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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.