Posted on 01/21/2008 8:41:38 AM PST by Truth29
Moon Stuck
(snip)
Some of the most influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush's "vision for space exploration"--one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft.
(snip)
"A large portion of the scientific community in the U.S. also prefers Mars over the Moon," he acknowledged. But "interest in the Moon is driven by goals in addition to and beyond the requirements of the science community. It is driven by the imperatives that ensue from a commitment to become a spacefaring society, not primarily by scientific objectives, though such objectives do indeed constitute a part of the overall rationale. "We continue to experience intense international interest concerning our plans for lunar exploration," Griffin told Aviation Week.
(Excerpt) Read more at spaceflightnow.com ...
an = any
“Some of the most influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush’s “vision for space exploration”—one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft.”
I read that the moon base was logistically a better solution to future manned flights to MArs, etc because the cost of launching from the moon would be far cheaper. So, invest up front to save money down the line.
Thats by design. The moon could be done in the relative short term with existing technologies. Mars is a tougher nut to crack. So if you abandon Moon missions in favor of supposed Mars missions, what you really do is kick the rock down the road, without admitting it.
My theory is this is mostly demorcrats, knowing their candidates SUCK on NASA stuff, and WILL cancel return to the moon plans for lots of global warming crap. So this is their way of trying to save the vision for space exploration from their own visionless political candidates.
ping
1000 unmanned missions will learn more, and advance technology farther than will one manned mission with a 50% probability of failure/tragedy.
Considering a top NASA scientist is largely responsible for the MM Global Warming myth, subsequent cuts to NASA space missions in favor of GW research would be sweet justice.
Rooty actually made a big statement supporting return to the moon, and against the gap between shuttle and constellation vehicles.
But it’s Rooty. Sigh.
Romney said he saw no reason yet to change the present vision for space exploration. Which of coures is return to the moon stuff.
If we skip doing “practice missions” on the Moon, couldn’t it be argued that it would save money? Because such an effort would not be well-funded (that is, not as well-funded as it should be). Because other than engine maneuvers, you can do just about everything on the Earth than you would be doing on Mars. Several “Mars analogs” have been found on our planet that to vaying degrees model the conditions on the Red Planet. It’s not as sexy as going to the Moon, but it still gets the job done.
But Obama has published plans to "delay" trips to the moon/mars.
There is a race on for the moon because it contains huge quantities of H3, that could be a far easier fuel for nuclear fusion reactors to use. Yeah, we have flags all over the front side of the moon, but if we're not there, there's nothing preventing the Chicoms or Russians, both are working hard at moon missions, from just taking it.
The H3 that permiates the dirt on the moon is estimated to be worth 2-3 billion dollars per ton for it's energy.
That's assuming you can go ahead and melt the moon rocks there to make your fuel - if you have to bring your fuel with you, going straight to Mars is cheaper than detouring to the moon, because Mars has an atmosphere which can substitute for fuel in slowing the spacecraft.
The H3 that permiates the dirt on the moon is estimated to be worth 2-3 billion dollars per ton for it's energy.
That's only if they get fusion to work properly, which has been "20 years away" for the past 40 years.
Even if that is true, and humans have a greater potential to find and adapt the unexpected, the absence of humans in the space program deprives it of anything symbolic and to which the masses may be able to relate. It will be even easier to cancel the space program and simply pour the funding into the endless pit of social services and entitlements IMO.
The entire program will change with the new administration. Suggestions are already flooding in such as going to asteroids rather than the moon. In the meantime, this is National Squirrel Appreciation Day so perhaps we should send a colony of squirrels to Mars and forget trying to pretend we are doing science in space with these manned bases.
the absence of humans in the space program deprives it of anything symbolic and to which the masses may be able to relate.
Sorry, but that’s not in the constitution.
Most of what government does is not in the constitution and they are going to take it anyway. Hopefully, a little of it will have more lasting benefits than endless programs that establish ad perpetuate permanent dependent, reliable Democrat votes.
I agree. Building a sustained presence on the moon is doable with current technologies, and the "doing" of it will develop the skills and expertise to sustain a presence further afield.
That will drive down the cost of Mars missions, and make success that much more certain.
If you have to work out bugs in your life support systems it would be nice to be three days from home, as opposed to two years from home, or whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.