Posted on 07/17/2004 4:15:05 PM PDT by RightWhale
Moon Viewed as Policy Battleground
By Leonard David, Senior Space Writer
posted: 05:30 am ET, 17 July 2004
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA -- Left solely in NASA’s hands the forecast is cloudy for realizing a 21st century where the Earth's moon is a bastion of creativity, economic growth, as well as a foothold for humanity’s greater leaps into deep space.
For attendees of the 5th annual Return to the Moon conference being held here from July 16-18, it is up to the private sector to help realize President Bush's new vision for space exploration and to revitalize humanity's forays to the Moon and beyond.
It’s not about just astronauts strutting across the lunar surface, said Manny Pimenta, Return to the Moon Project Director of the Space Frontier Foundation, the group that organized the conference. "We need to create in people’s minds that the possibility of space settlement is actually possible with the technology that exists today," Pimenta said. "It is inevitable that we will be living, working and playing on the Moon someday.,"
Alternative space movement
Rick Tumlinson, founder of the Space Frontier Foundation believes we are at the dawning of a "new American space age," calling attention to the recent flight of SpaceShipOne, the privately backed effort that lobbed a pilot to the edge of space last month. SpaceShipOne -- and other entrepreneurial efforts now ongoing -- signal the emergence and fast-paced nature of a "new alternative space movement," Tumlinson argued. Another positive step is a major revamp of NASA, Tumlinson suggested. That overhaul, he said, is due in part to the Columbia tragedy in February 2003, as well as U.S. President George W. Bush’s call last January for a return to the Moon, then onward to Mars and beyond.
Tumlinson said that work is underway to "de-Bushify" NASA’s visionary call to arms, in order for it to be shared by both political parties. "From the President’s mouth to NASA’s ears is one hell of a journey," Tumlinson said, one that demands a private sector-government partnership or it will fail.
Business as unusual
"Hopefully, we are transitioning from old NASA to a new NASA," said James Benson, head of SpaceDev, a private space firm near San Diego, California. "We can still keep bashing NASA, but now we have to bash the old NASA and hope the new one emerges," he said. That coming out party for a new NASA is tied to contracts the agency is soon awarding -- contracts intended to jell the President’s space initiative into a true action plan. Benson said in the next six months, "either history will be written…or we’ll be back to business as usual." Business as unusual would have NASA go beyond the traditional aerospace prime contractor community, Benson said. Doing so would assure more innovation, fast turnaround of products at lower-cost, he said.
One early endeavor, Benson said, is ringing the Moon with microsats. These would serve as a lunar Global Positioning System (GPS). For one, this lunar GPS would guide spacecraft loaded with equipment and science packages to safe, pinpoint landings at prime real estate on the Moon. "We need to start building the infrastructure around the Moon now, as technology enablers," Benson explained.
Clear direction
"I sense a change in the wind…a disturbance in the force," joked Paul Spudis, a planetary scientist at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. Spudis was also a member of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy that recently reported on how best to put polemics into practice. Spudis saluted the space vision statement by U.S. President Bush of January 14th of this year, but the question remains: What NASA is supposed to become? "This was a different kind of vision," Spudis said. "For once we actually have a clear direction for our space program." To eliminate human spaceflight and do academic robotic space science forever has been rejected by the White House, Spudis observed. What is now on the table is to actually use space resources to leverage things "to actually give you more than you have now."
Hidden agenda
Spudis said that there are people within NASA who are failing to see what the President has asked to be put in motion. "This is as clear a policy direction as we’ve ever had. And yet people at NASA persist in misunderstanding it." There are those at NASA with an agenda "to kill this or morph it into something that it was never intended to be," Spudis warned. The idea of a quick "touch and go" at the Moon, then get to Mars "because that’s where the real science is," is dead wrong, Spudis observed, based on the President’s directive. "The point is to use the Moon to enable voyages elsewhere. Plus I dare say we actually have a few things we might be able to do on the Moon as well. It is an interesting place in its own right," Spudis said.
Tyranny of the rocket equation
There’s a lot of spade work to on the Moon first to enable a humans to Mars mission that is safe and easily done, Spudis told conference attendees. "The vision is about creating new capability," Spudis added. "Right now humans are stuck in low Earth orbit. Robots are mass, power, and bandwidth limited. We want to break that. We want to be able to break the tyranny of the rocket equation."
That would be accomplished by using the resources that are available in space. And the Moon is the closest place to put that into practice, Spudis said. "So, fundamentally, we need to play the hand that nature’s dealt us, Spudis concluded. "Since we’re here in Las Vegas…think of it in gambling terms. This is the hand we’ve got…can you play it or not?"
> They all ignore the issue of private property rights.
That's no problem in the case of the moon.
When the Chinese land there, they'll claim
the whole thing anyway.
Taiwan is just practice.
Ping.
Spudis said that there are people within NASA who are failing to see what the President has asked to be put in motion. "This is as clear a policy direction as we’ve ever had. And yet people at NASA persist in misunderstanding it."
Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?
Space Ping! This is the Space Ping List! Let me know if you want on or off this list by freep mail!
Time to de-RAT NASA.
The persistent misunderstanding is what tipped me off.
I think the treaties we (U.S.) have signed makes the moon "international" territory, much like the arctic and antarctic..
I'm assuming that is what you are referring to..
However, there are no treaties, international or otherwise, obligating the U.S. to provide transportation to the moon,.
Likewise, to provide support for any other nation's colony or outpost that they may build there...
The point here is that space will not be developed without property rights. That is in the President's Commission report and that is being ignored, and not only by NASA--they cannot do anything about it, it is a legal problem--but by the President, the White House, Congress, the USSC, and by all private entrepreneurs including the ones represented in this article. None of the get it.
Maybe Bush ought to "de-fundify" Tumlinson's leftwing-kissass attitude.
When the first private ship lands on the moon, the owner should declare HIS personal property. That oughtta get their panties in a bunch.
Bush should do battle where the voters are. Lunar block grants aren't going to increase the number of Bush voters on the moon, even if it is made the 51st state between now and November.
Sure, but he will lack the resources to make anything of it. There will be no significant investment. He will have to give up even if he gets that far.
The Chinese can build an installation on the moon.. just as much right as us..
I would assume there may need to be some negotiation of "territorial" limits or some such diplomatic garbage, but that is all well and good.
I would think that it would be understood the Chinese or Russians, etc.. would not be expecting to "tour" our facilities any time they felt like it, unless such arrangements were totally reciprocal..
I believe there are some agreements concerning arms in space, that may or may not still be in effect that would guarantee access for verification of those treaties..
But if you're talking about our building a facility and the Chinese or Russians, etc., having some sort of "right" to move in and take up residence, I don't think that would apply..
Just as any spacecraft would be considered "sovereign" vessels of the U.S., so would our installations or facilities..
Bush would not consider whether the action would gain him votes or not--he does what is right in his own estimation and hopes the citizens see it the same way.
As the treaty stands anything you launch is yours. You could launch modules and build a lunar base no problem. However, if you use lunar resources there would be a problem.
well, I assume the first private vessel would just land and take-off after a quick visit. But I could imagine the reaction of him/her putting up a sign "Property of ---- ------"
I agree that in the end, Bush will do what he wants and the rest of us be darned.
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.