| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Back to the moon? |
| 2003-12-08 |
| When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation. For more than 30 years America’s manned space program has limited itself to low Earth orbit; indeed, everyone under the age of 31 — more than 125 million Americans — was born since an American last set foot on the moon. The speech will come at a time when events are converging to force some important decisions about the future of American efforts in space. China has put a man in orbit, plans a launch of three Sinonauts together, and has announced its own lunar program. The space shuttle is grounded, and its smaller sibling, the "orbital space plane," may not be built. The International Space Station, behind schedule, over budget, and of limited utility, has been scaled back post-Columbia. The content of the speech does not appear to be in doubt; the only question is timing. While those who have formulated it have argued that it be delivered on the anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first powered flight, there exists a slight possibility that it will instead be incorporated in the State of the Union address at the end of January. This has its own, less triumphant, significance, which is in the form of a chilling coincidence. Every American who has died in a spacecraft has done so within one calendar week: The Apollo 204 fire on January 27, 1967; the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986; and the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003. If the president goes ahead with the plan to announce an ambitious new program to carry Americans beyond Earth’s immediate gravitational pull, he will argue that the new lunar explorations are justified not only for what they themselves might produce but also as a means of developing the technology and skills necessary for a mission to Mars, which is expected to be mentioned, though in less-specific terms, in the address. Observers might note a familiar ring to the proposal. On July 20, 1989, President George H. W. Bush marked the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing with a speech at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington in which he called for a permanent American presence on the moon and, ultimately, a mission to Mars. That address led to the formation of a group called the "Space Exploration Initiative," headed by Vice President Quayle and NASA Administrator Richard Truly, which in the spring of 1991 released a report, "America at the Threshold." It set a long-term goal of landing Americans on Mars, with space activities in the interim leading up to that goal. First, it recommended, would be "Space Station Freedom" — now the ISS — followed by a return to the moon, in large measure to develop and test systems for keeping people alive on a Mars journey. The development of rocket boosters more powerful than the mighty Saturn V that lifted Apollo astronauts to the moon would be necessary, the report said, as would development of nuclear systems for providing power aboard in-transit spacecraft, and nuclear-powered rockets, to be employed outside Earth’s atmosphere, where they could be used on long missions without the need to carry enormous supplies of conventional rocket propellant. None of the recommendations was carried out as envisioned at the time; the only one that got off the ground at all is the space station. The president’s speech could breathe new life into a moribund space program whose recent history has been beset by disappointment and failure. The space shuttle proved neither as reliable or as inexpensive as its proponents had promised. In 18 years of flight (the shuttle was grounded for 30 months following the Challenger disaster, and has been grounded since the loss of Columbia February 1), half of the original shuttle fleet has been lost to catastrophic failure, along with 14 astronauts. The cost of a shuttle mission has hovered around $500 million despite early claims that it would be much less and would allow payloads to be carried aloft for as little as $50 per pound. The launch schedule has been unreliable, with many space customers wondering if their satellites would ever get to orbit; in some cases satellites have remained on the ground so long that their power supplies ran down and had to be replaced before launch. The shuttle program has been so frustrating to scientists that it was characterized by Bruce Murray, former head of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as "a giant WPA in the sky." Some critics say the space station offers little or nothing more, with a far-higher price tag. It is "international" as to the origin of some of its parts and some of its crew and, while the shuttle is grounded, the craft used to ferry the maintenance crews and supplies, but most of it is paid for by the United States. Some critics have argued that it is less a space station than an extension of the State Department. Charles Krauthammer has noted that an orbiting United Nations is unlikely to be any less foolish than one fixed on planet Earth. "The moon and Mars are beckoning," he wrote in January, 2000. "So why are we spending so much of our resources building a tinker-toy space station? In part because, a quarter-century late, we still need something to justify the shuttle. Yet the space station’s purpose has shrunk to almost nothing. No one takes seriously its claims to be a platform for real science." Establishment of a permanent moon base and research and engineering work toward a flight to Mars would certainly replenish the idea of a space program engaged in real exploration. Whether a return to the moon would spark the public’s imagination as it did in the 1960s is unknown. The world was transfixed July 20, 1969, as Apollo 11 landed and Neil Armstrong became the first man to stand on a celestial body other than Earth. But public and political enthusiasm for the moon soon waned. There were five more landings; the final three lunar shots were canceled. The last moon flight was in December 1972. No human has achieved escape velocity since. A new space initiative would face numerous hurdles, including congressional Democrats who in the present political climate would be likely to challenge a presidential declaration that the sky is blue. Additionally, congressional distrust of NASA is vigorous on both sides of the aisle following the Columbia accident. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R., N.Y.), and Rep. Ralph Hall, (D., Tex.), recently asked that NASA stop work on the $13 billion "orbital space plane," a smaller, cheaper space shuttle, until Congress and the president agree on NASA’s goals. Others in Congress have argued that the space shuttle should remain on the ground permanently. The fact that a revamped space program would employ many people — especially in places such as Silicon Valley, where unemployment among engineers is high — might blunt much criticism, however. There are ideas and proposals that could offset concerns as to the value of returning to the moon and, perhaps, traveling beyond. Geologists are eager to take lunar-core samples, which could tell much about the solar system’s past and how the moon itself was formed. It has recently been suggested that sunlight collected on the moon and beamed to Earth could provide a no-pollution source of power. Bill McInnis, a leading NASA engineer before he resigned in despair over shuttle-safety issues and ultimately took his own life, long lobbied for a return to the moon and talked of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the folly of putting our antennae on Earth. "The signals we’re looking for are so weak that the effects of somebody turning on a light a hundred miles away are stronger," he said. "The place to do it, the place to be free of Earthbound interference — that’s the other side of the moon. The moon is the ultimate space station, it is where we can really learn things." Certainly, long-term lunar experience would facilitate a trip to Mars. NASA’s budget has been far short of lavish since the last time the agency was aiming for the moon. The president has remarked to members of the White House space group that he does not favor a huge increase in spending for NASA projects. Whether he has changed his mind, and the extent to which he is willing to sell an ambitious new program of space exploration remains to be seen. If Bush does deliver the speech as planned, it would be another opportunity for him to finish business left pending when his father left office a decade ago. |
| Posted by:Atrus |
| #11 The Buran idea was good, but it meant throwing away the engines with each launch. The shuttle was expensive enough as it was (10x the projected cost per flight) and I do not think much of that cost overrun had much to do with the engines. So the turn around costs would have been even greater. Of course you would then have a bit more flexibility because the external fuel tank with engines is basically a Saturn Rocket that could have a payload bay attached to take a lot of stuff into orbit. Anyway, it's likely that the Orbital Space Plane will probably be along these lines before they are complete. The fact that the US has depended upon the shuttle has really hurt private industry attempts at near Earth orbit. NASA procurment is not really cost-effective and favors a few very large defense contractors. They should use seed money to promote technology rather than funding everything 180% and then killing it when it doesn't work out. NASA should not be in the truck driving business which is what the shuttle is. Bringing things up and down, up and down. They should be going to the moon or Mars, not monopolizing space access with a system that has a worse safety record than the Soyuz, and is more expensive per launch than the Proton rocket and has a far smaller payload. NASA should hire others to get their stuff out of orbit so that they can aim a bit higher. We could go to Mars in a decade or less if we use the Proton rocket for example. Add another decade if we have to build and plan our own heavy-lift rocket in addition to the Mars ship, habitat, and rover. Also that instantly makes it an international mission without the headaches normally associated with international missions. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2003-12-8 9:09:05 PM |
| #10 Patrick, it's (as usual) more complicated than that. The shuttle designe was *very* heavily influenced by a military requirement that was ultimately dropped (ability to launch, release a satellite, and land back at the launch point within one orbit). That required big wings (to give it the ability to fly nearly 1000 miles horizontally during re-entry) that represent a liability for most other purposes. Although the final design isn't set, a reusable capsule has a lot of advantages for crew transport -- particularly in abort situations. Since it's at the top of the launcher, a launch escape system becomes practical. Capsule re-entry is also well-understood now, and accurate landings are possible using steerable parachutes. Just because it's a capsule doesn't mean it's "crummy-old technology". A capsule also lets us take advantage of the new launchers that were built for the Air Force (Titan IV & Atlas V). With a little extra work, either of these ought to be usable as a manned booster, and be a lot cheaper to operate. Large cargo launches also ought to be practical using automatic docking systems like the ones used on ISS today. The shuttle is an amazing machine, but operates with very little margin for error. Even if things don't smack into the wing, it's a complicated beasty to keep runing properly -- and small problems can turn into very, very bad ones extremely quickly. |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-12-8 7:01:42 PM |
| #9 Yo! We need a long term Chinee Lunar Future! Put me down for no Chineese landing in the next 144 months. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-8 6:49:05 PM |
| #8 The Russian Buran has some interesting alternatives for example in the booster area (advantages of being built just a few years later than our shuttle). An interesting knock-off, with good electronics, price per pound launch was only 2 times the shuttle. Of course they never did put humans in it. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-8 6:47:32 PM |
| #7 Yea, my bad. I just gives me a weird feeling to see what appears steps backwards. Can you see astronauts talking to the old timers who say things like "I can remember the days when we "FLEW" back from space and landed like an airplane instead of falling from space like a rock in a capsule like you new guys. Or "I remeber when you could fly from New York to Paris in 3 hours on the concord instead of 15 hours. The shuttle was version 1.0. Just like the boeing 707 was improved, I believe the basic design of the shuttle is good and its safety and cost could be improved with modern systems. Shortcuts were taken with the original design that should have been fixed over the years. The Russian Buran has some interesting alternatives for example in the booster area (advantages of being built just a few years later than our shuttle). Remember, the shuttle can do one thing nothing else can and that is return things from space (that is large things). I just find it hard to go backwards from the shuttle back to capsule. |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-12-8 6:01:56 PM |
| #6 Patrick, I think you mean Columbia? (since the Challenger never made it to space during its launch). As far as the shuttle goes, it was an iterim idea of a reusable vehicle, it was never designed to be a permanent vehicle. I really wish these days we have never cancelled the old dynasoar project or a whole host of other ideas. NASA keeps trying for an elegant solution to launching stuff into space, well elegant doesn't always work till you got the infrastructure in place, I say we need brute force and for that we need BDBs (Big Dumb Boosters) and vehicles that are more designed for function rather than style. As far as Bush's probable speech, I highly doubt he's going to give any substance to the "man on the moon" plan, probably just all hot air and fluff saying that we should go and we should focus our studies there. But no real money (not that I'd trust NASA with anymore money anyway) |
| Posted by: Val 2003-12-8 5:35:36 PM |
| #5 They are throwing us a bone to distact us when they mothball the shuttle fleet. I have heard all the arguments for and against the shuttles. I still cannot believe they cannot just improve the current shuttles the way other aircraft have been. Nasa's need to always build a new/radical design instead of just improving on the current is why we end up with these fragile/dangerous craft. Therefore it seems the shuttle's will be retired and we will return to capsules, and talk about a moon mission will be the reason why. If I was in-charge we would be still building shuttle airframes with a couple of them setup as test mules. I would have then used the test mules to designed newer/modern systems to replace the boosters and tank (along with the older system in the shuttle). This would help bring the cost of the shuttles down, the same way jet transport costs came down. The space station would only exist as a emergency repair dock for the shuttle and as a possible launch point for moon/mars systems. I remember saying when Challenger broke up that it was bull that they couldn't repair the thing in space. What was bull is that they never gave the crew the chance. If your not, then don't send people up and lets just fall back on a un-manned program. |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-12-8 4:31:45 PM |
| #4 anybody think this has anything to do with China and weapons in space ? |
| Posted by: eyeyeye 2003-12-8 2:46:49 PM |
| #3 It was just a couple of weeks ago that I again mourned the passing of Vaughn Meador forgotten these many years. He could have been a star, his grandchildren could have been rich, but such was not to be, cruel fate in the person of Rich Little intervened in his life skit. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-8 2:22:28 PM |
| #2 Have enough years passed that Vaughan Meador's The First Family may be disinterred? There's a bit in the faux-JFK press conference: Q: Sir, when will we send a man to the moon? A: As soon as Senator |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-8 2:04:45 PM |
| #1 Marvin the Martian will be...(huff, huff)...quite peeved... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-12-8 2:01:37 PM |