U.S. considers new moon mission

[Turner]

I knew when China was successful in getting a man into orbit this would fuel the space race between us and them.

U.S. considers new moon mission
Can you fly to the moon on a trial balloon?

Quoting unidentified Bush administration sources, two publications have reported that the president wants Americans to return to the moon after an absence of three decades, and perhaps establish a base. (Related graphic: Moon missions timeline)

The reports put the moon, which in recent years has been ignored by all save baying dogs and werewolves, back on the national agenda.

"The moon can be made into a major asset, rather than just providing light at night," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., chairman of the House subcommittee on space and aeronautics, said Thursday.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, even talked about a space race between the United States and China, which put its first astronaut into space this fall.

Early reviews of the plan, reported Wednesday by the National Review magazine and Thursday by the New York Post, were mixed.

"Totally embarrassing," said physicist Robert Park of the American Physical Society. "Been there, done that."

"Great idea," said Roger Launius, a space historian at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. "If we are really going to get off this planet and go to a place like Mars, we've got to learn how to operate in deep space."

The debate over a moon program comes during a difficult time for the space agency, which has been excoriated for inefficiency and lack of focus since the space shuttle Columbia disaster in February.

The administration has been reviewing its space mission. On Wednesday, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said that 2004 would be a "seminal time. ... There's an effort underway that will focus the administration's view very prominently on options we can consider," he said. "We are looking at some significant changes."

But when asked Thursday about the moon, Glenn Mahone, O'Keefe's spokesman, said the review "is ongoing and will continue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied that a decision had been made. "Those (moon) reports are not coming out of the White House," he said. "It's premature to get into any speculation about ... space policy."

The National Review said Bush is expected to make his proposal Dec. 17 in a speech recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' flight at Kitty Hawk, N.C.

America's golden age of manned lunar exploration lasted less than four years. It began with Neil Armstrong's "one small step for man" in 1969 and ended with the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972.

Why go back now? Suddenly, there are more reasons being offered than there are craters in the Sea of Tranquility.

•National prestige. The Chinese have spoken about plans to land humans on the moon and to establish a base there.

This has attracted Brownback's attention. "You've got the Chinese and others making plans to send probes and even humans to the moon," he said Thursday. "I don't think we want other countries to get ahead of us in this race."

An adviser close to O'Keefe, who asked not to be identified, told USA TODAY that the Chinese launch and their interest in a manned lunar mission "changed the equation" for NASA.

But to Park, this is weak logic. "If our goal is to keep up with the Chinese in technology, God help us."

•A steppingstone to Mars. "I've always favored a return to the moon because it's three days from Earth, so if you get into trouble, you are only three days from help," said Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert at American University in Washington. A moon base, he said, "lays the groundwork for an expedition to Mars."

The moon's tie-in to a Mars mission has a historical resonance: a Mars mission was proposed by the first President Bush in 1989 but was rejected as too expensive at $400 billion.

Some advocates of space exploration, however, are leery of a moon mission. "You need a milestone on the way to Mars, but that could be an asteroid," said Louis Friedman of the Planetary Society. "The moon could be a detour."

•A lunar telescope. Astronomers would like to see a large telescope on the moon that would give unparalleled views of space.

But Park says such telescopes could be placed on the moon without landing people there and be controlled remotely from Earth.

•Mining. The Chinese have expressed interest in mining a cheap form of helium found on the moon. Harrison Schmitt, a former U.S. senator and astronaut, says he thinks private companies would pay for moon missions in hopes of making cheap energy from the helium there.

But Park says it would be cheaper to gather the helium from seawater. As for other minerals, he says, "At $10,000 a pound to get things into low-Earth orbit, it wouldn't be economical to mine the moon even if the whole thing were made of gold."

•Water. The prospect of lunar water was raised in the mid-'90s, when satellite data suggested polar craters might contain huge amounts of ice. But a new article in the journal Nature says that radar imaging shows little ice there.

•Geology. Geologists would like to take lunar core samples to learn more about the history of the solar system and the formation of the moon. On the other hand, Apollo astronauts carried 840 pounds of lunar rock back to Earth.

The biggest argument against a revived moon program appears to be its cost, especially because the government faces a half-trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2004.

McCurdy said the Apollo mission cost $150 billion to $175 billion in 2003 dollars, and that a new effort would also be costly. But he said that's not really the point: "In some ways, it's like a yacht. If you have to ask, you can't afford it."

Meanwhile, the moon may be harder to get to than it was 30 years ago. For instance, there are only three remaining Saturn V missiles like the ones that launched the Apollo capsules. Two were assembled from surplus parts after the last three Apollo flights were canceled, and one is a test vehicle never intended to go into space.

In the end, the reason to return to the moon may be no more rational than the one to go there in the first place — that is, to show up the Soviet Union.

"The basic reason for going back," said John Logsdon, a former member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, "is because it's there."

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Turner_727
I knew when China was successful in getting a man into orbit this would fuel the space race between us and them.

I thought the same thing. You simply can't give the "enemy" control of the "high" ground.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Indeed. Of course the ChiComms can't be allowed on the moon. Look what they did when they first launched a satellite - they made it broadcast that ghastly ragtime number 'The East is Red'. I shudder to think what they would do upon reaching the lunar surface...

 

[carlosMM]

imagine the man on the moon with slit eyes I guess that is what Bush fears, the little xenophob!



seriously, this is ridiculous, if China manages to fly to the moon one day - so what? Good for them! Dumb to waste so much money though..........

 

[Xen]

good, I appluad, space is where we humans really need to be focusing on- as the sooner we establish a colony on the moon, the sooner we can build my deathstar

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Indeed. Of course the ChiComms can't be allowed on the moon. Look what they did when they first launched a satellite - they made it broadcast that ghastly ragtime number 'The East is Red'. I shudder to think what they would do upon reaching the lunar surface...

You made me think of a SciFi story I read as a kid. While it's true that East may paint the moon red, it's just as likely that the west would sell it's face to the highest bidder. No need to worry about the fundamentalists though as to them it's blasphemy to think we've even sit foot there.

"BubbleUp" anyone?

 

[WickedSmurf]

What is this obsession with the moon? Pure prestige?

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't both the US and China need to focus a wee bit on their domestic matters or is it HEaven on Earth in both countries?

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by WickedSmurf
What is this obsession with the moon? Pure prestige?

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't both the US and China need to focus a wee bit on their domestic matters or is it HEaven on Earth in both countries?

No it's not, but when all hell breaks lose it would be nice to have a place for the race to retreat.

 

[Pirate]

The entire idea is a farce. Following the Columbia disaster we are in no place to think about returning to the moon for reasons of pure ego. Bush Sr. proposed the same thing ("stepping stone to Mars") and NASA responded with a $400 billion plan for doing just that. That plan would have obliterated the budget and it obviously didn't go anywhere. And "cheap helium" from the moon?!? Is there anything cheap about a space program?!?!? This is all pipe dreams and hogwash, just like instituting an brand new hydrogen powered transportation network in 10 years (remember Bush's last state of the union address?). If this is the grand idea that Bush believes will unite the American people behind him then he is going to have real problems in the 2004 election. Seriously, AIDS is right here and we can actually DO something about it. And whatever happened to the war on terrorism? People were united behind him when he went after the Taliban. Why not try to get that back on track? Nope, Bush wants to spend billions of dollars he doesn't have on a mission with merely symbolic returns at best. I seriously hope he doesn't actually propose this.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Pirate
The entire idea is a farce. Following the Columbia disaster we are in no place to think about returning to the moon for reasons of pure ego. Bush Sr. proposed the same thing ("stepping stone to Mars") and NASA responded with a $400 billion plan for doing just that. That plan would have obliterated the budget and it obviously didn't go anywhere. And "cheap helium" from the moon?!? Is there anything cheap about a space program?!?!? This is all pipe dreams and hogwash, just like instituting an brand new hydrogen powered transportation network in 10 years (remember Bush's last state of the union address?). If this is the grand idea that Bush believes will unite the American people behind him then he is going to have real problems in the 2004 election. Seriously, AIDS is right here and we can actually DO something about it. And whatever happened to the war on terrorism? People were united behind him when he went after the Taliban. Why not try to get that back on track? Nope, Bush wants to spend billions of dollars he doesn't have on a mission with merely symbolic returns at best. I seriously hope he doesn't actually propose this.

Space exploration as traditionally been a Democratic idea because it benefits all men, not just the white or the religious or what have you. Please don't credit Bush with something as positive as this.

 

[WickedSmurf]

To me it all appears to be an almost complete waste of resources. By that I don't mean human kind should stay on Earth, but at least reduce this horrible spending.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by WickedSmurf
To me it all appears to be an almost complete waste of resources. By that I don't mean human kind should stay on Earth, but at least reduce this horrible spending.

May be a cultural thing, but Republicans reduce spending because it is wasteful and Democrats increase spending because it is helpful. In the end Republicans run up deficits and Democrats reduce them, but that is another topic B-)

 

[WickedSmurf]

Originally posted by EzInKy


May be a cultural thing, but Republicans reduce spending because it is wasteful and Democrats increase spending because it is helpful. In the end Republicans run up deficits and Democrats reduce them, but that is another topic B-)

Sounds like politics all right!

 

[Bam-Bam]

As one who has read in detail the CAIB report and been involved with many of the folks who contributed to the report--NASA is in no way ready to undertake any expansion of its current business, and is not really ready to continue to do its current business, IMO.

There are some fatal flaws in NASA that were pointed out by the review, and it is not clear that NASA is willing to fundamentally embrace the changes that are necessary to resume a successful shuttle program. And that doesn't even begin to cover whether the shuttle program is worth continuing--that's a whole different debate.

If you haven't and are interested--I suggest you read some of the report (at least the summary), which can be found here.

Volume I is the real report--the rest is supplemental information (including testimony, etc.). The executive summary is in Volume I.

 

[RoddyVR]

go for it, i say. the "budget" is so screwed anyway that another trilion dollars or so wont realy matter (this country's government clearly has the mentality of "we'll just print more of it").

i'd assume that any sort of a base on the moon would make it MUCH cheaper to do anything in space afterwards, so its like a good investment.

besides, i wanna take my nephew to the moon when he's old enough.

EDIT: they realy should try to get private business to pay for it though.
immagine how much Nike for example would pay to get their check mark logo to appear on the moon :d

 

[Pirate]

Originally posted by RoddyVR
they realy should try to get private business to pay for it though.
immagine how much Nike for example would pay to get their check mark logo to appear on the moon :d

My god, that would be the end of my faith in humanity. When U.S. astronauts landed on the moon they placed a plaque that read that the moon would forever remain the propoerty of ALL mankind. I think mining and other exploitation of the moon would be a terrible mistake.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

China would have to do a lot more to move the American leviathan into another Apollo.

 

[General Porkins]

My question is why not? It may cost money, but so do all investments. Space should be a priority. Establishing a base on the moon would greatly facilitate future missions to Mars and even elswhere. What is the point in being a technological superpower and not using these capabilities? It is our duty to explore space and further advance our technology for all humankind. The future of mankind lies in space. This is something that should have been continued since the success of the apollo program.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Spending more money we don't have . . .

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The point is space will not produce resources to pay for itself any time soon (in the next decades). We would in fact have to create a separate economy, full with industry and agriculture, the product of which will not return to Earth. So for now the best chance for space development would be tourism.