Monday, September 19, 2005
Holy Shit, Man Walks on Fucking Moon
It's been a long time since anybody's been to the moon. 33 years, actually. Longer than I've been alive. Unless, of course, you believe it was all a hoax. Well then, perhaps this next round will convince you, because NASA wants to go back to the moon by 2020! Oh boy, you say, "manned space exploration of the solar system is a Good Thing and I'm glad we're spending lots of money on it!"
Or maybe that's just me. Anyway, the plan is to have people on the moon by 2020, and to start using it as a launching pad for exploration to Mars and beyond. I'll admit that a large part of the reason I'm excited is that manned flights to other planets is unspeakably cool, but there's definitely more tangible reasons to do it. Increased scientific and engineering progress is just one of the main reasons to have a space exploration program- NASA was responsible for a slew of engineering breakthroughs in the 60's and 70's while funding the Apollo program, and there's good reason to think that renewed funding in the agency will revitalize it. Politically, spending 100 billion dollars to get to the moon is probably not the greatest move by a politician, and perhaps only possible from a 2-term president (something Bush actually promised a year or so aago, and has been totally, inexplicably silent on), but at the same time could help to revive American patriotism and keep people's minds off other more earthly issues, like terrorism. Perhaps reviving patriotism is not a good thing in people's minds, but it can obviously be very helpful to a political party.
And there just isn't that much to explore here on Earth anymore. That's not to say we don't have issues down on the ground, (in fact, a new study says that the ice caps are melting at an irreversible rate) but in the course of human history, it's been shown that those who explore are more likely to conquer than be conquered. And even though we can argue whether or not there is life out there besides human life, the truth is that nobody knows, just like nobody in the 'New World' knew if there were other, more powerful races out there. Ok, so maybe that's not the most tangible reason.
Right now, they're planning on using the tried and true "explode a massive amount of fuel underneath something until it leaves earth" path. Despite the inelegance of the solution, it does seem like NASA is learning lessons from the Space Shuttle program, which will probably be remembered as a really really expensive experiment in mediocrity. There's going to be more use of 'off the shelf' parts, more realistic goals (2 launches a year), and simpler solutions (no more building a space shuttle when a capsule would have sufficed). But obviously there's still reason to be apprehensive. Even with the use of more standardized stuff, NASA is still a government agency with lots of bureaucracy. Can they really embrace simplicity? Will they continue to get funding when the next big crisis hits? How will they handle the inevitable failures and setbacks?
The problem I foresee is that because NASA is so huge, they'll come up with solutions that can only be used by a huge agency, such as the space shuttle. Was anybody ever really hoping that in a few years, people would have their own personal shuttles? There's just no possibility of trickle-down technologies when we're talking about using millions of pounds of fuel and achieving a 1% catastrophic failure rate. In order for this to work, to really be a success, they need to continually take advantage of new discoveries and simpler solutions. In any case, I look forward to the day when I can watch the next moon landing. Even if there's only a slim chance of it happening.
Or maybe that's just me. Anyway, the plan is to have people on the moon by 2020, and to start using it as a launching pad for exploration to Mars and beyond. I'll admit that a large part of the reason I'm excited is that manned flights to other planets is unspeakably cool, but there's definitely more tangible reasons to do it. Increased scientific and engineering progress is just one of the main reasons to have a space exploration program- NASA was responsible for a slew of engineering breakthroughs in the 60's and 70's while funding the Apollo program, and there's good reason to think that renewed funding in the agency will revitalize it. Politically, spending 100 billion dollars to get to the moon is probably not the greatest move by a politician, and perhaps only possible from a 2-term president (something Bush actually promised a year or so aago, and has been totally, inexplicably silent on), but at the same time could help to revive American patriotism and keep people's minds off other more earthly issues, like terrorism. Perhaps reviving patriotism is not a good thing in people's minds, but it can obviously be very helpful to a political party.
And there just isn't that much to explore here on Earth anymore. That's not to say we don't have issues down on the ground, (in fact, a new study says that the ice caps are melting at an irreversible rate) but in the course of human history, it's been shown that those who explore are more likely to conquer than be conquered. And even though we can argue whether or not there is life out there besides human life, the truth is that nobody knows, just like nobody in the 'New World' knew if there were other, more powerful races out there. Ok, so maybe that's not the most tangible reason.
Right now, they're planning on using the tried and true "explode a massive amount of fuel underneath something until it leaves earth" path. Despite the inelegance of the solution, it does seem like NASA is learning lessons from the Space Shuttle program, which will probably be remembered as a really really expensive experiment in mediocrity. There's going to be more use of 'off the shelf' parts, more realistic goals (2 launches a year), and simpler solutions (no more building a space shuttle when a capsule would have sufficed). But obviously there's still reason to be apprehensive. Even with the use of more standardized stuff, NASA is still a government agency with lots of bureaucracy. Can they really embrace simplicity? Will they continue to get funding when the next big crisis hits? How will they handle the inevitable failures and setbacks?
The problem I foresee is that because NASA is so huge, they'll come up with solutions that can only be used by a huge agency, such as the space shuttle. Was anybody ever really hoping that in a few years, people would have their own personal shuttles? There's just no possibility of trickle-down technologies when we're talking about using millions of pounds of fuel and achieving a 1% catastrophic failure rate. In order for this to work, to really be a success, they need to continually take advantage of new discoveries and simpler solutions. In any case, I look forward to the day when I can watch the next moon landing. Even if there's only a slim chance of it happening.
# posted by Stuart @ 2:40 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Great post. The research done by NASA and the rest of the federal government has vastly added to our store of knowledge. Both R&D and pure science sponserd with taxpayer dollars remains an integral part of the economy. Thomas Jefferson commisioned farming manuals and land surveys to be spread gratis to the citizenry. Not only were these programs the precursor to the land-grant colleges that gave us every institution of higher learning the ends with A&M, they illustrated how government can collect and diffuse knowledge, improve economic opportunities, and increase the stnadard of living.
There is one aspect of your post that I take exception. We still have much to learn about this palnet. Luckily, our spaced-based technology has aided in this pursuit. GPS satellites help create more accurate maps, provide pin-point accuracey for climatological models, and streamline navigational techniques that create efficiencies in the economy. NASA's TERRA satellite is using its moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer to monitor wildfires in the West and providing realtime data for fire management officials. The AURA satellite is taking readings of aresol concentrations in the upper troposphere. This research gives scientists studying global warming a look into the make-up of our atmosphere. And these are two among hundreds of programs NASA sponsors every year.
The bottom line is this: yes we know the basic processes that govern our planet. Plate techtonics, the nitrogen cycle, and the system of ocean currents have all born true through the scientific method. However, the opportunity for more observation has grown with our ability to study such phenomenon from unique angles and advances in computers to compile said data. The exploration of our solar system will reveal many secrets of our own planet. I believe this to be an important point to stress when conivincing others the long-range benefits of government sponsored science.
I look forward to the further exploration of our solar system. If mankind does indeed have a destiny, I firmly believe it to be rooted in the experience of new environments and adaptation to the change. I see the terraformation of Mars as a monumental challenge worthy of the best that humanity has to offer. Though we cannot build a sustainable climate there until we better understand the dynamics of our own.
Broyles
Post a Comment
There is one aspect of your post that I take exception. We still have much to learn about this palnet. Luckily, our spaced-based technology has aided in this pursuit. GPS satellites help create more accurate maps, provide pin-point accuracey for climatological models, and streamline navigational techniques that create efficiencies in the economy. NASA's TERRA satellite is using its moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer to monitor wildfires in the West and providing realtime data for fire management officials. The AURA satellite is taking readings of aresol concentrations in the upper troposphere. This research gives scientists studying global warming a look into the make-up of our atmosphere. And these are two among hundreds of programs NASA sponsors every year.
The bottom line is this: yes we know the basic processes that govern our planet. Plate techtonics, the nitrogen cycle, and the system of ocean currents have all born true through the scientific method. However, the opportunity for more observation has grown with our ability to study such phenomenon from unique angles and advances in computers to compile said data. The exploration of our solar system will reveal many secrets of our own planet. I believe this to be an important point to stress when conivincing others the long-range benefits of government sponsored science.
I look forward to the further exploration of our solar system. If mankind does indeed have a destiny, I firmly believe it to be rooted in the experience of new environments and adaptation to the change. I see the terraformation of Mars as a monumental challenge worthy of the best that humanity has to offer. Though we cannot build a sustainable climate there until we better understand the dynamics of our own.
Broyles
# posted by 
: 5:10 PM
: 5:10 PM << Home
