The Moon We Left Behind

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
July 17, 2009
The Moon We Left Behind
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Michael Crichton once wrote that if you had told a physicist in 1899 that within a hundred years humankind would, among other wonders (nukes, commercial airlines), "travel to the moon, and then lose interest ... the physicist would almost certainly pronounce you mad." In 2000, I quoted these lines expressing Crichton's incredulity at America's abandonment of the moon. It is now 2009 and the moon recedes ever further.

Next week marks the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing. We say we will return in 2020. But that promise was made by a previous president, and this president has defined himself as the anti-matter to George Bush. Moreover, for all Obama's Kennedyesque qualities, he has expressed none of Kennedy's enthusiasm for human space exploration.

So with the Apollo moon program long gone, and with Constellation, its supposed successor, still little more than a hope, we remain in retreat from space. Astonishing. After countless millennia of gazing and dreaming, we finally got off the ground at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Within 66 years, a nanosecond in human history, we'd landed on the moon. Then five more landings, 10 more moonwalkers, and, in the decades since, nothing.

To be more precise: almost 40 years spent in low Earth orbit studying, well, zero-G nausea and sundry cosmic mysteries. We've done it with the most beautiful, intricate, complicated -- and ultimately, hopelessly impractical -- machine ever built by man: the space shuttle. We turned this magnificent bird into a truck for hauling goods and people to a tinkertoy we call the International Space Station, itself created in a fit of post-Cold War internationalist absentmindedness as a place where people of differing nationality can sing "Kumbaya" while weightless.

The shuttle is now too dangerous, too fragile and too expensive. Seven more flights and then it is retired, going -- like the Spruce Goose and the Concorde -- into the museum of Things Too Beautiful And Complicated To Survive.

America's manned space program is in shambles. Fourteen months from today, for the first time since 1962, the U.S. will be incapable not just of sending a man to the moon but of sending anyone into Earth orbit. We'll be totally grounded. We'll have to beg a ride from the Russians or perhaps even the Chinese.

So what, you say? Don't we have problems here on Earth? Oh please. Poverty and disease and social ills will always be with us. If we'd waited for them to be rectified before venturing out, we'd still be living in caves.

Yes, we have a financial crisis. No one's asking for a crash Manhattan Project. All we need is sufficient funding from the hundreds of billions being showered from Washington -- "stimulus" monies that, unlike Eisenhower's interstate highway system or Kennedy's Apollo program, will leave behind not a trace on our country or our consciousness -- to build Constellation and get us back to Earth orbit and the moon a half-century after the original landing.

Why do it? It's not for practicality. We didn't go to the moon to spin off cooling suits and freeze-dried fruit. Any technological return is a bonus, not a reason. We go for the wonder and glory of it. Or, to put it less grandly, for its immense possibilities. We choose to do such things, said JFK, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." And when you do such magnificently hard things -- send sailing a Ferdinand Magellan or a Neil Armstrong -- you open new human possibility in ways utterly unpredictable.

The greatest example? Who could have predicted that the moon voyages would create the most potent impetus to -- and symbol of -- environmental consciousness here on Earth: Earthrise, the now iconic Blue Planet photograph brought back by Apollo 8?

Ironically, that new consciousness about the uniqueness and fragility of Earth focused contemporary imagination away from space and back to Earth. We are now deep into that hyper-terrestrial phase, the age of iPod and Facebook, of social networking and eco-consciousness.

But look up from your BlackBerry one night. That is the moon. On it are exactly 12 sets of human footprints -- untouched, unchanged, abandoned. For the first time in history, the moon is not just a mystery and a muse, but a nightly rebuke. A vigorous young president once summoned us to this new frontier, calling the voyage "the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked." We came, we saw, we retreated.

How could we?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
That's what happens when you put all your eggs into the Space Shuttle basket. Sucks all the oxygen out of the room, no money left for much else. Russians ditched their Buran pretty quickly and went back to basics.
 

Andrew1990

Banned
Mar 8, 2008
2,153
0
0
Ya, the shuttle is the past. We need some sort of ship that is capable of leaving Earth's orbit within a small budget.


With all the latest technology I am sure we can come up with a winner within the next 5/10 year timeframe.




Or, Space Elevator? ;)
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
We'll be OK, but prolly will have to take a little hiatus, simply because money we are spending to retrofit shuttles to relaunch is what we should be spending on R&D on new space vehicles.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
We'll be OK, but prolly will have to take a little hiatus, simply because money we are spending to retrofit shuttles to relaunch is what we should be spending on R&D on new space vehicles.

And the money used to fix hubble could have purchased and launched a much better space telescope.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Well... From what I read, the new administrator af nasa is for the idea of continuing the shuttle program another year.
 

Andrew1990

Banned
Mar 8, 2008
2,153
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
We'll be OK, but prolly will have to take a little hiatus, simply because money we are spending to retrofit shuttles to relaunch is what we should be spending on R&D on new space vehicles.

This ^^


We have already traveled to space. We know need a means to explore space and create some space bases.

The shuttle worked for us for a long time, but now its time to get some R&D done to get something better.
 

Docnasty

Member
Jan 25, 2009
105
0
0
Sure thing, I'll just whip up some warp drive schematics and anti-matter harvesting techniques.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
The NASA that went to the moon was imbued with a masculine spirit and ethic - something the present feminized society resents. They de-ball the military for the same reason. NASA is just another bureaucracy with many weenies and head cases like James Hansen. As soon as Hansen (who did global cooling papers in the 70's) was allowed to use NASA as a platform unfettered you knew it had become an empty gourd. Good bit by Charles Krauthammer
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Why do it? It's not for practicality. We didn't go to the moon to spin off cooling suits and freeze-dried fruit. Any technological return is a bonus, not a reason. We go for the wonder and glory of it. Or, to put it less grandly, for its immense possibilities. We choose to do such things, said JFK, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." And when you do such magnificently hard things -- send sailing a Ferdinand Magellan or a Neil Armstrong -- you open new human possibility in ways utterly unpredictable.


And today we have become a nation of mediocrity interested only in immediate profits along with their fleeting pleasures constantly consuming the new before we have even finished with the old, while looking at our neighhbors plate with an envious eye.
 

tontod

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
3,244
0
71
Hopefully private enterprise will provide a push to get to space and beyond. My friend at SpaceX was saying that Elon has ambitions of getting to Mars using the Falcon 9 Heavy rocket, but maybe he would try the moon first ;)

Most likely NASA wont get much of an increase in budget, that 2020 date will probably get pushed back.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Mr. Krauthammer either does terrible research or is being purposefully misleading.

As I mentioned in another thread, NASA is planning not only to return to the moon within the next ten years, but also set up a permanent base on it. To do this, they are well on their way in constructing the Constellation spacecraft and the Altair Lunar Lander.

GQ: The Next Giant Leap - Part III: Constellation

Orion, the Constellation crew capsule that is scheduled to replace the shuttle in 2015, is meant to splash down in the ocean but can also land on land. (The project manager told me, ?I?m not saying it?ll be fun?but they?ll survive.?) Constellation will launch two rockets almost simultaneously?the new Ares V will go up with 157,000 pounds of cargo for building the moon base, and once Mission Control has verified that all systems are go, then its companion, the Ares I, will go up with the crewed Orion capsule on top. Logos for Constellation were commissioned from a Star Trek: The Next Generation designer.

Then lunch at a conference table in a corner office with the top men on Constellation: Jeff Hanley, an elegant, self-contained midwesterner, and Doug Cooke, a ruddy, quiet Texan. It was a Last Supper of sorts. After our meeting, Hanley and Cooke were attending Constellation?s budget-development meeting (at which the allocation of $6.9 billion would be determined). They were not looking forward to it.

I began by saying, ?The public at large has no idea what the Constellation program is or, really, that it even exists.? This brought on strong cringing, after which both men?s faces sank into resigned sadness. They nodded beleagueredly at each other.

Then I asked if the Ares rockets weren?t maybe a mistake.

Hanley, the midwesterner, cool and restrained, in an off-white suit jacket: ?The Ares V?s the biggest rocket anybody will have ever built. This gets lost in discussions of performance. To redesign and human-rate??i.e., make it safe for humans to fly into orbit on it??an existing launch vehicle would cost a lot of time. There?s a lot of momentum behind Ares. It?ll improve crew safety by a factor of ten. Airlines have a one-in-10,000 fatality rate. The shuttle has a one-in-sixty?as safe as getting in your car.? We?re shooting for one in 1,000.?

Cooke, in a blazer, from behind his lunch: ?Preliminary design review went very well.?

Hanley: ?We?re opening up all locations on the moon for exploration. Apollo only went to the near side and the equatorial regions.?

I asked about getting to Mars and, once there, how we would get back.

Hanley: ?We can make fuel from the Martian atmosphere?that?s simple chemistry.?

Cooke: ?There?s an opportunity to send something to Mars every twenty-six months. It?ll take six Ares V rockets to do a Mars mission. But first we?ve got to close the life-support-system loop.? Hence the moon base, where lunar soil?regolith?will be converted to oxygen, water, and fuel, and where options for growing food will be explored.

?What about leaving the solar system??

Hanley: ?Barring some breakthrough? A hundred years ago, nobody would?ve guessed we?d go to the moon. Visiting other planet bodies?that?s why I?m here.? Then, wistfully, ?Seems like it?s taking a long time.?

NASA's budget is 0.5% of the total federal budget - is taking it back up to 4.4% really going to be something the taxpayers will appreciate? Silly rant of an article.
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Why do it? It's not for practicality. We didn't go to the moon to spin off cooling suits and freeze-dried fruit. Any technological return is a bonus, not a reason. We go for the wonder and glory of it. Or, to put it less grandly, for its immense possibilities. We choose to do such things, said JFK, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." And when you do such magnificently hard things -- send sailing a Ferdinand Magellan or a Neil Armstrong -- you open new human possibility in ways utterly unpredictable.


And today we have become a nation of mediocrity interested only in immediate profits along with their fleeting pleasures constantly consuming the new before we have even finished with the old, while looking at our neighhbors plate with an envious eye.

lol i love sensationalism and hyperbole too :)
 

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
Manned space flight is a waste of resources. We're not technologically ready for it. We should concentrate on far less expensive unmanned scientific missions like the Mars rovers.

What has changed since the moon landing in 1969 is the huge increase in computing power. The computer that helped Apollo 11 land was little more than a hand calculator by today's standards. Current computer technology allows unmanned missions to do the work humans had to do in the early part of the space age.

With the money it would take the return to the moon, NASA could launch the Terrestrial Planet Finder to search for earth-like planets. Which would you rather see, a video of some guys playing around on the surface of the moon or discovery of another habitable planet in our galaxy?
 

cirrrocco

Golden Member
Sep 7, 2004
1,952
78
91
Originally posted by: owensdj
.... Which would you rather see, a video of some guys playing around on the surface of the moon or discovery of another habitable planet in our galaxy?

I def want to find a planet with 90 percent women. That would be sweet..:p. Yeah they should be nekkid too..

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,535
6,704
126
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
The NASA that went to the moon was imbued with a masculine spirit and ethic - something the present feminized society resents. They de-ball the military for the same reason. NASA is just another bureaucracy with many weenies and head cases like James Hansen. As soon as Hansen (who did global cooling papers in the 70's) was allowed to use NASA as a platform unfettered you knew it had become an empty gourd. Good bit by Charles Krauthammer

That's just your own self hate of the little girl you really are talking. And when you take a girl who hates herself you get a little banshee bitch just like Krauthammer who tries to hit you with his psychic purse instead of his fist. Can you picture that effete little intellectual twerp out there bringing down a mammoth. See a doctor about your mental condition.
 

jdjbuffalo

Senior member
Oct 26, 2000
433
0
0
Originally posted by: owensdj
Manned space flight is a waste of resources. We're not technologically ready for it. We should concentrate on far less expensive unmanned scientific missions like the Mars rovers.

What has changed since the moon landing in 1969 is the huge increase in computing power. The computer that helped Apollo 11 land was little more than a hand calculator by today's standards. Current computer technology allows unmanned missions to do the work humans had to do in the early part of the space age.

With the money it would take the return to the moon, NASA could launch the Terrestrial Planet Finder to search for earth-like planets. Which would you rather see, a video of some guys playing around on the surface of the moon or discovery of another habitable planet in our galaxy?

Why can't we have both? I want to the Terrestrial Planet Finder launched yesterday. I would love to be able to confirm another Earth-like planet within our Galaxy. I'm sure there are plenty of similar ones out there.

I think it's pathetic how little we spend on NASA vs. how much we get in return (just Google "NASA technology spinoffs"). We should definitely increase the budget. But I think NASA could also use an overhaul. There is a lot of legacy management that I believe holds it back in evolving into a more modern, streamlined and efficient entity.

I agree with what others have said about opening space up to commercial ventures. I think this is the only way you'll really open up space to everyone. If you can get something like commercial asteroid mining or He3 moon mining to be a viable business proposition then you'll see a lot of developments in space technology and access to space by the average citizen (although this may take building a space elevator).

We do still need to develop a lot of technology to make space travel viable for humans, but I question how feasible it is to just hope we can develop it all while only working from the ground and not developing and testing things in space.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Topic Title: The Moon We Left Behind

Topic Summary: Fourteen months from today the U.S. will be incapable of sending anyone into Earth orbit.

We'll be totally grounded.

Good, can we stop spending so much money on wasted programs and false wars?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
owendj has the right basic approach, right now all human cargo into space only adds complexity, risk, and much more than just doubles the weight, while adding nothing appreciable to the mission. Sadly the shuttle idea, while doable, has proven risky, complex, and unsustainable.

And while we humans are learning much about our own limited solar system and the universe at large, almost 100% of that knowledge has been gained by robotic instruments sent on one way trips to distant places.

The sooner we scrap the shuttles, that better off we will be, and our space exploration bucks can be better spent elsewhere. Meanwhile, we can work on designing something better than the space shuttle for repair missions for earth orbiting satellites only.
When and if there is a compelling reason to send humans, we will have saved enough money by not sending humans on joy rides,
that the new knowledge gained for less will pay for that need.