To the Moon!

[joe1347]

Unfortunately, the direct and immediate benefits of an invigorated space program are difficult to quantify. One could argue that $100 billion given to universities (or private enterprise) to develop specific techologies will have a more clear cut payback. However, I personally believe that the indirect "fuzzy" benefits (of an exploration oriented space program) to American Society are more significant. As one example, I can speak from personal experience that the Apollo program absolutely inspired me to pursue a science career - as opposed to being a soldier like the rest of family. Hopefully, NASA can inspire the next generation to be something other than Paris Hiltons or attorneys.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm all in favor of it also so long as:

1) we don't do it on a hidden dime (print the money to do it)
2) we don't do it on our children's dime (borrow money to do it)
3) we have a serious national debate on the long term cost/benefits (risks can be discussed among the volunteers IMO).

 

[El_Spectre]

What hyperbole? If you disagree with my assessment of the exciting new technologies that NASA's plan will test, please feel free to elaborate. Please be sure to specify why these same technologies could not be developed and tested on the ground for a tiny fraction of the price.

And I don't see how you can argue with the fact that one-way missions are an order of magnitude cheaper than manned ones.

Jeremy

You are, of course, correct. This whole thing is about building advanced golf carts.

And we know perfectly how to emulate deep space, and all the effects it has on man & machines. Yep.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I would guess that one order of magnitude is an underestimation. Life support is the biggest weight/fuel consideration.

 

[Piscivore]

Or am I missing something?

Halliburton wants to start an aerospace division.

 

[toddjh]

You are, of course, correct. This whole thing is about building advanced golf carts.

So...what is it about, then? Figuring out how to keep people alive in deep space for weeks at a time? We did that nearly forty years ago. Studying moon rocks? We have hundreds of pounds of them, from multiple sites. Surely one more data point isn't worth a hundred billion dollars?

Seriously, snarkiness aside, what do you feel are the technological advances which will result from a new moon mission? Is there something concrete that you believe will come from it, or is it more of an abstract hope that it will advance technology generally?

My main concern is the pricetag. You can buy an awful lot of good science for a hundred million big ones. Do you really believe another set of brief visits to the moon will produce a return on that investment greater than an equivalent amount of earthbound academic or commercial research would?

Jeremy

 

[Jeff Corey]

I agree. See my previous post.

 

[c4ts]

I heard this news today and was ecstatic. Finally, we are doing something worthwhile.

Our destiny as humans lies in the heavens, not sitting around here bickering on this rock.

Yeah, we definitely need to bicker over more than one rock.

 

[El_Spectre]

So...what is it about, then? Figuring out how to keep people alive in deep space for weeks at a time? We did that nearly forty years ago.

No, we didn't, actually. Long term missions were always near earth (and thus relatively shielded by the magnetic fields). The longest moon mission was something like 10 days, I believe. And the astronauts got a heavy radiation dose, too.

My main concern is the pricetag. You can buy an awful lot of good science for a hundred million big ones. Do you really believe another set of brief visits to the moon will produce a return on that investment greater than an equivalent amount of earthbound academic or commercial research would?

I'm gonna ignore the strawmen you're setting up, but I'll address this;

Sure, you can buy a lot of good science with that money. This is not the same as "robots are better than humans". I am reminded of Steven Squyres, MER guru, who recently commented that all the science done in 500 days on mars by Spirit and Opportunity could be done by a good pair of geologists in a long weekend.

He argues that robots are great, but we'll learn more with people. I agree.

 

[toddjh]

He argues that robots are great, but we'll learn more with people. I agree.

Sure, we'll learn more with people...for a thousand times the cost. Robots may not be more effective, but they're sure as hell a lot more efficient. And nobody needs to risk his life.

Jeremy

 

[El_Spectre]

Sure, we'll learn more with people...for a thousand times the cost. Robots may not be more effective, but they're sure as hell a lot more efficient. And nobody needs to risk his life.

Jeremy

I might (might) conceed the first point. So far as risk goes... as long as people are volunteering, I have no problem with risk.

 

[BS Investigator]

toddjh, following your logic, humans would never have set out on foot from Africa. They didn't have techonology advanced enough for the trip. But guess what? They invented it en route.

If we are going to explore the galaxy, a good starting point would be the moon base and going to Mars.

A thousand probes sent around the solar system would not inspire the public like a manned mission to other planets. Humans have a deep thirst for exploration and discovery in our DNA. We must inspire people with science if we wish to lead them out of the darkness.

 

[toddjh]

toddjh, following your logic, humans would never have set out on foot from Africa. They didn't have techonology advanced enough for the trip. But guess what? They invented it en route.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think any technology was required for walking (or swimming across the Straits of Gibraltar).

If we are going to explore the galaxy, a good starting point would be the moon base and going to Mars.

I'd love to see a moon base or Mars colony. I'd love it. But it ain't gonna happen for at least a century, if not plural. It's simply not feasible at this time. And going to grab a bag full of moon rocks is going to do less to prepare us than spending that same money on real scientific research.

A thousand probes sent around the solar system would not inspire the public like a manned mission to other planets. Humans have a deep thirst for exploration and discovery in our DNA. We must inspire people with science if we wish to lead them out of the darkness.

It's too early to inspire people. The novelty of going to the moon wore off very quickly, and the Apollo program was ended in just a few years because of waning public support. There's a little enthusiasm for the idea again because of nostalgia and because there's now a whole generation who wasn't there the first time, but that support will quickly fade once the bills start to come due. The time to inspire the public is when we're ready to go there for good, not while we're still putzing around with spam in a can and primitive chemical rockets.

Jeremy

 

[BS Investigator]

toddjh, moon bases are currently being designed. A century? You must be joking. At the rate computers and technology are advancing, building a base on the moon is decades away. And from there, the base will expand. Mars colonies could be in place within 50 years, easily. Technology is not the barrier; political will is.

Just look at the Manhattan Project. Get the whole country, or better yet, the whole world, behind a scientific project, and we can do amazing things.

Good thing Columbus didn't have to ask you for ships.

 

[toddjh]

toddjh, moon bases are currently being designed. A century? You must be joking. At the rate computers and technology are advancing, building a base on the moon is decades away. And from there, the base will expand. Mars colonies could be in place within 50 years, easily.

Now who's joking? According to NASA, it's going to take a third of that time just to go back to the moon, once. Personally, I doubt we'll even set foot on Mars within fifty years. Even the most optimistic real-life proposal I've seen says twenty-five years, minimum, and I think that's really pushing it...especially since no manned mission is even in the planning stages.

Landings on other worlds will still be just a novelty in half a century.

Technology is not the barrier; political will is.

In a sense, I suppose you are correct. If we devoted a significant percentage of the economy to it, we could probably establish a semi-permanent base on the moon with existing technology. By "semi-permanent" I mean capable of supporting a crew for a long period of time, but not self-sufficient. Imagine if Slim Pickens rode the ISS down to the moon's surface, and that's what I envision our "colony" looking like.

The question you should be asking yourself is, why is political will an issue? Could it be because it would be horrendously expensive? Exploration is not something that should be done at any cost. We need to be reasonable in the steps we take. Concentrating on infrastructure first is the logical next step at this time. Research into nuclear propulsion would be a good start. A space elevator, while a bit pie-in-the-sky for now, wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Just look at the Manhattan Project. Get the whole country, or better yet, the whole world, behind a scientific project, and we can do amazing things.

Absolutely. It's simply a question of which amazing things are the most appropriate at any given time. Personally, I'd much rather see that hundred billion dollars spent on alternative energy research. We can worry about manned space exploration when we're a bit more prepared for it.

Good thing Columbus didn't have to ask you for ships.

That's not a very good example to pick -- remember, Columbus was wrong.

Jeremy

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Or am I missing something?

They want to film Capricorn Two?

 

[SezMe]

No, these "little" missions are how we ADVANCE the technology.

No, this is how we waste money putting humans in space. We should take the same money and devote it to advancing robotic/sensor/articulators, etc. The spinoffs to the medical field, as just one example, would be enormous. And the scientific return would be huge compared to what humans on the moon can return.

This moon/Mars mission belong in the same basket of gaffs as so many other Bush proposals. Abetted, in this case, by pork barrel politicians from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Cat217]

I would gladly divert all the tax dollars that are stolen from me for American WMD's to advance science, feed children and send volunteers to the Moon.
I think its a good idea, and Capricorn II could be an awsome flick.
Peace
=^..^=217

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

To make some more serious points though...

I can see a number of objections;

1. If we never intend to colonise space it is a waste of time and money.

2. Robots can do a lot of things more cheaply

3. Now may not be the right time to spend all this money when the infrastructure for staying in space is too immature.

On the other hand I can't accept the argument that says that robots should be the exclusively used prelude to human exploration. It seems obvious to me that to solve the problems of man in space needs real people being put in space.

It's one thing to measure the radiation environment around the Solar System and speculate on the hazards to human health, but without putting humans up there any solutions you come up with are untested and hypothetical. Given the many conflicting requirements for human survival in space, if all you have is hypothetical solutions to them as individual problems but have not created integrated systems that operate as best compromise solutions you could not really expect them to work.

To extend the 747 analogy, I would not want to get into the first production model of a 747 if its design had been based entirely on an extrapolation of theoretical work done by the Wright brothers who had decided it was unnecessary to actually ever produce a heavier-than-air craft until we were 'ready' to carry 500 people to Japan.

 

[toddjh]

To extend the 747 analogy, I would not want to get into the first production model of a 747 if its design had been based entirely on an extrapolation of theoretical work done by the Wright brothers who had decided it was unnecessary to actually ever produce a heavier-than-air craft until we were 'ready' to carry 500 people to Japan.

I think this is a good analogy. My addition to it would be to say that we shouldn't start building the airframe until we invent the jet engine.

Yes, there needs to be practical human testing, but it doesn't need to be done right now. Let's get the bugs worked out with robots first, and do some good science along the way.

Jeremy