The NASA community - civil servants, contractors, and politicians alike
- is holding its breath while we await the final report from the
Augustine Commission and the decision of President Obama on what
exactly he wants NASA to do. Out of the several options the Human Space Flight Plans Committee
is considering, one that has garnered particular interest from the
press and some industry circles is the so-called "Deep Space" option.
The basic idea is to forgo the energy-intensive, and, thus, expensive, landing operations on the Moon in favor of manned flights to near-Earth asteroids, the Lagrange Points, and, possibly, Mars' moons. We would still be able to develop the technology for long-duration travel, but put off the expense of actually landing and returning significant numbers of people until the political will is there.
Some commentators have said that this option might be hard to sell to the public. I've thought of a way that we might be able to make it work. Flying people out there just for the sake of doing it probably isn't going to get a lot of support. However, this option presents an opportunity to partner manned exploration with robots in a way that leverages the strengths of both. Some robotic exploration advocates say that telepresence will eliminate the need to humans to far-off places like Mars. However, the problem of communications lag makes such an approach untenable.
Telepresence works here on Earth because it is nearly instantaneous. There is a one-way communications lag of 8 to 20 minutes between Earth and Mars when they are, respectively, closest together and furthest apart (and that doesn't include bouncing the signal off satellites if the Sun is in between them). So, an operator on Earth would experience a 16-minute to 40-minute delay just to see the results of one command. This is a problem the ground teams controlling Spirit and Opportunity struggle with every day.
Instead, if we coordinated the "Deep Space" manned flights with the arrival and operations of telepresence-enabled robots, human operators in orbit could provide a "surge" capability for man-in-the-loop operations while at their destination. When it's time for the astronauts to come home, the robots could then revert to a more independent activity profile.
I'll note that even Dr. Steven Squyres, the Cornell scientist responsible for the Mars Exploration Rovers, says a human team could do in a week what it's taken his rovers over five years to do. Instead of competing for resources, this would drive the human and robotic space flight communities closer together by sharing the goals and the risks.
On-orbit telepresence, as part of the "Deep Space" exploration option, might just be the key to enabling human exploration of the solar system until we can lower launch costs enough to sustainably land and return people.
The basic idea is to forgo the energy-intensive, and, thus, expensive, landing operations on the Moon in favor of manned flights to near-Earth asteroids, the Lagrange Points, and, possibly, Mars' moons. We would still be able to develop the technology for long-duration travel, but put off the expense of actually landing and returning significant numbers of people until the political will is there.
Some commentators have said that this option might be hard to sell to the public. I've thought of a way that we might be able to make it work. Flying people out there just for the sake of doing it probably isn't going to get a lot of support. However, this option presents an opportunity to partner manned exploration with robots in a way that leverages the strengths of both. Some robotic exploration advocates say that telepresence will eliminate the need to humans to far-off places like Mars. However, the problem of communications lag makes such an approach untenable.
Telepresence works here on Earth because it is nearly instantaneous. There is a one-way communications lag of 8 to 20 minutes between Earth and Mars when they are, respectively, closest together and furthest apart (and that doesn't include bouncing the signal off satellites if the Sun is in between them). So, an operator on Earth would experience a 16-minute to 40-minute delay just to see the results of one command. This is a problem the ground teams controlling Spirit and Opportunity struggle with every day.
Instead, if we coordinated the "Deep Space" manned flights with the arrival and operations of telepresence-enabled robots, human operators in orbit could provide a "surge" capability for man-in-the-loop operations while at their destination. When it's time for the astronauts to come home, the robots could then revert to a more independent activity profile.
I'll note that even Dr. Steven Squyres, the Cornell scientist responsible for the Mars Exploration Rovers, says a human team could do in a week what it's taken his rovers over five years to do. Instead of competing for resources, this would drive the human and robotic space flight communities closer together by sharing the goals and the risks.
On-orbit telepresence, as part of the "Deep Space" exploration option, might just be the key to enabling human exploration of the solar system until we can lower launch costs enough to sustainably land and return people.
Want to know why NASA and peaceful space exploration are being killed?
Try reading this...
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/higher_ground_040222.html
They want to rain death on you from above. The science haters and the ignorant are being manipulated by the warmongers who want to put their weapons in space.
Wake the F up people...
No, I haven't gotten to the "Mars" books in the "Grand Tour" series, yet. His social commentary on the intertwining of politics and fundamentalist religion is present in most of that series, though.
Have you read his "Mars Life" ? Interesting in light of todays political scene and the moral majority stuff.
It's not a matter of me being casual, so much as it is a matter of scale. The Moon is an immense body and we are not likely to move enough of it back to the Earth or elsewhere to have a noticeable effect.
See what I mean:
Pub Med
We will be beaten back to this prison planet by the unified forces of the Galactic Conundrum, and never again be permitted to gaze beyond our atmosphere, which will be converted into a curtain of methane and argon.
And your surprise will be too late. :-)
Easy for you to be casual about issues that only affect 50% of the world's population.
I'm voting for the asteroids.
And/or Mars.
in the long view of things....space exploration is THE most important thing we are currently doing.
Mars has enough native resources to theoretically sustain a colony. So do any of the large moons around Jupiter and Saturn.
So hot chicks and return addresses are our only obstacles?
Then the debate is over. Time to switch NASA's and the military's budgets.
FYI - Europa is not the only inhabitable planet in our solar system. It is merely the easiest to terraform. And the closest star is 4 light years away. Not unreachable. The closest star with known planets that contain water is something like 20 light years. All reachable if we really wanted.
Part of the problem is people really don't understand that we are further along in technology than is perceived. If we really wanted we could build a ship in orbit that is totally self-sustainable, capable of taking us anywhere we wanted to go. The only obstacle is cost and the will to do it.
But alas, most would rather just war on each other till we run out of resources...
Other places in "our" solar sytem....Saturn, Neptune..........I'm not even gonna mention Uranus. Who wants "that" on their return address?
Now.....IF they can master that "artificial gravity", a spacestation, that'd be nice. Great views.
I "understand" the only real candidate for colonization is Jupiter's moon Europa. Justin?????
Hey, If they've got chicks in outer space that look like "7 of 9", I don't care where they are OR if they're half Borg, let's go.
BUT, and this is a BIG BUT.........I was watching cable the other night and traveling to even the closest star is "light years" ahead of us technologically even if we find a way to travel at "light speed". Am I right???
Let's get real, bending space and time and WORP drive or "whatever", I think anybody who does not face the reality that OUR future is to die on this rock is hoping for "pie in the sky."
Hmmmm. I never said it would be 10%. I said isn't like we are talking 10%, more like 1%...
Also we are talking about a surface that is all the same color. Even if you could "see" the strip mine it wouldn't be visible. The effect of reducing the Moon's mass by mining would be minuscule. I promise you, you wouldn't even notice.
Carguy, you are kidding right? Your whole defense for killing space exploration is some fatalistic come what may attitude?
So let me get this straight. The paltry NASA budget is too much? But, what we spend on weapons and the military is O.K.?
All I have seen are esoteric reason for not exploring space. The only thing that comes close to a plausible argument is money. FOR YOUR INFORMATION the NASA budget makes up %0.6 percent of the yearly budget!!! That is less than one percent. We spend much more than that just giving money away to corporations in the form of subsidies. The money Bush handed the airlines (who went bankrupt anyway) would have funded NASA for 5 years at current levels, 10 years at the time Bush squandered the surplus. The military just got a budget increase equivalent of 2 NASAs!!!!!
Where is your outrage people? NASA is not a drain on the economy, stupidity is. If you sight money as a problem for space exploration, you are blowing smoke.
Welfare budget = 7 NASAs
Military = 30 NASAs
Social Security/Medicare = 20 NASAs
Bottom line most of you don't know what you are talking about. Not picking on you or being mean, just stating fact. There is a serious gap in information when it comes to the importance of space exploration. Too many have been influenced and led astray by the science haters in this world.
I am a fan of Bova's "Grand Tour" novels. I hear he's working on a sequel to 'Jupiter'.
BTw, I have some candidates dor the first unmanned launches to .... well anywhere in deep space.
Anyone here read any of the Ben Bova SF novels about Mars ? Or Heinlein's Stranger in A Strange Land ? All are good although the second is just peripherally about Mars. Good reads, though and Bova's books particularly get the imagination going. I am all for full exploration of space. Remember, Space, the final frontier. Make it so Mr. Riker !
But don't forget there are conspiracy theories about the moon landings. Be careful, very careful, they are all around us.
Bobo,
I will be very surprised if we ever mine the Moon enough to have an appreciable effect on the tides.
carguy,
I actually have to agree with FantasyLand on this one. For that matter, I'm also agreeing with Larry Niven and Arthur C. Clarke. Our species' continued survival and evolution ultimately depends on untethering ourselves from this single planet and colonizing other worlds.
OK Justin....two, count 'em TWO asteroids. Catch 'em, tag 'em, and bag 'em. No more.
Bob and FL....whoa dudes. $$$$$$$ Pick one and I'll support you. Deep space...unless there's hot chicks out there I say let's wait 'til we pay down the national debt a little. And Mars, again.....no Arby's , no Golden Corrall...I say pass.
Fantasy...IF we have to leave THIS planet in a hurry I think we've got a BIG problem. I am afraid that when out time on earth is up, IT'S UP. Justin???????
Just because you can't see a strip mine from space doesn't mean it isn't harmful.
Anyhow, some say we CAN see strip mines from space:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~f2hbertie.joan/PVvanboven_bruinkool.htm
And is the amount of material to be mined from the moon limited by the Moon Treaty? Which perhaps should be called a moot treaty, because it hasn't been signed by any country that actually launches vehicles into space.
Ten percent is huge. I say that as a female member of the species whose life is very much defined by the nature of the moon.
I am with you on that one eljefebob. Mars, Moon, Phobos, our own oceans, everything. We spend more than a trillion a year on the military. I think we can better spend our effort and resources.
"The development of space-based solar power and small, efficient nuclear reactors could lead us to true energy independence. There is more recoverable metal in a single near-Earth metallic asteroid than has ever been mined in the history of civilization."
THANK YOU!
A single asteroid CAN contain more material than we have ever dreamed of.
Space exploration is essential to the survival of our species. I understand most don't get space exploration and the problems it entails. But believe me, when I say that colonizing other planets is the only way we will survive as a species. There are numerous things that could scour this planet of life in a blink of an eye. Not putting all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak, is paramount.
Look at it this way. Each sentient race in our universe has an expiration date. By the law of probability something will come along and snuff them out of existence. Asteroid, meteor, plague, war, Gamma-Ray burst, solar flare, or clouds of hydrogen 2500 light years across smashing into us (that one was for you jkugler)... Then there are easily a dozen other reasons we can not even think of. Our time on this planet is limited. We have already used 500,000 years of that expiration date... More if want to count our subsequent stages of evolution. We are well past that date when it comes to some of those things I have mentioned.
We NEED space exploration. Whether the masses understand that or not. PERIOD.
-And Bobo Amerigo there are only a couple things on Earth man has done that can be seen from space. Strip mining isn't one of them.
As for the tides? Nothing will happen. We are not talking about removing 10% of the moon or anything.
This is part of the problem with issues like this. The problem is scale. The inability to see the magnitude of the problem and the weak response that follows.
Sorry for the long rant. ;)
The thing we can't forget here are the technological developments we gain through space exploration. The microchip and many other advances were developed or improved through the last moon program. The space program has returned multiples in advances over its cost. Can you imagine how much a Mars program would bring? I say, do deep space, Mars, the Moon, the whole deal.
carguy,
Space exploration can help solve problems for life here on Earth. Understanding the climatological processes on Venus and Mars might help us deal with global warming. The development of space-based solar power and small, efficient nuclear reactors could lead us to true energy independence. There is more recoverable metal in a single near-Earth metallic asteroid than has ever been mined in the history of civilization.
I could go on, including giving examples of current research in space with applications here on Earth. It's what we don't know that we'll learn that I think is truly captivating, though.
You have hit on a topic that is very interesting to me. I am a seeker of wisdom and truth. But only at a "reasonable" price. We've got MANY problems "here on earth" that MUST be addressed BEFORE we start running around the galaxy at $15 million a mile.
We've been to the moon. No need to go back now. We've been to Mars, several times. What are we gonna learn from a "live-in person" interview with the life forms there. Probably little.
A "space flight to nowhere"????????
Frankly, I don't have an answer to this one. I just think that for the next ten years or so we desperately need to make sure EVERY PENNY we spend is absolultely necessary and worthwhile. Sorry......that's the way I see it.
Personally, it'd be fine with me if humans skipped the moon.
It's one of life's sweet pleasures to gaze at the moon.
We're not so kind to heavenly bodies. Mining operations here on this heavenly body called Earth are messy, damaging deals.
If all those tasty elements you mentioned are mined, what happens to the tides?
And fertility rates?
Does anyone find it strange that our supposed "leaders" are doing everything in their power to avoid the Moon?
FACT: The Moon is our closest solar neighbor. Close by a large amount... Won't take months to reach it.
FACT: The Moon's regolith contains oxygen, titanium, iron, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, helium3, and aluminum. Plus many more elements. More than enough to build whatever we wanted.
FACT: The Moon's gravity is 17% that of Earth's gravity. Low gravity means less fuel to launch off of.
FACT: The Moon as a very thin atmosphere which will reduce fuel costs during a launch.
I have a feeling that the reason they want to avoid the Moon is because the Moon belongs to everyone, that is right EVERYONE. The Moon Treaty prohibits any one nation claiming the whole thing. It will have to be an international effort if anything is done. Need I say more? The problem is greed as usual. Or is it they really did find something on the Moon and were told to stay away.
So which is it? A bunch of greedy bastards? Or someone is already there? Because the excuses are running out quick.