US To Return To Moon ... and Beyond

As convincing a case against a new moon adventure as I've read yet:

Quote:

Easterblogg
12.05.03

OVER THE MOON: Maybe it's only a trial balloon, but if the White House seriously is considering announcing a return to the Moon, we'd better lock up the U.S. Treasury while there's still anything left.

Forget for a moment the purpose, just think about cost. A rudimentary, stripped-down Moon base and supplies might weigh 200 tons. (The winged "orbiter" part of the space shuttle weighs 90 tons unfueled, and it's cramped with food, oxygen, water, and power sufficient only for about two weeks.) Placing 200 tons on the Moon might require 400 tons of fuel and vehicle in low-Earth orbit, so that's 600 tons that need to be launched just for the cargo part of the Moon base. Currently, using the space shuttle it costs about $25 million to place a ton into low-Earth orbit. Thus means the bulk weight alone for a Moon base might cost $15 billion to launch: building the base, staffing it, and getting the staff there and back would be extra. Fifteen billion dollars is roughly equivalent to NASA's entire annual budget. Using existing expendable rockets might bring down the cargo-launch price, but add the base itself, the astronauts, their transit vehicles, and thousands of support staff on Earth and a ten-year Moon base program would easily exceed $100 billion. Wait, that's the cost of the space station, which is considerably closer. Okay, maybe $200 billion. Now, what would astronauts do from a Moon base?

Suit up and go outside

Collect rocks and check measuring devices

Go back inside

There's nothing on the scientific radar that could be done on the Moon by people that couldn't be done at one percent of the expense, and without risk, by automated devices. Note that in recent years, all the space programs of the world have shown little enthusiasm for sending even automated devices to the Moon, since there's little to do there other than pursue abstract knowledge of geology. (The Moon may have lots of "helium three," a substance that might someday power fusion reactors that make energy, but helium three won't matter to the Earth for decades.) A Moon base would actually be an impediment to any Mars mission, as stopping at the Moon would require the mission to expend huge amounts of fuel to land and take off but otherwise accomplish nothing, unless the master plan was to carry rocks to Mars.

NASA doesn't need a grand ambition, it needs a cheap, reliable means of getting back and forth to low-Earth orbit. Here's a twenty-first century vision for NASA: Cancel the shuttle, mothball the does-nothing space station, and use all the budget money the two would have consumed to develop an affordable means of space flight. Then we can talk about the Moon and Mars.

All in all, I gotta say the arguments against expanding space exploration are rather similar to the arguments against granting Columbus the means to make his westward voyage 500 some years ago.

With all the problems that need solution here on the "mother planet" why would anyone in his right mind want to indulge in such asinine projects.

Why not expend the money and research effort to develop an alternate source of non polluting energy before we either run out of fossil fuel or pollute ourselves to death or in the cure of the many diseases that plague us or?

But how is an argument to send a robot to the moon instead of a human an argment against space exploration?

I'm all for space exploration! My life, in not too big of a stretch, depends on it, as it is my husband's field. A member of my wedding party is part of the team responsible for the current Mars rover, Spirit. Space exploration = good!

But does it need to be manned?

Especially to the moon, where we've already been?

We've proven we can do it, OK, props to the USA, excellent. Why do we need to prove it again? To say "in your face!" to the folks who say the first moon landing was a hoax?

Again, I see the glamour quotient, I see how that helps, I don't think manned space flight is going to stop anytime soon. But the moon... why?

I really have trouble understanding why, considering your exposure to the people you've mentioned, why all this is not out there for you regularly.

There are always "other things" on which we can spend money.

Frank

Quote:

There are always "other things" on which we can spend money.

Priorities, Logic says you attack the most pressing problems first. There is no pressing need if any to establish a base on the moon or to send man to Mars.

All in all, I gotta say the arguments against expanding space exploration are rather similar to the arguments against granting Columbus the means to make his westward voyage 500 some years ago.