Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- From: BradGuth <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:17:35 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 19, 7:17 pm, "jonathan" <H...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ed34f$4924196b$927a2cda$7604@xxxxxxxxxxx
Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars
Henry Spencer, computer programmer, spacecraft engineer and amateur space
historian (Illustration: NASA)
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/11/why-nasa-...
As much as I respect Henry's opinion, this is just a recomendation
to try to make a lemon out of lemonade. Not to mention that the
public will see right through the change in goals, and might/will
resent the repackaging.
There's a very simple and direct relationship Henry fails to see
regarding a 'goal' and the likelihood of success. The smaller
and more defined the goal, the less appealing and narrow
will be the public support.
Which means the grander and more ambitious goal tends to
gather the greatest support, and with it the better chance of
success.
We have to face a simple fact of our current reality.
It is MARS and only MARS that can inspire the needed
public support. Unfortunately with the current technology
Mars is so far off into the future that those paying for it
won't be around to see it completed.
Which means we're just /not ready/ for Mars yet.
And the public won't support only the Moon.
So why deny the obvious? The Moon and Mars
are not rational goals. Humanity needs to take
...a step before they become practical.
The only way is to start over from scratch.
And from an inverse frame of reference.
EXPAND the goal, instead of retreating.
FIX a problem, instead of stating a destination.
Design a goal to be popular. As popular as possible.
Not shrink it, as Henry suggests.
Colonizing is about saving us from some imagined calamity
a thousand years out, or a million. This absolutely minimizes
the justification due to a highly 'unfavorable' time-frame
and complete lack of urgency.
The /largest and most urgent/ global problems maximizes
the appeal. And with it the best chance of success.
When setting a goal, always go for 'The Moon' so to speak!
You guys take that expression literally dammit, it's meant
to be taken as a metaphor. "The Moon" in this case
is the globe's most urgent problems, not the most distant
or unlikely.
There are two simple questions needing answers.
1) What are the largest and most urgent global threats
in the eyes of the people?
2) How could NASA envision finding their
solutions given a blank check?
A child could answer those questions as it's just
a matter of /asking/ them. You'll find both already
have their answers....in hand.
Jonathan
You are 100% correct, in that our NASA needs to focus on whatever's
dearest to our hearts that will not further bankrupt or make us look
any worse off than we are. Even some of William Mook's ideas are not
as bipolar/crazy are you may think, just enormously space consuming,
way spendy as hell to implement and worth perhaps 10% as much as he
touts, although that's still green/renewable and 10% more than we
currently have to work with as long as he's in 100% control of
everything.
Venus is certainly nearby and hosting what looks highly intelligent as
well as perfectly rational as having accommodated intelligent other
life, at least as of once upon a time if not ongoing because, there's
clearly no local shortage of energy or lack of local minerals.
We have the technology and sufficient expertise for dealing with such
a Venus mission. We also have the technology for establishing an ISS
outpost/gateway at Venus L2.
Our Selene/moon isn't so insurmountable nor without great mineral and
rare element rewards, although especially of its L1 is technically
within the scope of our existing expertise to do many constructive and
otherwise impressive things with.
The underground habitat potential of our moon is also within reach, at
least once we R&D the all-essential fly-by-rocket lander that's well
enough shielded and isn't likely to run itself out of fuel. The Earth-
moon L1 is yet another technological win-win, although far more
complex and lethal than underground habitats, it's well suited for the
likes of rad-hard robotics and a platform of science and astronomy
instruments.
Either of these complex missions are technically doable and not nearly
as spendy and/or as time consuming and death defying as any Mars
mission.
Terrestrial goals of energy independence and even of energy exporting
due to the easily obtainable surplus in green/renewable alternatives
should be a DoE thing, however, if necessary our NASA could certainly
get in on the act with space based technology and otherwise with
implementing advanced terrestrial solar, wind, stirling, geothermal,
thorium and fusion reactors and above all should be greatly improved
power grids (coast to coast superconducting would be a nice goal),
plus helping to implement those pocket reactors (similar to off-world
applications) that thousands of typically off-grid communities would
likely still require.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
.
- References:
- Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- From: jonathan
- Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- Prev by Date: Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- Next by Date: Re: NASA Plans Test of 'Electronic Nose' on International Space Station
- Previous by thread: Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- Next by thread: Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
