by Omnitir » Sun 01 May 2005, 03:42:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A while ago Bush had another of his "visions", a manned expedition to Mars. Sounds like this would be like Apollo: "We came, we saw, we came back".
What do you think of this?
Thanks for asking; it gives me a chance to rant a bit more about one of my favourite topics.
I think it’s too little too late. Bush’s plan, “Moon, Mars and beyond” I think they are calling it, sounds great on the surface (to those not PO aware), but stinks of a political manoeuvre, released during his re-election campaigns. I was initially excited by the announcement, but then I found out about two important issues that make it look like a pretty bad idea:
1) how they plan to fund the project, and 2) peak oil;
**********************
1) Funding for the new Moon initiative looks likely to result in the death of the Hubble space telescope (HST), arguably the single greatest scientific facility ever devised. To scrap the HST is idiotic, especially given the reasoning: safety issues (now a top concern after the Columbia accident), and that funds for the HST servicing mission to upgrade it and keep it running for many more years, could instead be put into the ISS and the new Moon initiative. Realistically, a HST servicing mission is not much more dangerous then a mission to the ISS.
As for a HST servicing mission being a waste of funds, how’s this for a waste: the next servicing mission would have replaces the telescopes batteries, installed new gyroscopes and various instruments, and replaced aging systems including a Fine Guidance Sensor, an Aft Shroud Cooling system, a Data Management Cross Strap Unit and a new outer blanked layer. Also two new instruments, a Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3 would be installed. At the moment, all this hugely expensive equipment (around $US200 million worth) is sitting idly in a NASA warehouse, waiting for the mission go-ahead.
To quote eminent physicist John N. Bahcall regarding the planned scrapping of Hubble: “It’s a tragedy for the nation. It’s a tragedy for science. It’s a tragedy for anyone who’s curious about the universe.”
2) The manned mission to Mars part of the initiative is expected to occur in around 20 years. It’s kind of hard to believe that in 20 years when there isn’t enough energy to distribute food and water to everyone in the US (and all the other PO related problems) that anyone will back sending astronauts to Mars. It’s just not going to happen, without some miracle PO cure.
**********************
Returning man to the Moon however is something that is achievable in the short term, and has numerous payoffs. NASA states that the main reason for the Moon missions is essentially to practice living, working and practicing science on Mars, which is sensible, but since we know the likelihood of any manned Mars mission ever occurring, this point is mute. However, developing the skills and technology to live and work on the Moon will have payoffs if we are going to attempt to exploit space in the remaining time we have.
We need to learn what planners call "in-situ resource utilization" (ISRU)--a.k.a. "living off the land", which means mining important basic resources on the lunar surface; oxygen for breathing, water for drinking and rocket fuel (essentially hydrogen and oxygen). This is essential for extended stays on the Moon.
Data collected from Lunar Prospector and Clementine (space-craft that mapped the Moon in the mid-90’s) suggests that there is ice localised near the North and South poles. Finding this ice is essential to any sustained Moon effort, and is what the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, to be launched is 2008, primary purpose is.
Another advantage of Moon missions is the LSP project that has been discussed in
thisthread (complete with the usual close minded responses from the doomers

). Collecting the powerful unfiltered solar rays on the Moon would be a great way of powering the beginning of true space industrialism.
Of course the only chance any of this will make a difference is if PO results in a slow crash, giving NASA enough time to make meaningful progress. Even if in the end it all amounts to nothing in terms of providing resources for Earth, at the very least some meaningful science and exploration can be achieved. If PO does turn out to crush industrialism, it would be a shame to waste the last years of the space age, when we could be taking advantage of our existing technology. There is still meaningful science and exploration to be done.