On Monday, NASA went over its plans to return to the Moon. It was billed as an "announcement", but it didn’t feel much like something on that scale. More of a, "hey, by the way, we’re going to do this thing here."
Parts of the press conference were interesting, but to me not surprising. NASA has been clear that they want to put men on the Moon by 2020 for some time now, so the big questions are how and where.
"How" was revealed in part. NASA’s already talked extensively about the rockets that will be used (the Ares I and V, which will be used to go to low Earth orbit and to the Moon, respectively), but they did reveal a plan for the lunar lander.
However, again this was not a surprise. It’s similar to the Apollo module, as it goes down to the lunar surface in one piece, but the top half is the part that goes back up to orbit; this saves a lot of weight. The drawing of the lander they showed looked like it had an open structure, like a house without walls; that also saves weight. The astronauts, it seems to me, would be protected from radiation by the fuel tanks (I’d love to show you an image of it, but I cannot find one anywhere on NASA’s website. More on this later). It’s bigger than Apollo’s module, and will be designed to ferry humans as well as cargo. The plan is to have it be operated remotely if necessary, which is cool.
"Where" was interesting: they said they want to go to the lunar south pole, specifically Shackleton crater. There are numerous reasons this is a good place to go: in some places, the rim of that crater is in sunlight 75-80% of the time. That makes energy generation easy! Solar panels will be a cinch. Also, ironically, there are spots nearby that are always in darkness. That’s because the Sun is so low to the lunar horizon; a mountain sticks up high enough to almost always be in sunlight, but depressed areas like valleys or crater floors will always be dark. There might be interesting things in the dark, like frozen water. This is still highly debatable– literally, scientists are arguing over the presence of water there. We’ll know more in a year or two when Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter takes more data of the area.
I think the lunar south pole is an excellent place to build a colony (at the press conference, they used the words base and outpost, but colony is the word they should be using). It’s a bit tougher to get there due to complicated orbital dynamics, but not that much harder given the payoff. So NASA is making the right choice. There is an excellent PDF paper about all this from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts which was published in 2000. I found it to be a fascinating read.
Still… money. Paying for this will be tough. It’ll be expensive. At the press conference, Shana Dale, NASA’s Deputy Administrator, was asked directly by a reporter how much this would cost. Her answer? No answer. She did not give an answer in dollars, but said that this will be a chance for international partnerships to foster cooperation amongst nations blah blah blah. I can hardly blame her; who wants to say this will cost billions of dollars?
Answer: I do. I want to tell people exactly how much this will cost, and exactly what we will get out of it. I want to tell Congress, I want to tell taxpayers, I want to tell everyone! I want them to know that Bush mandated this new push, but has not given NASA any extra money at all to fund it, and Congress needs to figure out where money is being wasted in government (cough cough everywhere cough) and find more money to invest in our future.
NASA has been very reticent to discuss this, but that fits in with their overall apparent reticence to discuss anything about going back to the Moon. How much have you heard? I read whatever I can, and there have been precious few details about this. That makes me wonder what the heck is going on. This is NASA’s Next Big Thing, and they aren’t talking about it very much. Sure, you can read the occasional press release, but there needs to be far, far more buzz (haha) about putting people back on the Moon. Like I said above, I couldn’t find an image of the lunar lander anywhere on NASA’s site (they have some older artwork, but nothing I could find of the current version displayed at the press conference). It might be there, but cripes. It should be easy to find. I shouldn’t have to dig for it!
I think that returning to the Moon is a great effort, a noble deed, a fantastic and tremendously cool thing to do, but listening to NASA talk about it is like listening to an accountant go over your portfolio. I want to drift off to sleep, and cripes, we’re talking about sending humans back to the Moon! They should have had, at the very least, an Apollo astronaut on the press conference panel gushing about this. Anyone showing energy and emotion would have been great. The panelists were clearly happy to be doing this, but there was a decided lack of gusto, of enthusiasm, of "can-do" of, well, fizz.
NASA needs fizz.
They really, really need to work on their public outreach. In the 1960s, it was easy: build it and they will come. Times have changed, and NASA desperately needs help with this.
Here are some other folks’ opinions on the press conference as well:
- SpaceRef
- the Washington Post
- Cosmic Variance (with whom I agree about NASA’s tone about all this)
December 5th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
“I want them to know that Bush mandated this new push, but has not given NASA any extra money at all to fund it”
Excellent analysis, Phil, but you also have to point out that the President doesn’t set budgets. He can sign or veto an appropriation, but the money comes from congress, not the executive.
- Jack
December 5th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
True, but the didn’t do anything to convince Congress to fund it, either. Realistically, NASA was forced to do this (they wanted to anyway) from political pressure, but have no funding to do it. This will make things interesting….
December 5th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
re. radio interview…very nicely done…but…
…you wouldn’t fly if given the chance?? That surprised me.
If given the chance, I’d HAVE TO fly…if I didn’t, I’d always regret it.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
I’m making myself an object of scorn on the BA forum for saying this, but I have to ask:
Why should we go back to the moon?
I would fully support a manned lunar mission if it weren’t for one sad fact: Baring some unforeseen budgeting intelligence in Congress, every dollar that goes towards a moon landing is a dollar taken away from other missions.
At the moment, I would argue that the interesting science is to be found on Mars, and with unmanned science mission, like the Terrestrial Planet Finder for example.
We have been to the moon before, and while it’s a fascinating place, it’s not a profitable place, in terms of raw science return. Why don’t we focus our efforts where we know for certain that there are interesting things to learn? Like on Mars.
I have heard the argument that we need to use the moon as a test bed for Martian equipment. But I would point out that the moon is about as dissimilar to Mars as you could get. In terms of environment, Antarctica would actually make a better place to test Mars equipment.
I fully advocate going back to the moon sometime in the future, but I think the greater science returns are going to come from other places.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Moon, Mars: it’s all moot because there’s NO MONEY. We are trillions in debt to our invasion
of Iraq. It will take years, literally, to bail the budget out of this sink hole of a “war.” I can fully understand the reluctance of a science-dependent governmental entity which doesn’t want to mention the M-word, especially in light of the fact that whenever budget shortages occur, it is the “frills” which are always the first on the chopping block. I can’t believe the public would condone a repeat lunar mission facing this massive debt. I certainly won’t support it, not unless Congress wins the lottery and the debt is retired with the winnings.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
When I think of bringing “fizz” back to NASAs image, I think of Apollo 17. Was not the Apollo 18 mission cancelled?
2024 minus 2006 = 18
December 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
If NASA had the kind of money that we threw (and are STILL throwing) at Iraq (or even Haliburton’s share, funding would not be a problem!
December 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
I’m Kinda with Max to some degree. Is there enough science to be done on the Moon to make it worth going back? I’m open to the idea that there is but I haven’t heard much about what will happen once this outpost is built. (I downloaded that PDF and I’ll read it when I have time)
As for money the money’s gonna get spent so we might as well spend it on something worthwhile. It’s like Phil said once it’s not like the money is just shipped to the moon. The money for going to the moon is spend right here enploying people from engineers to astronauts to janitors and I have no problem with that.
Like Max said why not skip the moon and go on to Mars?
P
December 5th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
My thought is that NASA is being quiet about the money because they’re afraid the next administration will gut the idea entirely. We’ve only got two years until the next administration, and over a decade for the projected landing date, so they’re probably taking the cautious approach to planning in case things change drastically on them.
December 5th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Wow, that’s a fascinating paper!
December 5th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
aside from the science to be gained (surely something), more interested in the motivation a trip like this would give to culture. this is just as powerful as science in my eyes.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
How did people in on that press conference manage to keep from cracking up at the preposterousness of the whole presentation? I guess it’s nice that the Bush administration thought up such a great bit of busywork for the middle managers at NASA as dreaming up pie in the sky propsals with zero chance of being funded much less attempted, but is anyone on Earth taking this seriously?
Manned spaceflight is an anachronistic concept from the 20th Century and humans will most likely never walk on the Moon or any other world again (unless it’s discovered that those south pole craters are full of gold or oil). It makes absolutely zero sense to send people to the Moon, and the modern incarnation of NASA is incapable of such a feat anyway. NASA has lost two of its five space shuttles just trying to reach and return from near Earth orbit in the past few decades…
December 5th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Maybe China will share with us what they discover there.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
The paper talks about a Holman transfer…shouldn’t it be Hohmann?
December 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Peter, Mike Griffin takes it seriously. He’s hardly middle management.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
I think Max has a good point about skipping the moon and going straight for Mars. I’ve read several excellent books by Robert Zubrin who builds a very convincing case for going for Mars, as the moon is not that useful as a tryout for the red planet. On Mars you have a day just a little longer than an Earth day (good for solar energy needs), you can generate fuel from the atmosphere which greatly reduces the amount of stuff we have to send there and it only requires a little more delta v (change in rocket velocity) to get to Mars than a moon shot, and in the end, it’s an actual PLANET (unless it gets demoted like Pluto) rather than a moon.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Wil and Peter speak the truth. There is absolutely no way that this mission will ever happen.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:29 am
Both China and India are planning to send men to the moon. I don’t think the collective US ego will allow them to do that without a bit of competition. The USA’s future superpower status is on the line here.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:26 am
As a long-time space enthusiast (Hint: one of my first memories was sitting in the high school gym watching fuzzy TV pictures coming to us from Mercury launches) I find myself torn between the “final frontier” and the logic of continued–nay, increased!–robotic exploration. In terms of “bang for the buck”, nothing would beat a fleet of probes, “probing” every orifice of Mars or Europa. The SCIENCE accmplished would be amazing.
However, when it comes down to it, I would support a manned exploration program for the Moon, Mars, and beyond–IF (a really big IF) it were an intelligently planned, long-term mission with reliable funding and support.
Which, I suppose, means that I CAN’T support the current NASA plan. Sad, isn’t it, that we are having this discussion 37 years after Apollo 11?
December 6th, 2006 at 6:45 am
I suspect a point is being missed in this discussion: underlying all of the government’s interest in space exploration, indeed in all government-funded scientific endeavour, is military need. It isn’t mentioned much these days, but one of the reasons (not the only one, for certain) for Kennedy’s interest in a lunar program back in the early ’60s was think-tank studies using the moon as a base for strategic nuclear weapons. It was sort of a “last-taps, gotcha last ” scenario where a lunar base would be untouchable for a couple of days after a nuclear exchange,and could deliver a decisive final blow. Not to mention serving as an “unsinkable” reconnaissance and listening post. I think the Bush administration’s interest in the moon stems largely from the desire to keep other powers, like China, from being able to exploit these possibilities. This would be much in the way that we currently maintain research stations in the Antarctic; yes, we get lots of useful science but we also serve as a reminder to other nations not to get grabby about territory, military bases, and natural resources.
Skip the moon and goe to Mars first? Well, a Mars colony is “higher ground” still and strategic considerations will also significantly influence govrnment policy. But given current technology, it probably makes more sense to learn how to make an extraterrestrial colony self-sufficient on the Moon first, where a base is only a few days away from help, as opposed to a Mars colony which would be months away from help.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Too much money, we will have to abandon our national sport of torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And when we do that we will lose control of cheap oil, so instead of SUV’s people will be in smaller cars and buses. I think people
will continue killing and using up oil and not go to the moon, they like suburbs and driving to strip mall big box retailers too much.
If they barely keep a space station flying or manned in low decaying orbit how do they swing this adventure?
December 6th, 2006 at 9:59 am
All I really know about going to the Moon is that I wanna go! I seriously doubt I ever will, but still…
December 6th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Jonny Rock
I wasn’t aware this was now a nationial sport. Is this broadcast? Is it available in High-Def?
Wow, only 3 out of 22 prevoius posts linking Bush/Iraq to everything ever discussed.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:40 am
[...] “NASA Lunar Plans“, no Bad Astronomy. Novidades, ou mais do mesmo? [...]
December 6th, 2006 at 10:43 am
The BA said
“”Where” was interesting: they said they want to go to the lunar south pole, specifically Shackleton crater. There are numerous reasons this is a good place to go:”
You forgot to name the best reason:
It’s got a great name.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Whether or not we make it to the Moon, Mars, and beyond has more to do with national will than with funding. After all, we went to the moon while fighting a very costly war in Southeast Asia. In our personal lives we find the time and money to do the things we really want to do. As a Nation, we do the same. I invite the BA readers to spend as much energy and talent promoting space exploration and helping to generate that national will as they do with petty political rants. The new Congress is coming in with a laundry list of spending priorities which, as far as I have seen, don’t include space exploration or science.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am
An appropriate choice of landing sites also because the people who eventually go there will have to have the intrepidness of Shackleton.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:56 am
O.K., money aside: the shuttle is supposed to be decomissioned in ‘10. We have no way to get up to the ISS after that, let alone get to the moon – unless we use the older technology which we first used to get there: solid rockets, two-stage landers, etc. How will the additional habitat payload(s) be ferried to the Shackleton site without a major revamp of the old lander design? A permanent base implies a vehicle(s) which allows for coming and going; we’ve got nothing resembling that technology now – except the shuttle. Once there, the “water” which “might” be available in the bottom of the sunless craters might not be there; then what? That we should partner with the ESA or any other country (like Japan,
Russia and, yes, China) is probably the ONLY way anyone will be able to get off the planet for any serious manned exploration of space or anywhere else.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Like I said above, I couldn’t find an image of the lunar lander anywhere on NASA’s site (they have some older artwork, but nothing I could find of the current version displayed at the press conference). It might be there, but cripes. It should be easy to find. I shouldn’t have to dig for it!
I found some images of the lander at
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon.html
Click on “NASA’s New Spacecraft” under “Flash Features” on the right side of the page.
Take a look at
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/cev/hi-resjpgs/6.jpg
(Warning: it’s 4267 x 2400 pixels, 2.7 megabytes.)
I’m not too sure about the accuracy of the image of Earth. It looks like an image from much closer than the Moon, and I think the north polar icecap extends further south than it should. (A conspiracy theorist might think someone at NASA is trying to deny global warming.)
December 6th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Where there is money to be made, there will be found a way.
Construction of lunar power generating facilities is the primary possibility for money making and a permanent human presence on Luna. Science is best acquired by robots. Money is best made by people. Look for the bucks and the explorers will come,,,
Gary 7
December 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Speaking of Bad Astronomy….The Washington Post article talks about telescopes on “the dark side of the Moon” (last paragraph, first page). Perhaps we need to focus on education in selling this to the public.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Yeah, I found some illustrations of the lander, but what I meant was I couldn’t find the schematic they used in the press conference. That’s a weird thing to do; show an image then not make it available. The one I saw looked like it was the open architecture I described, but the other illsutrations make it look more like the old Apollo lander. Which is it?
December 7th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Phil, the briefing charts are linked off that page:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/163896main_LAT_GES_1204.pdf
I don’t know what open architecture you mean. Perhaps slide 13? It looks to me there’s a crew cabin (the ascent vehicle) that is a small canister and then a platform for a larger payload that could be an enclosed canister.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Will M., did you pay any attention to the announcement or linked site?
1. Yes, there is a major revamp of the Apollo design. They are retaining the Apollo conceptual design, but the design is being modified for a crew of 4, and will be extensively updated.
2. Coming and going will be accomplished by Apollo style vehicles rather than Shuttle style vehicles. That doesn’t preclude some ability to reuse the command modules, but the lander return vehicles will likely be jettisoned and burn up on reentry.
3. They are not requiring water to be present in the craters to succeed. They are hoping to find volatiles such as water because that could be beneficial, but it is not required. Hydrogen and oxygen can be obtained directly from the lunar regolith (rock).
4. They are already discussing with other countries how to form an international partnership. The exact structure has not be solidified. And yes, they did announce they have started a dialog with CHINA.
As for “Mars First” advocates, there are a couple of reasons to go to the Moon first that do not rely on the lunar conditions being at all similar to Martian conditions. Primarily there is learning about the process of establishing a habitat elsewhere in a location that is somewhat easy to get back and forth in reasonable time. A Martian trip will take approx 6 months one way, without a substantial change in propulsion technology. That puts anyone going on an incredibly thin logistics supply line. It makes sense to try it first where access is a couple of days. Second, there are radiation exposure issues that need to be resolved for lengthy trips. Third, there is the ever-present concern over weakening due to extended periods in weightlessness. ISS is already working on that problem, and being under some gravity load is better than none, but it is critical we understand and can combat the effects if we want to protect the health of our astronauts.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Well Irishman, I’ve heard all these arguments before, but I don’t think they provide sufficient reason to put a barrier like the moon in the path of a Mars mission.
1. As you said, we need the moon to practice “the process of establishing a habitat elsewhere in a location that is somewhat easy to get back and forth in reasonable time.” Why do we need the moon for that? Why couldn’t we just construct our mock habitat in Antarctica (As the Mars society has done.) You get all the difficulties of isolated living, without the hassle of going to the moon. In addition, Antarctica would provide a more realistic simulation of the problems Mars explorers would face, while the moon will force them to deal with challenges they would never see on Mars.
2. Radiation is not a threat on a voyage to Mars. I strongly recommend Robert Zubrin’s “A Case for Mars” for a very lengthy discussion of this topic. He concludes that with basic shielding, a Mars crew will be exposed to an elevated, but not significant and certainly not dangerous dose of radiation.
3. We also don’t have to worry about the effects of long-term exposure to micro-gravity. In fact, Martian explorers need not experience micro-gravity at all for any significant time. Again, as Zubrin describes in his book, it is possible to simply pay out a few hundred meters of cable, and set your spacecraft in a slow spin, and generate artificial gravity.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I must have misread the announcement: I thought this was a theoretical response to the latest Bushco fantasy invasion scheme. I didn’t realize NASA was seriously considering resurrecting 40+year old mothballed technology as the main components of the mission. So there’ll be a base littered with the bottoms of the landing modules…There will be a hard rock mining and smelting operation on the moon – a union shop, no doubt. I’m confident that the public and congress will wholeheartedly support this endeavor.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:10 am
What do you think abaut ruins on the Moon?????