a pre-recorded program due to the holiday schedule at KKNW. You can hear and participate in the live recording session with Paul Blase from Moscow, Russia, Sunday morning, December 22, 2002 at 9AM Pacific Time. This pre-record session will include the additional Special Edition part of the interview. As this is a live interview session, your e-mail questions and telephone calls using the toll free number are welcome and will be in real time.
Paul Blase and TransOrbital have been at the forefront of companies planning commercial Moon missions. Mr. Blase and his associates founded TransOrbital in 1998, to in his own words, "develop the lowest-cost, commercially profitable lunar mission, leading to future commercial lunar exploration and development, and eventually colonization." TransOrbital was recently awarded NOAA licenses for its mission, has obtain the necessary export permits required under the law, and its TrailBlazer mission is scheduled for October 2003 on a Russia Dnepr launch vehicle. We will discuss the TrailBlazer mission with Mr. Blase, along with the full range of commercial lunar missions being planned by TransOrbital. We will ask him about the mock-up payload process, about both his and the TransOrbital relationship with The Mex-LunarHab (MLH) Project and the Mex-AreoHab (MAH) and MLH projects. Since this interview will be the first for Mr. Blase after witnessing the Dnepr launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, we will be able to receive a first-hand report not only on the Dnepr, but the launch facilities, the entire Russian launch experience, and much more. Listeners are encouraged to call or e-mail questions or comments to the guest or the host either before or during the show. To speak to with Mr. Blase or the host during the program, please use the toll free number which is 1 (866) 68-SPACE (1 866 687-7223).
You can e-mail the guest or the host during the program at dmlivings@yahoo.com.
The Dnepr can launch 4500 kg, and the cost figure I heard was $10 million...
And yes, it was NASA's goal for their "Space Launch Initiative" to bring costs down "an order of magnitude", to about $1000/lb. Unfortunately, government regulations prohibit NASA from using any non-US launch vehicle...
The Artemis List received the following press release earlier today on the successful Trailblazer "mockup" launch - I haven't seen it up elsewhere:
TRANSORBITAL ANNOUNCES SUCCESSFUL MOON TEST LAUNCH;
NOW READY FOR ROUTINE MOON TRAVEL IN OCTOBER 2003
SAN DIEGO TransOrbital, Inc. and International Space Company (ICS) Kosmotras today announced a "perfect launch" of TransOrbital's "Trailblazer" satellite at 8pm, Russian time. The launch represents a major milestone in TransOrbital's much-anticipated routine lunar delivery service.
Today's launch, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, of the "Trailblazer" into low Earth orbit was pronounced a total success by TransOrbital president, Dennis Laurie. The mission was designed to test rocket separation, downlink telemetry, spacecraft orientation and mass properties in preparation for the formal lunar launch.
Vladimir A. Andreev, Director General of ICS Kosmotras, said, "We are excited about teaming with TransOrbital's first commercial development of the Moon. The ICS Kosmotras Dnepr LV SS-18 ICBM provides a proven cost effective technology for lunar launches."
TransOrbital is on target to begin routine Moon travel, starting in October 2003. Laurie stated, "Significant commercial demand exists for high definition (HD) video, lunar mapping, data storage, scientific research, communications, and data archiving. Many corporate marketers see their products associated with the first commercial missions to the Moon."
"Additionally, there is worldwide demand from private citizens to send personal items such as photographs, legal documents, business cards, burial ashes, and jewelry to the Moon."
TransOrbital is the first and only commercial company licensed by the U.S. Department of State and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for private sector flights to the Moon.
Sir Arthur C. Clarke noted visionary and renowned writer, praised today's mission and commented, "All good wishes on TransOrbitals successful "TrailBlazer" launch."
Support for the Trailblazer program has been provided by a number of companies, including Lunar Enterprise Corporation and Space Age Publishing.
interactive TV and videophones are pretty much here anyway, now (oh, you don't have a cell-phone with a camera yet?)
And space-based solar power is actually one of the two major long-term energy options we have (the other being fusion) so it definitely shouldn't be discounted! I just wish NASA and the Department of Energy were spending a little bit more on research into it ($25 million over 30 years doesn't amount to very much...)
Well... I'll believe it more when it actually receives a bit of funding! But yes, this would be very exciting if it actually happens. And it does look promising (I mentioned the science that still needs to be done on the Moon in another comment).
and the American Geophysical Union! Eugene Schumaker, comet finder extraordinaire and major player in the Apollo missions, spent his life with USGS.
Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets is a major journal on the study of the composition and geological history of the Moon and planets in our solar system.
So geology hasn't been restricted to study of the earth for quite a long time now:-)
so there's no materials there to build things out of (like radiation shielding, for which the more mass, the better, basically...)
The reason for dropping in on the Moon is because the Moon has an enormous mass of material that is in a much shallower gravity well than Earth's (and twice as shallow as Mars' as well). The only reason for using lunar resources is to provide the materials needed for long-term habitation of deep space. That means mining, and industrial activity, on the Moon. It'll happen, count on it!
There are a lot of scientific reasons to go back to the Moon - first a lot of questions about the Moon itself, and the early history of the solar system that can be learned from lunar cratering. Of most interest in this is the South Pole - Aitken basin, which is mostly on the far side; the south polar regions of this very deep basin have craters that may hold water ice and other cometary debris. But the basin material is itself of some geological interest, and a sample-return mission to this area was listed as one of the highest priorities in planetary science in the recent NRC decadal survey.
Second, for science, is the potential of the Moon as a platform for observation of the rest of the universe. A lunar telescope has the same lack-of-atmosphere advantages of Hubble, but could be constructed much larger than is possible for a free-space telescope (with current technology) with use of in-situ materials. This is particularly important for infrared and ultraviolet/x-ray astronomy, for which much of the spectrum is almost completely attenuated in the Earth's atmosphere and space is the only real option. It makes a lot of sense to base the next generation of space telescopes on the Moon, though I have not seen much movement in this direction, other than some early-stage proposals.
Space solar power is considered by many to be the only long-term solution to Earth's energy needs that meets both global energy and environmental requirements over the next 50 years. Making use of lunar materials, possibly even generating the power on the Moon, is the only realistic option for building these things on the scale needed. If this globe could ever manage to get its act together and move beyond carbon-based fuels to invest in the future, the Moon has a major role to play.
Finally, space tourism has been in the news, and private companies are starting to look at orbiting hotels and lunar excursions - for those who can pay of course. With the right price, demand can be expected to be huge:-) Retirement to the Moon's low gravity might become a major draw as well.
So the Moon has a bright future - if we could just pay it a bit of attention with all the other distractions the world has to offer these days!
Surprisingly, since Apollo 17 left 30 years ago there were not only no further manned missions, but also almost no further robotic missions. The Moon became a "been there done that" world, when in fact there are still a huge number of mysteries about it.
Apollo could only scratch the surface: they had to be very careful about safe landing spots which favored the relatively rare Mare regions, they couldn't dig more than a couple of meters into the surface, they didn't go anywhere near the poles or the far side, which have quite different terrain and likely mineral deposits, etc. Despite some evidence of volcanic activity only Apollo 14 landed in one of the regions of volcanic interest, and the crew there were the least geologically educated of the lot so the samples taken were not terribly useful. etc. etc.
We have more high-resolution pictures of Mars than we do of the Moon - the only really high-res shots (1 meter or better) were from the Apollo command modules as they circled, and those cover just narrow strips of the Moon's surface.
Missions since Apollo amounted to a handful of Russian Luna missions through 1974, then a long gap, a Japanese experimental flight (HITEN) in the 1980's, and Clementine and Lunar Prospector in the 1990's. Clementine was run by the Dept. of Defense, not NASA, and Lunar Prospector was Alan Binder's baby at Lockheed Martin, done on the cheap for $60 million. That's basically the total NASA spending on the Moon since Apollo - less than 2% of the cost of the Mars missions that have failed!
NASA's negelect of the Moon seems to be continuing, but scheduled for next year we have at least 1 government (ESA's SMART-1) and 1 private (TransOrbital's TrailBlazer ) mission on track. The Japanese space agency also plans a Lunar-A mission that may launch next year. So things are starting to look up!
And for those interested in a exploration and development of the Moon, why not join the Moon Society!
Certain chemicals synthesized by humans can cause some amount of climate change
Ok, nice of you to admit this. Let's add one more thing science can give you: some numbers.
How much of these chemicals have humans added? CO2 records go back thousands of years from Greenland ice core data; since the industrial revolution began the era of massive human use of carbon-based fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have already risen 30%, methane concentrations doubled, and nitrogen oxides up 15%. All these chemicals are known to trap heat.
How much climate change can these chemicals cause? People have been modeling this year after year for decades with relatively consistent results - a warming on the order of a few degrees C by 2050, much greater warming at the poles than at the equator, increased intensity of storms and other severe weather.
None of the models see global cooling as a result any more, although regional cooling of one sort or another is possible with changing ocean circulation patterns. If the effect is always warming, whether 1 degree or 10, no matter what the model, you can safely conclude that the added human chemicals do force a general warming of the planet with a value somewhere in that range.
The scale of what we have been seeing, from around the world, over the past decade, is alarmingly very much in line with the model predictions. Global temperatures are already up 0.5 degrees C, and even this small temperature rise seems to have had dramatic effects.
Does this prove that human activity has caused global climate change? Science never conclusively proves anything - results are always open to further question. But for policymakers not blinded by the continuing obfuscation from the oil companies and their toadies, the conclusion is rather inescapable. Humans have clearly increased gases that are clearly known to trap heat, and the climate has already seen warming over the past century.
Why aren't we doing more about it? Look at what the Europeans are doing to meet Kyoto targets: massive investment in wind farms, for example. Why isn't that happening in the US? Why has average US automotive fuel economy gown down in recent years, not up? Would reduction of oil use really be such a bad thing??? Only for the oil companies who are currently running the US government...
We are so utterly dependent on oil that we have to kow-tow to the arrogant Saudi's and similar despots around the world who control so much of the world's oil resources - or, in current circumstances, go to war. Improved automotive fuel economy by just a few percent would return far more oil than the disputed ANWR drilling area. But the US Congress the last two years has rejected all attempts to re-instate the fuel economy standards and apply them across the board.
There are alternatives, but the current US government refuses to invest in them - Energy department programs in renewables and fusion energy have been cut year after year. The research dollars required are considerably less than, for example, the billions California lost in last year's energy debacle, but we refuse to make that investment.
What about the possibility that the world will warm and climate will change whether or not we do anything about our CO2 production? First, admitting that humans can have an impact on global climate should give us the confidence to know we can also impact it for the good, as well as for bad. Contrary to your impression that we don't understand climate, we do understand it well enough to know the effect of some changes we could make. Large-scale geo-engineering to mitigate natural climate change is certainly a possibility.
But in the long run, Earth has managed pretty well on its own and our policy probably should be one of neutrality rather than hands-on management: movement of industrial activity into space (as your tag line indirectly suggests) may well be the best long-term option for the planet. But we're not quite ready for that yet (although that's another area where I believe US R&D investment has been much less than it could have been).
Slashdot Mirror
and one I had not heard before.
I think the real point is, not that he finds the idea of us living in a "simulation" abhorrent or impossible, but that any theory from which such a conclusion logically follows is something that cannot be considered scientific - such a theory is exactly equivalent to a religious doctrine in which unexplained events are attributed to the supernatural (unexplained "miraculous" events in our universe could be just defects in the simulation, or even deliberate effects caused by the simulators, after all).
And that sort of thing just flies in the face of centuries of doctrine and methodology in science, about what science really is.
I think it's an interesting argument; I find myself somewhat inclined to agree - depending on the type of multiverse we're talking about, anyway.
Yup, the SFT guys have been doing a great job of getting these breaking science news stories out before slashdot, and written very informatively too. What do the editors here get paid for anyway? :-)
but you can still see the comments there here.
/. much lately - I'd thought it was just me, but it looks like we do seem to have lost rather a lot of the intelligent, thoughtful old guard lately. While there are a few thoughtful responses above, and most of the moderators seem to have done the right thing, the number of even >1 moderation inane comments on /. in this case is way higher than it ought to be.
I haven't been posting to
Guys, next time you see anything relating to global climate change, go read some of the actual science on it (Google will be happy to help) before posting here, ok?
I guess that's not all that far on a galactic scale; still I'm extremely impressed that we can get images of what seems to be solar-system scale (actually the width was several hundred astronomical units across, so a few times bigger than our solar system - but it's a bright star too). High resolution imagery like that with just Hubble makes things like the proposed Kepler planet-finder telescope actually seem feasible to directly view planets around distant stars. We'll be entering a new age soon, where we'll actually know what our interstellar neighborhood really looks like. Wow!
Why is it these great stories about the Moon appear in the middle of the night when I'm sleeping! Oh well...
/. articles you'll see that they had a long delay due to regulatory issues, but finally got the approvals they need around the middle of last year, and actually launched a test vehicle last December. The schedule is to do it for real later this year... so it should happen! Along with Smart-1.
TransOrbital's lunar mission has actually been featured here on
slashdot a few times but nobody seems to remember private space ventures when public projects come up. Sigh...
Anyway, if you'll peruse those links to past
Well, as others have already responded, your Earth-based perspective really doesn't apply to extraterrestrial resource extraction; yes, the primary purpose of mining the Moon would be for space-based uses, although ultimately, until we have a vital solar system economy outside this planet, funding will have to come from sales to Earth (tourism, retirement, science, energy (solar, He3), military benefits, etc.)
A lot of this has been analyzed in an interesting little publication known as the "Moon Miners' Manifesto", which has been publishing on these issues since 1986. Some older articles are available from the Artemis Databook - newer items require a subscription or membership in a partner organization such as the Moon Society.
The big problem is startup money - at least a few billion dollars just to get a base up and operating, with an additional $2 billion or so for each human visit. Estimates to get the lunar solar power system running to something like break-even start at about $150 billion... It's not going to be cheap, and government sponsorship of at least some of the process seems inevitable. It looks like China, at least, "gets it"...
David Criswell published a good review of the concepts for lunar solar power in the April 2002 issue of the Industrial Physicist. Mining and processing lunar silicon would allow a bootstrap process that could result in huge levels of power being available to Earth directly from the Moon. The recent Science magazine article on our energy future listed space-based solar power and in particular this lunar option as one of the most promising to resolve our energy problems over the next few decades.
The problem is getting any economic return requires a huge up-front investment - and no government or private body has yet stepped up to the potential opportunity. Maybe China will be it...
From some discussions I've been following on the Space Policy boards and at the Space Frontier Foundation (specifically, the proposal for a Space Flight Initiative) the major problems we seem to have with lowering the cost of human space-flight is the lack of (1) a real market, (2) investment capital, and (3) research dollars focused on the most likely ways to reduce costs, rather than exploring exciting new engineering technology.
Now NASA spends $2-3 billion a year on human spaceflight via the shuttle. If just 10% of that were redirected (or added on) to provide competitive grants to small companies that seem to have promising approaches to real low-cost human spaceflight (Armadillo, XCOR, JP Aero, etc.) - grants that provide the money without micro-managing, but repeat grants only awarded for significant progress (or even profitability) that would make a huge difference. Additional money in the form of prizes beyond the X prize (eg. first reusable orbital spacecraft with short turn-around) would also give these entrepreneurial approaches a huge boost.
What we need is a diverse human space launch environment that supports frequent (daily!) launch and brings the cost down to near-affordable for the adventurous tourist and real commercial applications. There are a lot of small companies that seem to be making progress to that goal - if it were really adopted by a government program (and perhaps it should be in a different department than NASA - Transportation, perhaps?) it could bring that day a lot closer.
But the way NASA has funded these things in the past, as the parent comment indicates, is never going to work...
Paul Spudis is one of my heros too (getting so much out of Clementine)...
I wish I knew more about the people behind this "NExT" strategy - anyway, I do think it could work, but there seems to be within-NASA competition of several proposals on ways to go forward. Somebody at a high level needs to take one of these and say "Yes, this is what we will do in the next 10 years"; starting at the President isn't bad, but actually I think Congress needs to know we care - write your senators and representatives, go meet with them, and let them know you think space exploration and development is important!
1. The martian atmosphere has about 1% of Earth's pressure, and does almost nothing to protect from radiation. It is also pure CO2 so your flying craft has to carry its full reaction mass just like a rocket - there is a possibility of aerodynamic lift if your craft has really, really big wings (and is really, really light) but in truth the atmosphere on Mars is a lot closer to the vacuum of the Moon than to Earth's atmosphere.
2. In any case, much of Earth's radiation protection comes from its magnetic field. Mars' magnetic field, however, is only 1/800 the strength of Earth's - so not much help there.
3. Mars is a lot farther from the Sun than the Earth, however, so radiation from the Sun is reduced (about a factor of 2). However, that also means solar energy is a factor of 2 lower - which means you need twice as many solar cells on Mars as on the Moon or near Earth orbit for the same energy use level. In any case, solar radiation (including from flares) is a lot easier to shield against than the 1000x higher energy cosmic rays - which are the same, or slightly worse, at Mars' orbit (less shielding from the Sun's magnetic field).
4. Colonization is not going to happen anytime soon without closing economic cylces - the settlers will not be able to produce everything themselves, and to balance their imports from Earth they will need to have some exchange in reverse. Whatever that economic exchange is, the proximity of the Moon makes for much shorter cycles, and therefore much faster payback on investment and growth, so even if the Moon has to rely more on Earth for food and materials than Mars would, the economic payback from developing the Moon will be far greater for at least the first few decades of development.
But really, we should work for both - our goal should be human development of the entire solar system. I've met Zubrin, and while he's a great Mars advocate, he is ready to acknowledge it's not the only destination out there!
The Space Exploration Act of 2002 seemed a great first step, but received very little backing. NASA's NExT group plans look very promising - but do they have any money, even in this year's budget? The goal should be human exploration, development, and settlement of the solar system. The National Space Society has a clear roadmap for space development, and a vision of people living and working in thriving communities in space - but membership there has been dropping for years. The goals actually are pretty obvious - what's needed is for the public to get behind them. Go join these organizations, write your senators and congressman! If you care about space, do something about it!
So what has happened to all these great ideas? Stifled (so far) for lack of public support! Write your senators and representatives - tell them you believe NASA needs a clear new mission! It doesn't require much or any increased funding - it just needs to get NASA up out of the pork-barrel mire it's been stuck in by Congress for the past 30 years!
I know the general public finds thrills in both robotic and human missions; the real problem has been the ultra-cautious and pork-laced patterns in which NASA has been forced to play by congress for the last few decades.
I remember from math competitions way back one of my favorite tricks was when an iterative problem looked like it lended itself to a difference equation, to solve the related continuous calculus problem, and then use that solution as a starting point for the difference-equation solution. Always worked much faster than anything else I could think of... Of course I was no expert in the calculus of difference equations, but this sounds really neat. And given how much application both calculus and difference equations have had in other areas of science, this could have big implications once somebody figures out what they are :-)
The Russians have the only space tourism business going right now, based on very old (and reliable) Soyuz technology. The Chinese design is apparently an improvement - they mention better heat shields for one thing. Note also that the Russian Soyuz capsules are only rated for 6 months in space and haven't gone beyond low Earth orbit; the Chinese have stated plans to to a bit more than that...
The Dnepr can launch 4500 kg, and the cost figure I heard was $10 million...
And yes, it was NASA's goal for their "Space Launch Initiative" to bring costs down "an order of magnitude", to about $1000/lb. Unfortunately, government regulations prohibit NASA from using any non-US launch vehicle...
interactive TV and videophones are pretty much here anyway, now (oh, you don't have a cell-phone with a camera yet?)
And space-based solar power is actually one of the two major long-term energy options we have (the other being fusion) so it definitely shouldn't be discounted! I just wish NASA and the Department of Energy were spending a little bit more on research into it ($25 million over 30 years doesn't amount to very much...)
Well... I'll believe it more when it actually receives a bit of funding! But yes, this would be very exciting if it actually happens. And it does look promising (I mentioned the science that still needs to be done on the Moon in another comment).
and the American Geophysical Union! Eugene Schumaker, comet finder extraordinaire and major player in the Apollo missions, spent his life with USGS.
:-)
Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets is a major journal on the study of the composition and geological history of the Moon and planets in our solar system.
So geology hasn't been restricted to study of the earth for quite a long time now
so there's no materials there to build things out of (like radiation shielding, for which the more mass, the better, basically...)
:-)
The reason for dropping in on the Moon is because the Moon has an enormous mass of material that is in a much shallower gravity well than Earth's (and twice as shallow as Mars' as well). The only reason for using lunar resources is to provide the materials needed for long-term habitation of deep space. That means mining, and industrial activity, on the Moon. It'll happen, count on it!
And join the Moon Society if you want to be a part of it
There are a lot of scientific reasons to go back to the Moon - first a lot of questions about the Moon itself, and the early history of the solar system that can be learned from lunar cratering. Of most interest in this is the South Pole - Aitken basin, which is mostly on the far side; the south polar regions of this very deep basin have craters that may hold water ice and other cometary debris. But the basin material is itself of some geological interest, and a sample-return mission to this area was listed as one of the highest priorities in planetary science in the recent NRC decadal survey.
:-) Retirement to the Moon's low gravity might become a major draw as well.
Second, for science, is the potential of the Moon as a platform for observation of the rest of the universe. A lunar telescope has the same lack-of-atmosphere advantages of Hubble, but could be constructed much larger than is possible for a free-space telescope (with current technology) with use of in-situ materials. This is particularly important for infrared and ultraviolet/x-ray astronomy, for which much of the spectrum is almost completely attenuated in the Earth's atmosphere and space is the only real option. It makes a lot of sense to base the next generation of space telescopes on the Moon, though I have not seen much movement in this direction, other than some early-stage proposals.
Space solar power is considered by many to be the only long-term solution to Earth's energy needs that meets both global energy and environmental requirements over the next 50 years. Making use of lunar materials, possibly even generating the power on the Moon, is the only realistic option for building these things on the scale needed. If this globe could ever manage to get its act together and move beyond carbon-based fuels to invest in the future, the Moon has a major role to play.
Finally, space tourism has been in the news, and private companies are starting to look at orbiting hotels and lunar excursions - for those who can pay of course. With the right price, demand can be expected to be huge
So the Moon has a bright future - if we could just pay it a bit of attention with all the other distractions the world has to offer these days!
Surprisingly, since Apollo 17 left 30 years ago there were not only no further manned missions, but also almost no further robotic missions. The Moon became a "been there done that" world, when in fact there are still a huge number of mysteries about it.
Apollo could only scratch the surface: they had to be very careful about safe landing spots which favored the relatively rare Mare regions, they couldn't dig more than a couple of meters into the surface, they didn't go anywhere near the poles or the far side, which have quite different terrain and likely mineral deposits, etc. Despite some evidence of volcanic activity only Apollo 14 landed in one of the regions of volcanic interest, and the crew there were the least geologically educated of the lot so the samples taken were not terribly useful. etc. etc.
We have more high-resolution pictures of Mars than we do of the Moon - the only really high-res shots (1 meter or better) were from the Apollo command modules as they circled, and those cover just narrow strips of the Moon's surface.
Missions since Apollo amounted to a handful of Russian Luna missions through 1974, then a long gap, a Japanese experimental flight (HITEN) in the 1980's, and Clementine and Lunar Prospector in the 1990's. Clementine was run by the Dept. of Defense, not NASA, and Lunar Prospector was Alan Binder's baby at Lockheed Martin, done on the cheap for $60 million. That's basically the total NASA spending on the Moon since Apollo - less than 2% of the cost of the Mars missions that have failed!
NASA's negelect of the Moon seems to be continuing, but scheduled for next year we have at least 1 government (ESA's SMART-1) and 1 private (TransOrbital's TrailBlazer
) mission on track. The Japanese space agency also plans a Lunar-A mission that may launch next year. So things are starting to look up!
And for those interested in a exploration and development of the Moon, why not join the Moon Society!
Ok, nice of you to admit this. Let's add one more thing science can give you: some numbers.
CO2 records go back thousands of years from Greenland ice core data; since the industrial revolution began the era of massive human use of carbon-based fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have already risen 30%, methane concentrations doubled, and nitrogen oxides up 15%. All these chemicals are known to trap heat.
People have been modeling this year after year for decades with relatively consistent results - a warming on the order of a few degrees C by 2050, much greater warming at the poles than at the equator, increased intensity of storms and other severe weather.
None of the models see global cooling as a result any more, although regional cooling of one sort or another is possible with changing ocean circulation patterns. If the effect is always warming, whether 1 degree or 10, no matter what the model, you can safely conclude that the added human chemicals do force a general warming of the planet with a value somewhere in that range.
The scale of what we have been seeing, from around the world, over the past decade, is alarmingly very much in line with the model predictions. Global temperatures are already up 0.5 degrees C, and even this small temperature rise seems to have had dramatic effects.
Does this prove that human activity has caused global climate change? Science never conclusively proves anything - results are always open to further question. But for policymakers not blinded by the continuing obfuscation from the oil companies and their toadies, the conclusion is rather inescapable. Humans have clearly increased gases that are clearly known to trap heat, and the climate has already seen warming over the past century.
Why aren't we doing more about it? Look at what the Europeans are doing to meet Kyoto targets: massive investment in wind farms, for example. Why isn't that happening in the US? Why has average US automotive fuel economy gown down in recent years, not up? Would reduction of oil use really be such a bad thing??? Only for the oil companies who are currently running the US government...
We are so utterly dependent on oil that we have to kow-tow to the arrogant Saudi's and similar despots around the world who control so much of the world's oil resources - or, in current circumstances, go to war. Improved automotive fuel economy by just a few percent would return far more oil than the disputed ANWR drilling area. But the US Congress the last two years has rejected all attempts to re-instate the fuel economy standards and apply them across the board.
There are alternatives, but the current US government refuses to invest in them - Energy department programs in renewables and fusion energy have been cut year after year. The research dollars required are considerably less than, for example, the billions California lost in last year's energy debacle, but we refuse to make that investment.
What about the possibility that the world will warm and climate will change whether or not we do anything about our CO2 production? First, admitting that humans can have an impact on global climate should give us the confidence to know we can also impact it for the good, as well as for bad. Contrary to your impression that we don't understand climate, we do understand it well enough to know the effect of some changes we could make. Large-scale geo-engineering to mitigate natural climate change is certainly a possibility.
But in the long run, Earth has managed pretty well on its own and our policy probably should be one of neutrality rather than hands-on management: movement of industrial activity into space (as your tag line indirectly suggests) may well be the best long-term option for the planet. But we're not quite ready for that yet (although that's another area where I believe US R&D investment has been much less than it could have been).