Wow, that was fast: Paul Harris put my interview online. We talked about going back to the Moon, including how NASA plans on doing it and what’s next.

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)

At 2:15 Pacific time today, I’ll be on my friend Paul Harris’ radio show (KMOX St. Louis) to talk about NASA’s press conference yesterday about returning to the Moon. I’ll have a new blog entry up about all that before the show.

No, not the pillaging kind. The kind NASA Landed there back in the 1970s.

Check. It. Out. HiRISE pictures of the Viking 1 lander:

Click it for a close-up of the Viking lander. I had to compress the image and crop it mightily or else my monthly bandwidth would get chewed up in one day. You can get the very big (3.4 Mb, 20Mpix) higher-res image on the HiRISE website (and really, that’s a sub-image of the actual full frame image which is far bigger). They have also gotten a (not quite as cool) image of the Viking 2 lander as well.

I remember when Viking 1 landed on Mars (it was 1976). I was still pretty young, but I was very excited about it. That’s all I remember, actually, because now my memory is distorted a bit from watching Carl Sagan stand in front of a Viking model in "Cosmos". But things were buzzing back then. Funny: I always remember Viking 1 as the first time a probe returned an image from the surface of another planet, but that honor is held by the Russian Venera 9 Venus probe. That’s why I try to check my facts before posting!

Anyway, we’ve come a long way since Viking. Well, it’s the same distance we went before, but the technology is a weensy bit better.

And the HiRISE images just keep coming, and they are so cool. They got the Spirit rover landing site as well:

The rover’s not there, of course. It’s been busy roving around now for three years. Oh wait: HiRISE caught it, too:

You can clearly see the rover tracks. That picture was taken on September 29, so that’s pretty much where the rover sits now.

Need I remind you? These are pictures of Mars. That last one was taken when Mars was 372 million km (220 million miles) away!

I know, I know, I’m gushing, and I’ve gushed before. But these are pictures of another planet! Cool cool cool!

Tinobuntic does it again:

What do bloggers look like?

Some are better than others.

Oh. Here’s what he did the first time.

So I post about different podcasts you can download, and forgot to check to see if the new "Brains on Vacation" was up! It is, and you can download it as an MP3 or a WMA.

The topic is conspiracy theories, and I talk about the Moon Hoax. Duh. My part starts at about minute 1:20 and goes until about 7:15 minutes in. The rest of it is about silly 9/11 conspiracies.

The plot thickens.

Our story so far: Laurie David, a producer of Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth", called the National Science Teachers Association, which represents 55,000 science teachers in the US (note: I have been a member of NSTA and do workshops at their meetings), offering them 50,000 copies of the DVD of the movie. NSTA rejected the offer. David then writers a scathing and damning editorial in the Washington Post, asking why NSTA would accept money from ExxonMobile but not free DVDs from the "other side". NSTA responded by saying they do not send out third party materials, which has been its policy for many years.

Now, the august Science Magazine weighs in. It’s an interesting summary of events, and it sounds like SciMag leans toward the NSTA view, but it’s hard to say.

In my last post about this, I asked three questions:

1. Was Ms. David informed [by the NSTA] about the NSTA policy of not supporting outside organizations?
2. Was Ms. David informed that the NSTA would help her advertise the DVDs to their members?
3. If the NSTA is not influenced by sponsors, then why did they make the statement about "unnecessary risk" to their support?

Interestingly, from the SciMag article, it does appear that the answer to Number 2 is "yes". The NSTA did offer to help Ms. David advertise the DVD to its members, but she elected to leave that out of her OpEd in the Post.

It is implied that the answer is the same to Number 1 as well. This casts Ms. David in a very poor light. It sounds to me at this point that she was ticked at the NSTA, and broke a cardinal rule that most people on the ‘net learn via discussion boards: don’t post angry. You’ll pay for it later.

But this still leaves Number 3: why did the NSTA tell her that sending out those DVDs would jeopardize their funding from sponsors? It sounds very much like that means they didn’t want to upset their oil industry funding. This puts a bit of a pall on the NSTA.

I cannot ignore the overwhelming irony here. In the global warming "debate", there are obfuscation, spin, and outright lies being tossed around just to sow confusion and to protect interests. While I cannot say anyone in this kerfuffle is lying, there does seem to be some hiding behind words going on. Accusations of bad behavior and undue influence are getting to be distressingly familiar.

So who’s at fault? What’s going on? We’re still short on answers here. What I want are the original emails. I think it’s about time we see them, too.