Going Back to the Moon
An interesting read over at Pajamas Media… Buzz Aldrin and Taylor Dinerman explain why NASA has to go back to the moon.
An excerpt:
NASA unveiled its plans for a base on December 4th, 2006. The lunar base is to be built on one of the Moon’s poles, probably the south one, which is lit by the Sun at least 75 percent of the time. “Our objective is to create a enduring sustainable human and robotic presence that will open up vastly greater opportunities for science, research and technological development,� Shana Dale NASA’s Deputy Administrator explained. The base will be manned by teams of astronauts who will rotate in and out every six months.
As it expands, scientists will be able to use it as a base from which they can not only explore the moon, but will be able to build a very large radio telescope on the far side where it will be able to observe the universe shielded from the electromagnetic pollution put out by our civilization’s relentless hunger for wireless bandwidth.
On the moon’s pitted face, facing the Earth, observation platforms could be built to scrutinize the home planet’s climate and geophysics. Telescope apertures can be made as large as necessary and their performance will eclipse the Earth observation satellites now in orbit. Using a network of very large distributed hyperspectral sensors, the Earth’s environment can be persistently monitored with an accuracy and scope far greater than is possible with today’s orbiting telescopes. Unlike most satellites in orbit, these sensors will be accessible to humans, making them easier to repair or improve.
The greatest potential prize on the Moon is energy. “If the world’s 9 billion in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans to today… the world would have to generate 102.2 terawatts,� writes MIT Professor Daniel Nocera in the Fall, 2006 issue of the quarterly Daedalus. Considering that the world only generates 13.5 terawatts today, the future needs of humanity may be impossible to meet from purely terrestrial sources. Nuclear, hydro and wind power will just not be enough. Even if you are skeptical of human induced global warming theories, generating that amount of energy from coal or natural gas would create more pollution than we may be prepared to tolerate.
They also write that the United Government doesn’t have to ‘own’ the base permanently: “control could be handed over to a private non-profit consortium that would lease space to companies and governments which will then pursue their individual goals, such as energy, research, tourism, or developing the technology and supplies needed for further space exploration.”
They also emphasize the importance of space exploration for educational purposes.
I’m wondering what your thoughts on this are. The U.S. spends a lot of money on space exploration / NASA, some might argue that this money would be better spent on, say, fighting poverty, universal health care coverage, etc. Others, on the other hand, might agree with Aldrin and Dinerman.
I understand the value / importance of the exploration of space and of, for instance, this base on the moon, and it seems to me that it could be money well spent. Obviously, it costs a lot of money, so one has to choose one’s projects with extreme care. I’m confident, though, that this base is a project with an enormous potential.
This isn’t something that will merely benefit Americans, it’s something that will / might benefit the whole of mankind. As such it seems logical to argue that nations should work very closely together… thus sharing the costs.
11 Responses to “Going Back to the Moon”
Um, getting energy from the moon to the Earth as a solution to Earth’s energy problems? It’s hard enough just to get people to the moon and back, and now they’re suggesting Earth get the majority of its energy from there as well? I’ll leave it to the rest of you as to the reasons why this might be impractical/inefficient/ridiculous.
If you want more practical suggestions, see the most recent issue of Science, which discusses the global energy crisis and its possible solutions. It mostly discusses biofuels and solar power.
I might also point out that many things that can be done on the moon can also be done in orbit around the Earth. Orbiting radio telescopes can have shields on their Earth-facing sides to protect them from electromagnetic interference. Optical telescopes–well, we already have the Hubble and more advanced ones can be made. You can even get electrical power from orbit, using vast solar panel arrays and microwave beams to transmit the power–costly and complex, but much less so than moon-based power sources.
And then there’s the fact that we’ve already been to the moon. And the fact that human exploration is more costly and risky than machine-based exploration.
As for me, going to the moon or Mars doesn’t really excite me. I’m looking forward to 2011, when NASA is supposed to send the Terrestrial Planet Finder into orbit. It’s an inferometry-based orbiting pair of telescopes that can not only locate Earth-sized worlds, but might be able to provide some information as to atmospheric composition.
If an Earth-like world is discovered, that would be a big deal for me. Though it would be extremely unlikely that even an unmanned probe could reach it in my lifetime, it would certainly spur a great deal of planning in that direction
When Bush suggested going to Mars, I asked a Republican friend: Would you accept the loss of permanent tax cuts to fund the mission to Mars. He still hasn’t answered the question. Going to Mats with a huge buget deficit is not small government Conservatism.
I thought the energy comment was odd too, for the reasons that Alan G mentioned. It did bring to mind a free floating thought I’ve had from time to time though, for which I lack the scientific knowledge to determine the value of the idea.
My thought is: wouldn’t it theoretically be possible to harness tidal energy the way we get hydroelectric power now, but on a larger scale in the oceans? Obviously storage or transmission of that energy would be a problem, but perhaps a problem that could be solved? Is there anyone that can tell me if this has already been considered and shot down (and if so, in laymans terms can you explain why?), or if it’s currently being considered?
C Stanley-
There are plans to tap tidal power. One involved putting a hydroelectric dam across Canada’s famous Bay of Fundy, with its massive tides. Water would flow through the dam one was as the tide flowed in and another as flowed out.
Another involved using small tidal energy generators on top of small, artificial coral atolls near coasts. During WWII someone noticed that the tide broke all around coral atolls, not just on one side. With a small tidal energy generator in the middle, able to turn a turbine with a push from any side, electricity would be generated.
Both of these ideas were from Science Digest from about 20-25 years ago. I’m not sure what their status is.
Thanks Alan..I’ll google to try to find out more. I figured if I thought of this, someone else must have also already had the idea and I wondered if there might be some obstacle that I’m not thinking of.
CStan, I remember tidal energy was very limited in its overall ability to produce energy as ideal locations were relatively few. It is surely a constant source, but repair and volume of output actually makes it not a real viable source.
As for a moon base I’m all for it. I know we can likely do the same research more efficiently from orbit, but to me space exploration isn’t about efficiency. Its about pushing the boundaries, forcing us to do impossible things and design new technology to do it. Its not about playing it safe or merely setting up a new lab in the most exotic place we can.
Also, I believe it is insanely lofty goals like this that spur interest in engineering and science, which this nations schools have failed to do and we are currently running low on technically skilled college grads. Think about the 60′s, the most incredible time ever for tech advancment. Rocketry, computers, communications were all taking recognizable shape in that decade. They’ve certainly been refined since then, but fundamentally they haven’t changed all the much since we decided to go to the moon. Think about it, we had biplanes in the 1920′s. 40 years later we had the SR-71 blackbird. 40 After that we still have the SR-71 blackbird as a benchmark.
I think we could something inspiring once again.
I agree with Sam. I know that there’s a lot of concern about the environment and a need to be cautious with our use of technology…but some major project could serve as an inspiration as well as a spur to scientific and economic growth.
It seems like everything we explore we pollute. The loose detritus from space explorations so far already present a danger to space vehicles. We’ve polluted the ocean below and the air above. That should be enough.
There is also the problem of politicizing space. Man takes his baggage of greed, competition and rivalry with him, whereever he goes. It’s not too hard to imagine a war on the moon over rights to one thing or another.
I hope we set limits to what can be drawn into our sphere of influence and retain a proper respect for nature as it is, without remaking it.
First, could we dispense with the canard that the space program is somehow stealing money from efforts to end poverty, cure disease or house the homeless. NASA’s science budget is around $5 billion a year, about $20 a person. If you know how to fund Universal Health Care at that price, please call Congress.
Space exploration has been transformational to the fields of physics, astronomy, and geology. It’s the basis for much of our understanding of global climate change. It provided a peaceful avenue to develop most of the high technology that we use to defend the country. Building a missile that could hit a specific spot on the Moon proved we could hit any target on the planet, without starting a war with Russia.
Investment in basic science and exploration always pays dividends in the long run. It’s reckless military adventures that usually cause a country’s downfall
The only thing that has come close to manned exploration in terms of involving the public emotionally in space exploration and science in general is the Hubble Space telescope and the Mars rover missions with their pictures of Mars. No other unmanned scientific mission comes anywhere near them. That sense of involvement is necessary to fund any of this exploration and I feel that those who say money on them is a waste compared to the somehow purer unmanned missions don’t realize this. In addition I agree with Sam about the importance of pushing boundaries and how the technology developed to do so help us in many ways.
“As for a moon base I’m all for it.”
==================
I disagree totally, unless it’s a temporary one.
To explore and learn is one thing. This kind of thinking, however, implies treating the moom as new territory to conquer. It raises the question of ‘whose moon is it, anyway?’
I wouldn’t want to see a heavenly bodies’ grab race.
Nations don’t lack for areas of conflict, as it is.
A temporary intrusion for scientific reasons is one thing. But to make the moon the property of any one nation, where this is heading, fool-hardy to the utmost degree.
At the very least, this issue should be discussed at an international level.