Maybe NASA has learned their lesson

September 19, 2005 11:54 AM

NASA today announced their plans for a return moon trip by 2018.No doubt this thread could go a million different ways, but what interests me the most about the plan is its simplicity. NASA may have learned its lesson from the overly ambitious and complex Shuttle program and appears to be aiming for much greater simplicity this time around. Part of the beauty of this plan is utilizing those parts of the Shuttle system which have been proven to work well: SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines) and SRBs (Solid Rocket Boosters). Propulsion is often the thorniest part of any space launch, and it seems like combining the known variables of those systems with Apollo-era design may just work. If we are re-focusing NASA on exploration, the 21st Century Lewis & Clarke, and the agency can execute, I'll be pretty excited about moving on to Mars.
posted by tgrundke (161 comments total)

Perhaps they should be using hydrogen to get 100% efficiency from the rockets!

This is cool, if not pointless. I'd much rather spend money on sending people to the moon than converting a Muslim country to something more palatable.

I guess we have to start somewhere. Even the lab (with the plants and such) in that one movie about the Martian face was cooler than setting up what looks to be just the ISS on the moon. The limiations of getting cool things into space are depressing.
posted by geoff. at 12:04 PM on September 19, 2005

so they've officially given up on the shuttle, then?
posted by Vetinari at 12:05 PM on September 19, 2005

so they've officially given up on this planet, then?
posted by tula at 12:07 PM on September 19, 2005

So is there oil on the moon, or what?
posted by Hlewagast at 12:08 PM on September 19, 2005

The government should not be putting men on the moon.
posted by mischief at 12:08 PM on September 19, 2005

Geoff, I think your statement about being "cool, if not pointless" is one that many people are going to make.

NASA is going to have to sell this idea within the larger scheme of things. Going to the moon is step one, going to Mars is the next leap from there. Currently there has been a lot of discussion about just skipping the moon and focusing on Mars instead and good arguments can be made for such plans.

Part of the problem is that this is not just about 'science'. A lot of this has to do with national pride and with just good-ole-fashioned exploration. I know that I will always get excited about pushing boundaries and expanding out knowledge and doing things that are risky and edgy. Space exploration is just that and it's very difficult to put a purely "scientific" or "nationalistic" spin on any of it. Regardless, I think it does better good than harm, IMHO, a better way to spend billions than, say, Iraq...
posted by tgrundke at 12:09 PM on September 19, 2005

Expected cost of just the rocket for the mission is $104 billion.

I can't think of a more effective way to use $104 billion.
posted by wakko at 12:10 PM on September 19, 2005

The shuttle has officially been "passe" for about a year now. Discussions about mothballing the fleet have been in the works for ages now. Columbia in 2003 just pushed the timeline ahead by a good ten years.

Part of the equation here is fear of the Chinese. China has made it very clear that they want a permanent space presence and a moon base as part of that. We want to be damned sure to be there before they are.
posted by tgrundke at 12:10 PM on September 19, 2005

Simplification is good when it comes to space missions, its not so good when that term has to be applied to everything that comes anywhere near the president.
posted by fenriq at 12:11 PM on September 19, 2005

wakko: what should we use the money on, then?
posted by tgrundke at 12:11 PM on September 19, 2005

fenriq: beautifully put.
posted by tgrundke at 12:12 PM on September 19, 2005

Would you like a long list, or a short one?
posted by wakko at 12:12 PM on September 19, 2005

Your preference, Wakko.
posted by tgrundke at 12:15 PM on September 19, 2005

The British government has learned that the Man in the Moon has recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:16 PM on September 19, 2005

so they've officially given up on the shuttle, then?

The shuttle is an orbiter - not intended for flights to other places.
posted by grateful at 12:16 PM on September 19, 2005

If nothing else, unmanned exploration would accomplish much, much more than shooting some people around for 104 billion.
posted by selfnoise at 12:19 PM on September 19, 2005

I'm glad to see they stuck with the 'seperate boost' system for massive cargo and people. The orbiter was an incredibly stupid idea.
posted by delmoi at 12:21 PM on September 19, 2005

Keeping the Moon commie-free is so 1969. We ought to be establishing a base on Jupiter so North Korea and Cuba don't get there first!
posted by fandango_matt at 12:22 PM on September 19, 2005

This is awesome, though there's a million things that could end it before it even gets off the ground. Most likely money. I just hope a few of the 12 moon walkers are still around to see this happen, and hopefully to see someone set foot on Mars some day.
posted by bondcliff at 12:23 PM on September 19, 2005

Okay, here's a short one, then. If it proves unsatisfactory, I'll provide a longer one:

Shit I Would Rather Spend 104 Billion Dollars On Instead Of A Stupid Moon Mission Which Will Provide Us With Absolutely No Benefit Ever Except In Stupid Peen-Size Comparison With The Chinese:

Healthcare

Research into alternative energy sources

Cancer/disease research

Third-world debt relief

104 billion scratch lotto tickets

posted by wakko at 12:23 PM on September 19, 2005

Nothing distracts America from a war better than a good old fashioned trip to the moon...shame we've got to wait
13 years...but hey, we'll more than likely still be making Iraq a democracy @ that point.

Fuck the moon. Sorry, I really don't give a shit if we go to the moon anytime soon. Lets try to spend that money on more pressing concerns, like alternative energy sources, or the environment, or poverty, or the economy that is now screwed from the war on terror. I know..."so many new technologies have come about from the space program...maybe we'll find the cure for cancer up there...blah blah blah". C'mon, do you really think we'd never had figured out velcro without zero gravity? Fuck the moon, for real. That place is for suckers. It's got our flag on it, so we own it right? Leave that stupid rock be for awhile, it will still be there later.
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:24 PM on September 19, 2005

I believe we already have at least one 21st Century Lewis and Clarke. Applications are still open for this century's Lewis and Clark, however!
posted by spock at 12:25 PM on September 19, 2005

so wakko, what you are saying is that this does not interest you? why do you hate america so much?
posted by tgrundke at 12:25 PM on September 19, 2005

me and wakko appear to be on the same wavelength here.
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:25 PM on September 19, 2005

I love sci fi and NASA, but until we come up with a better, faster, safer and more efficient form of propulsion, it's best to put the whole space exploration thing on hold for a while. If Congress wants to slash budgets anytime soon (which may never happen), I'd say that's a good place to start. They can ditch the shuttle too, except for satellite maintenance, which should be paid for by the people who own the satellites.
posted by fungible at 12:27 PM on September 19, 2005

How retro!


Actually, I'm all for this. It fits in a number of ways important things we as a species must address. Defense least of all (from ourselves). Like all things, you get better with practice. If we should go into space at all, we must begin by - going into space.

Of course some folks think we shouldn't go and the earth is flat, and Jebus is coming back and microwaves and Tang are unnecessary, and we should all live in log cabins, etc. etc.

You only extend yourself by exceeding your expectations.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:27 PM on September 19, 2005

Please see http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/feynman.html for an explanation of why reusing the existing shuttle components might not be such a good thing. In a nutshell, there is no way to know how reliable they really are, and there is no way to know if the fixes that have been slapped on them over the years have made them more reliable, but it is virtually certain that they are orders of magnatudes less reliabile than NASA would like us to believe.
posted by kjs3 at 12:27 PM on September 19, 2005

cloudstastemetallic >>> "Leave that stupid rock be for awhile, it will still be there later."

Yeah, but we might not be. That's the whole point of the program. Establishing a foothold in space gets us off this rock. Further, the Moon is (to my mind) the most logical place to start. Once we can get people living up there, we can start getting resources from the asteroid belts, and it's much cheaper (in energy terms) to refine on the Moon and transport to Earth from there than from Mars.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:28 PM on September 19, 2005

China has made it very clear that they want a permanent space presence

Ah. Well, there you have it. Space Race: Part Two it is then.
posted by kosher_jenny at 12:28 PM on September 19, 2005

**Obligatory comment about how a single newsfilter link plus commentary does not a quality FPP make.**
posted by spock at 12:29 PM on September 19, 2005

I would ask wakko to include teacher salaries, purely for selfish reasons.
posted by PossumCowboy at 12:29 PM on September 19, 2005

It's not that it doesn't interest me. It's just that it seems like a tremendous waste of money with no real benefit. I mean, we already have Tang, thanks to the last Moon missions.
posted by wakko at 12:30 PM on September 19, 2005

Hlewagast writes "So is there oil on the moon, or what"

Even better: Helium-3.

tgrundke writes "A lot of this has to do with national pride"

Ya got to wonder, is the US playing Russia to China's USA.
posted by Mitheral at 12:30 PM on September 19, 2005

What makes me wonder is how it could take over a dozen years for us to get back to the moon, even with the technological advances we've reached since 1969. On a $100 billion budget, I'd think we'd have the means and resources to get back to the moon within two or three years.

No, after ill advised tax cuts and two prohibitively expensive wars, this is a luxury we can ill afford. NASA could do a lot more scientifically worthy stuff for half the budget in half the time, but there's just this damned fascination with the moon.

Buncha lunatics, I tell ya.
posted by Saydur at 12:30 PM on September 19, 2005

Simplification is good when it comes to space missions, its not so good when that term has to be applied to everything that comes anywhere near the president.
posted by fenriq at 12:11 PM PST on September 19 [!]

Don't be too sure... Remember, most claim he isn't smart enough to tie his own shoes, how does making things more complicated fit that model? Moreover, I think it would be more realistic that others around him want things complicated to keep control away from him directly.

Maybe for our protection, or maybe to launch their own diabolical plan to conquer the world...

or something like that maybe... Back to topic, stretching our space program beyond our current "Maintain our current obligations" mindsett, and reaching for more exciting and challenging obligations is definitely necessary, despite the costs. unfortunately, we might not have the money, or pocket books as taxpayers to fund it...
posted by DuffStone at 12:31 PM on September 19, 2005

I realize that sending people into space sounds futuristic, but I think it's really profoundly retro. Give me a robot or satellite any day. Fill the solar system with the little buggers. Leave manned exploration for the rich and quixotic.
posted by selfnoise at 12:31 PM on September 19, 2005

Research into alternative energy sources

You mean like fuel cells and solar power?
posted by bondcliff at 12:32 PM on September 19, 2005

Whitey's on the Moon
Gil Scott-Heron

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
And whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now, I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
'Cos whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me
'Cos whitey's on the moon?
Well, I was already givin' him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin' up
And as if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon ..
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:34 PM on September 19, 2005

Smedleyman and I appear to be on the same page. Exceeding your expectations is indeed the only way to extend yourself.

Athletes don't get better by doing the same workout routines.

Should we not have introduced women's rights until we took care of those Jim Crow laws? Let's take care of poverty in Appalachia before we tackle those urban centers, okay? Should we not have introduced funding for public schools until we had taken care of child poverty first? Forget AIDS and Cancer research, let's tackle the common cold and influenza first before we start getting crazy thoughts and tackling the expensive difficult projects.
posted by tgrundke at 12:35 PM on September 19, 2005

The total cost of implementing the Primary Health Care Program, which would provide basic health care to all those in the world who are currently in need would cost $15 billion per year (UNESCO)

I understand the importance of the space program as an inspirational force. Nevertheless, we have so many problems here on Earth, problems that could be solved - or extremely ameliorated - through investment. I kind of wish that the human race's Big Inspirational project could be something more linked to solving poverty, illness, etc, rather than having some men touch down on the moon (again).
posted by Marquis at 12:37 PM on September 19, 2005

Tgrundke - All the items you just named have practical benefits. What are the practical benefits of manned exploration?

It just seems like entertainment for otherwise comfortable people.
posted by selfnoise at 12:38 PM on September 19, 2005

You mean like fuel cells and solar power?

Fuel cells aren't an energy source, they're just a storage mechanism. They're nifty technology, but useless without the tech to generate clean power.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:38 PM on September 19, 2005

Oh...I'm sorry, I didn't realize that our planet was disposable and it is time to start looking for a new home. Are there job listing for the Sea of Tranquility region of the moon(i love the ocean, but hate water...should be a perfect place for me) on monster.com? I better start lookin'...you know, be ahead of the game. Maybe i can be an asteroid miner, AWESOME!!!
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:39 PM on September 19, 2005

These are also the exact kinds of projects that have helped to make America a strong economic force. The sheer magnitude and imagination and requirements draw people to the United States - it pumps a great sum of money into the economy for something good (engineering/research & development) and excites people into marshalling resources for a grand vision and project.

I am not disagreeing with those who say we should and could do an Apollo program for energy research, but it simply does not have the draw that something of this proportion does.
posted by tgrundke at 12:40 PM on September 19, 2005

Wakko is right in that alternative energy is terribly important, as is dealing with resource depletion, pollution, global warming, etc., which is why it's terribly important to get a decent space program going. The moon is a logical place to start (not THE logical place - cases can be made for alternatives).

Solar Power Satellites, Helium-III, Tritium, aluminum; access to all these benefits enormously from a manned lunar-based station (as opposed to a three day visit).

Is NASA the best way? Maybe not. I do like this idea.

I must admit I'm curious as to why tele-operated mini-bulldozers and other construction equipment isn't being used now. With 5 or 6 Soyuz lifts and two years, Lunanauts should be able to move straight into a subsurface facility, unpack and go to work.
posted by ykjay at 12:43 PM on September 19, 2005

Yeah, we can afford this shit right now.
posted by raysmj at 12:43 PM on September 19, 2005

I never thought I'd be one to say this, but this is not something the US should be doing.

The US is a nation that is no longer in a position to be spending $104 billion an something with no obvious reason. We are deeply in debt. Our governmental leaders have shown zero interest in addressing this. Katrina just blew a ~$200 billion dollar hole in the Gulf Coast. There are fundamental imbalances in our economy. We face a very serious energy problem in the very near future. 45 million Americans lack insurance, the price of health care grows by 10%-13% every year, and despite spending more per capita than anyone else, the USA has very little "best in class" health care stats.

The list goes on.

For a start, take that $104 bn and invest it in governmental support of America's ailing tech. R&D sector.

The good ol' USA is no longer in a position to be playing these "national greatness" ego games. We need to get shit in order down here on earth, first.

This from a former, gung-ho space exploration explorer.
posted by teece at 12:44 PM on September 19, 2005

I like space exploration, but why is it going to take us more than 12 years to get back to the moon. It's not like we don't have the technology.
posted by drezdn at 12:44 PM on September 19, 2005

Oops, I meant space exploration supporter.
posted by teece at 12:45 PM on September 19, 2005

So by 2020, my kids will be able to look up at the moon at night and see "CHA", natch?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:47 PM on September 19, 2005

fungible writes "but until we come up with a better, faster, safer and more efficient form of propulsion, it's best to put the whole space exploration thing on hold for a while."

How exactly are those improved techs supposed to happen if we don't spend money developing them.

cloudstastemetallic writes "Maybe i can be an asteroid miner, AWESOME!!!"

That would be awesome. It would seem that the first step would be getting large groups of people living off planet.
posted by Mitheral at 12:47 PM on September 19, 2005

teece - I'd like to point out that the budget involved is roughly a rounding error in social security or military spending - it's not a big chunk. I'd rather have the US be doing this spending than just about any other government or other entity out there, with the possible exception of getting governments out of the space business entirely.
posted by ykjay at 12:48 PM on September 19, 2005

Perhaps they should be using hydrogen to get 100% efficiency from the rockets!

No, they shouldn't. There's real advantages to not using LH2[1] in the lower stages.

The biggest -- LH2 is the least dense fuel we have, so you need very large tanks to store it. You can get the same amount of total work out of a vastly smaller tank of kerosene -- which is basically what the Saturn V used for the massive S-1C first stage. (To be pedantic, it used RP-1, "Refined Petroleum", which is basically a very clean version of kerosene with a high naptha fraction.)

So, while LH2 is more powerful by mass, if you tried to make the S-1C stage out of LH2, it would need to be vastly taller to deal with the density problem -- note the size of the fuel tank on the Shuttle, and note that 7/8th of that tankerage is for the LH2. That height requires structure to support, then add on the insulation to keep the LH2 liquid. It's far more efficient, in terms of structure and cost, to make the first stage out of something that's more dense, to make the large first stage easier to handle. This is why the Saturn rockets, the Deltas, the Atlas series and most of the current Russian rockets all use RP-1/LOX, rather than LH2/LOX, for the first stage. (Most of the other launchers use fule/oxidizer combinations that require no cryogenics whatsoever. The Titan II-IV used Nitrogen Tetroxide and Aerozine 50 [2], not as powerful as RP-1/LOX, but even more dense, and no cryogenics needed. However, those chemicals are rather hazardous to work with. RP-1 is trivial to work with, and L02 isn't hard, and spills are, well, self-cleaning. ;)

[1] LH-2: Liqud Hydrogen, the 2 reflects the fact that it self-bonds into a two atom hydrogen molecule (see also "O2", but LO2 is more commonly called "LOX".)

The place to use LH2/LO2 is on the upper stages, where the power-per-mass unit is much more critical, and where they LH2 engine is most efficent, in vaccum. Thus, the upper stages of just about everything are either always LH2, or have an LH2 option.

[2] A combination of Hydrazine and UDMH (Unsymetrical dimethyl hydrazine.) Not a nice pair of chemicals. The number is the percentage of UDMH, so this is half-and-half. Hydrazine bases propellants tend to be self igniting, which makes the rocket easier to design -- but makes fuel spill much more problematic. A Titan II in silo exploded after a tech dropped a socket while working on the missle. This killed one, injured about 25, threw two ~600 ton silo doors several feet, and one nine megaton nuclear weapon several hundred feet. The nuclear weapon did not detonate, obviously.
posted by eriko at 12:49 PM on September 19, 2005

selfnoise: good point, but that wasn't what I was driving at. At every point in time whenever somebody wants to do something relatively grandeose (sp?) the question is raised: couldn't we do something else with that money? With the requisite laundry list of needs and wants that follows.

My point is that at every point in time people will argue that there are more 'universal' needs such as health care and education that should be fully funded before we move on to "the next thing". If we followed such a structure, we'd still be trying to equip each caveperson with a proper flint and stone to create fire.

A bit of an exaggeration, but I hope you understand my general point. Entertainment for comfortable people? Perhaps you are right, and (I say this without trying to come across as snarky) maybe that means that a very large proportion of our population is indeed "comfortable" for the most part?
posted by tgrundke at 12:50 PM on September 19, 2005

"I love sci fi and NASA, but until we come up with a better, faster, safer and more efficient form of propulsion, it's best to put the whole space exploration thing on hold for a while."

How do you think we "come up" with a better, faster, safer, and more efficient propulsion system? We make one through programs like this! Aerospace has made our lives what they are today: travel, parcel delivery, communications, GPS.....

The military goes through NASA's annual budget every few days. Let's get a little perspective here.
posted by flyboy at 12:51 PM on September 19, 2005

Hey, didn't the U.S.S.R. blow all it's money on weapons and space stations because they were preparing for the future? Where's that glorious future that the Soviets dreamed of now? That's right, in the toilet. They went broke...is there perhaps a lesson to be learned here? nahh, screw it...I'm on the bus, lets go to the MOOOOON!!!
FUCK YEAH!!!
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:53 PM on September 19, 2005

Going to the moon with a new vehicle is clearly practice for Mars....its the next best thing. The end.
posted by markulus at 12:55 PM on September 19, 2005

but we might not be

You've been watching too many movies.

Unmanned exploration... good. That stuff has great spinoff value here at home, eg. undersea mining.

I'm kinda meh about the "protect our genome" thing, since chances are zero manned exploration RIGHT NOW is going to save my genome, and IMV it's a stupid sort of hubris that demands this is an important reason to invest billions of dollars in space research.

But I don't really consider spinoff value that important a desiradatum. Every multi-billion dollar project will have some spinoff value.

There is an interesting argument about investing in capital vs. consumption. Sending $104B to the 3rd world as debt relief would improve their lot but not leave us a lot to show for it.

But my main argument against the Apollo project is that we should be funding our National Smart People to do more worthwhile things.

But compared to the ~nine trillion we're going to be shovelling into the DoD's maw over the next 15 years it's not that big a deal.

Make no mistake: $104B over 15 years is 50,000 well-paying jobs. Ask yourself what else 50,000 people could do over 20 years instead of making another rock-collecting trip to the moon. If we need rocks, I can get us some...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:56 PM on September 19, 2005

Hey, didn't the U.S.S.R. blow all it's money on weapons and space stations because they were preparing for the future? Where's that glorious future that the Soviets dreamed of now? That's right, in the toilet. They went broke...is there perhaps a lesson to be learned here? nahh, screw it...I'm on the bus, lets go to the MOOOOON!!!
FUCK YEAH!!!
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:53 PM PST on September 19 [!]

Didn't we survive that same cold war by doing the exact same thing... Only in a free market / capitalistic society? I think you're off on that point, maybe I'm just being a sucker to your sarcasm too. either way, point illustrated.
posted by DuffStone at 12:57 PM on September 19, 2005

Well cloustatemetallic, actually, the Soviet Union went belly up because they employed a highly centralized economic system that was entirely inadequate. That's a horribly broad generalization. The arms race of the early 1980s was merely the final straw that broke the already broken down and limping Soviety back.
posted by tgrundke at 12:57 PM on September 19, 2005

mitheral, was my stinging sarcasm not stinging enough?
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:58 PM on September 19, 2005

Moon missions are great . Renewable energy sources, ending our dependence on oil, and switching us to a replacement for the gasoline-burning internal-combustion engine paradigm--that's even cooler, and it's where we ought to be focusing our time and money.

We've got plenty of serious problems to solve on this planet, and I've yet to hear a good reason why we need to spend money we don't have on something on which we decided we no longer needed to spend money thirty years ago. I guess the new logic is, "The air on Earth is polluted, so let's move to the Moon, since it has no air to pollute!"
posted by fandango_matt at 12:59 PM on September 19, 2005

Final straw...who's to say that in 13 years it won't be ours also?
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 12:59 PM on September 19, 2005

You know, I'm for space exploration, but between this, the reconstruction of NOLA, and Dubya's little Iraq quagmire, where is all this money coming from?
posted by keswick at 1:00 PM on September 19, 2005

eriko I was referring to the article a few days ago about the Canadian who claimed to improve wasted heat from something like 35% efficiency in engines to 100% using hydrogen injection or something like that.
posted by geoff. at 1:02 PM on September 19, 2005

Halliburton, keswick!
posted by fandango_matt at 1:03 PM on September 19, 2005

Taxes. You and me. That's where the money comes from. Oh, wait...we have a deficit, so that money comes from nowhere, it doesn't exist...we say it's there and we spend it and devalue our currency and go into a recession.

tick, tick, tick....FINAL STRAW.
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 1:04 PM on September 19, 2005

The old Halliburton joke is as tiring and played as Snoop's z-language. yawn.
posted by markulus at 1:04 PM on September 19, 2005

Halli-shizzle?
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 1:06 PM on September 19, 2005

that's better
posted by markulus at 1:06 PM on September 19, 2005

Actually, both Snoop Dogg's "-izzle" suffix and Halliburton are eclipsed by the tired and played joke that was and still is a manned mission to Mars. WTFizzle, yo!
posted by fandango_matt at 1:08 PM on September 19, 2005

Some words by Nabokov come to mind:

Treading the soil of the moon gives one, I imagine (or rather my projected self imagines), the most remarkable romantic thrill ever experienced in the history of discovery. Of course, I rented a television set to watch every moment of their marvelous adventure. That gentle little minuet that despite their awkward suits the two men danced with such grace to the tune of lunar gravity was a lovely sight. It was also a moment when a flag means to one more than a flag usually does. I am puzzled and pained by the fact that the English weeklies ignored the absolutely overwhelming excitement of the adventure, the strange sensual exhilaration of palpating those precious pebbles, of seeing our marbled globe in the black sky, of feeling along one's spine the shiver and wonder of it. After all, Englishmen should understand that thrill, they who have been the greatest, the purest explorers. Why then drag in such irrelevant matters as wasted dollars and power politics?


Why indeed.
posted by Hobbacocka at 1:09 PM on September 19, 2005

Great post eriko.

I still have a problem with the $$$ though, since the US is currently being financed by the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Saudi Arabians etc and as wakko points there are other really pressing priorities. We could wind up sitting on the desolate moon only to watch our ice caps recede and the planet spiral into chaos as it competes with itself for dwindling resources..
posted by marvin at 1:09 PM on September 19, 2005

We should all be so lucky as to have a space race in our day. [sarcasm] But then again it's not like anything benificial came from landing on the moon in '69. [/sarcasm]
posted by blue_beetle at 1:10 PM on September 19, 2005

Just to play devil's advocate: who is to say that pumping this $104 billion into education or health care will make a tangible impact? I mean, you can pump all the money you want into a school system but if the community and family support is lacking, you don't necessarily have a great school district. Likewise, we can pour that $104 billion into health care and we'll still have overweight, lazy, smoking Americans costing me an arm and a fucking leg every time they have to go to the hospital. Will $104 billion fix that mentality? I'm not holding my breath.
posted by tgrundke at 1:11 PM on September 19, 2005

The Space exploration & renewable Energy arguments are mutually beneficial to each other. I haven't seen anyone mention specifically how there is no "Exxon" on the moon or mars to power all of this stuff.

I figured I'd stop taking political pot shots at some of the jokers here and offer up something more realistic.

reinvigorating the space program will also spur research in other fields as well. We saw this happen in the 50's & 60's, and we'd see it again now IF... we did this.

If we don't, I'm afraid it's up to the private sector to develop the energies of the future, and they won't until it becomes economic to do so.
posted by DuffStone at 1:11 PM on September 19, 2005

It would seem that the first step would be getting large groups of people living off planet.

Who the fuck wants to live "off planet"?

Space would be a great place to vacation but living Up There would be like living in a hole in the ground here on earth 24/7. You want that, we can do it for peanuts. I could pump in video on HDTV panels simulating viewports and you'd never know the difference.

Developing robotics with the money would be a better investment in our future, this pie in the sky shit is just a waste of money.

And I say this as a kid who got off on Apollo growing up. I'd rather have seen the money go into getting us off of oil then, but instead we got some nice pictures and several tons of rocks for the money. Rocks.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:12 PM on September 19, 2005

C.Columbus: let's go discover some other lands!

Nay-sayers: but why? what a waste...what's the point? it's too expensive! let's spend the money on making our place cleaner and better!

C.Columbus: lata suckas!!!

...scene fades hundreds of years later on everyone in the world a happier and more prosperous than could ever be imagined....
posted by markulus at 1:14 PM on September 19, 2005

You can get off of oil pretty simply right now Heywood - it would just require us to make a wholesale change in our entire society.

You want to get off of oil? Move into an urban center so you don't need to drive. Don't like that? Fine - move into the country and make due without a car or truck and create your own electricity out of wind power or solar panels.

You can do all of these things now to get off of oil. But for some reason, most people don't want to do it. Damn the free market of ideas and products.
posted by tgrundke at 1:15 PM on September 19, 2005

"But my main argument against the Apollo project is that we should be funding our National Smart People to do more worthwhile things."

Unfortuantely most of our National Smart People are in the private sector making way more money doing R&D into minutiae (ultimately either dropping out or going the whole way by working for (say) the tobacco industry or going into marketing). The space thing is what we have to offer, unless said smart guys don't mind designing weapons systems.

...um, we do know the difference between privately funded market solutions and public programs don't we?


"where is all this money coming from?"
YOUR pocket keswick. Say, you didn't vote for Bush did you? *chortle*

"We've got plenty of serious problems to solve on this planet..."

We have problems on this planet because there
are people on it. Once we get some humans who know how to live off planet, we’ll have solutions for a wide variety of problems. Polution among them.
There’s also the spectre that nuclear weapons, meteor strikes, etc. etc. etc. could end the human race.
One can say “now isn’t the time” but I would ask, if not now, when?
It’s better than blowing it on defense contractors and it gets kids into science by making it cool. We’ve been suffering a brain drain in the U.S. as it is. The first step to educating someone is to capture their imagination.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:19 PM on September 19, 2005

Man, every time anything about space exploration comes up, everyone wants to jump on the "OMG POVERTY!" bandwagon. And while I'm totally with you all on the need for better healthcare, education, etc., here are a couple of things to consider.

1) From the second paragraph of Wakko's link: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, in unveiling the new lunar exploration plan announced by President Bush last year, said he is not seeking extra money and stressed that the space agency will live within its future budgets to achieve this goal." NASA was already going to get the $104 billion dollars, whether or not it was spent on moonbases or a space dog breeding program. Money is not being taken out of other federal programs, so far as I can tell.

2) Assuming NASA really can put together a manned moon mission without asking for a budget raise, let's take a look at some numbers. In 2004, the federal budget allocated $23 billion for "General science, space and technology." Of that, NASA received $15 billion. By comparison, social security got $495 billion (with the vast majority marked as "on-budget"); medicare received $269 billion; UI and other low-income assistance programs got $332 billion; education programs got $82 billion. $113 billion was spent on military personnel; $174 billion was spent on military operation and upkeep.

Eliminating the entirety of NASA and putting all that money into other programs as a percentage of the total budget, you would see an extra $3 billion go to national defense, $1.8 billion go to medicare, and $3 billion go to social security. Sizable amounts, to be sure, but certainly not the $104 billion windfall others are making it out to be. There's no way any single agency or function would ever claim the whole thing, and in any case the $104 billion would be spent over a number of years, making the individual contribution to any fiscal year smaller.

3) Investment in the space program feeds back into the American tech economy. Yes, this means parts of the military-industrial complex, for starters, but that's pretty much unavoidable so long as there continues to be a market for both jet fighters and spacecraft. But the push to create new systems to replace the shuttle and support a permanent manned extraterrestrial mission will pour much of the $104 billion into the very ailing tech R&D sector that America needs to rebuild.

4) Quick hits: budgeting does not have to be a zero-sum game. If investment in the high-tech sector from the moon mission funding creates additional tax revenue, then there's the possibility of offseting the initial investment. You don't have to take away money from poor kids and elderly people relying on pensions to pay for gilded rockets to the moon. And no, a space program is not an indication that we've decided Earth is disposable and so the space program will cause environmental havoc, and anyone who actually believes that particular piece of tripe doesn't deserve any consideration in this discussion.

The argument over whether the moon mission should go ahead (or the Mars mission announced previously) is a different question from whether NASA should continue to exist, or if Americans should continue to pay for any space exploration at all, manned or unmanned. The former question is artificial; killing the moon mission does not release that money to build homes for Katrina victims or create breakfast programs for elementary schools, even if we wanted it to. The latter question—kill NASA, abandon space and put the money back into the budget for other purposes—is real, but the answer isn't as clear cut as "$104 billion, yeehah!"

The real question should be whether asking NASA to create a permanent moon settlement would take away from its other, more purely scientific endeavours. For that I have no answer, but I imagine this is the most troublesome question for NASA to answer.
posted by chrominance at 1:20 PM on September 19, 2005

Obligatory "The moon does not exist!" cross-reference.

As to why we need to be in space to research and develop better propulsion methods for space travel ... gravity's a bitch.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:22 PM on September 19, 2005

Will $104 billion fix that mentality? I'm not holding my breath.

Indeed. $104B isn't going to address that that much. $104B over 15 years works out to ~$3,000 per classroom of 20 school-age kids. And it is true Medicare sucks up $400B/yr right now and costs are going to balloon in the next decade.

My argument is more along the rational capital investment line.

Japan Inc. built shinkansen tracks in the 1960s, they are still working for them. We built giant white & black-painted phalli, which we can visit rusting away in several southern states.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:22 PM on September 19, 2005

Great post, chrominance.
posted by tgrundke at 1:24 PM on September 19, 2005

Hey, I know! Let's outsource NASA to Halliburton too! They've done a bangup job in Iraq and New Orleans, let's just outsource the entire government to Halliburton. In fact, I'm going to name my next child, Halliburton Cheney Huh, kind of melodic, no?

Its going to be hard to replace oil with something that makes little George stand straight up like the thought of big juicy fields of sweet crude.
posted by fenriq at 1:24 PM on September 19, 2005

"We're spending all this money, millions of dollars, to blow up the moon, when there are so many things here on Earth to blow up ... Mount Everest, the North Pole, et cetera. We're earthlings, let's blow up Earth things!" -Mr. Show
posted by NationalKato at 1:26 PM on September 19, 2005

Once we get some humans who know how to live off planet, we’ll have solutions for a wide variety of problems.

Once we get (ie pay tens of billions of dollars to) some humans who _____ _____ _____ ____, we'll have solutions for a wide variety of problems.

Polution among them.

I really, really, really hate the stupid spinoff argument. We can solve pollution by funding research directly.

There’s also the spectre that nuclear weapons, meteor strikes, etc. etc. etc. could end the human race.

BFD. We'd have earned that reward. The universe is quite a big place and I don't think they'll be missing us at all.

One can say “now isn’t the time” but I would ask, if not now, when?

Look down the road ~10 years. What do you see? I see the demographic graying of the US putting a big bite on health services, the national debt becoming a crippling, 3rd-world quality burden, gasoline at $30 per gallon, etc. etc.

It’s better than blowing it on defense contractors and it gets kids into science by making it cool.

Cool schools and teachers also get kids into science.

Here kids, is your McDonald's Space Station in a Box!
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:30 PM on September 19, 2005

Fade in from black screen: Snoop Dogg(wearing a Halliburton hard-hat) is sitting at a board room desk with the Chairman of the Board/President/Ceo of Halliburton, Dave Lesar.

Snoop: Your government contract ful-fizzle sho' is the shizzle!

Lesar: That's right Mr. Dogg, we are are the only company with enough resources to bid for and win the contracts that America needs fulfilled to defend our freedom.

Snoop: For shizzle!

Voiceover: When it comes to government contract work, think Halliburton. We are the shizzle for rizzle.

Fade out to black screen featuring Halliburton logo as "Drop it like its hot" by Snoop Dogg plays in the background.
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 1:31 PM on September 19, 2005

It's actually interesting seeing this argument, now that I've switched sides.

For all of the rational reasons to explore space, they are nothing compared to the irrational ones. It's very, very obvious.

The biggest red herring of those reasons, though, is the fringe benefit, spin-off benefit argument. If you want technology R&D, invest it in the boring, banal, directly applicable stuff of the American tech. sector, not a largely useless mission to the moon.

Another point: there was no arms race of the 80s that broke the Soviet Union. Soviet spending on military stuff was not sharply ramped up in the 80s, and the small increases in spending that did happen were planned upon in the 70s. The Soviet Union collapsed because they did not have the economy to keep doing what they were doing, and all things were in place by the 70s. The 80s had little to do with it. The Reagan-era fantasy of "spending the Soviets into the ground" is a remarkably persistent fantasy, though.

But that being said, if Soviet era military spending was not the reason for the collapse of the USSR, their space spending surely was not, then.

But America right now is a country on the brink of some really, really bad things. We need to concentrate on those problems, not space exploration. And while $104 bn certainly is smaller than the price tag for our military or Social Security over those years, it is definitely no longer at the level where it can be called a "rounding error." It's real money, and it could be and should be better spent. Let's get America back on track to still being a superpower in 50 years, and then we'll talk about this stuff.
posted by teece at 1:31 PM on September 19, 2005

We have problems on this planet because there are people on it. Once we get some humans who know how to live off planet, we’ll have solutions for a wide variety of problems. Pollution among them.

Yes, living on the Moon or Mars will solve the problem of pollution on Earth, since those who move to the Moon or Mars won't have to live with the problem anymore. Manned space exploration is noble and courageous. It's a lot more noble and courageous to stay here and fix the problems we currently have instead of running away from them.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:31 PM on September 19, 2005

What do they mean return trip?

[dons tinfoil hat]
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:35 PM on September 19, 2005

This is like taking the family out to the movies instead of buying grandma's prescription meds. Is it more 'inspirational'? Yes. More interesting. Absolutely. More memorable? Yup. Is it the right thing to do?...

Do we have groups of people wanting to move to Antarctica? How about the bottom of the ocean? The top of Mount Everest? Nope, but somehow there's just no interest... and none of these places are less human-friendly than the suface of the moon or mars.

I seriously pity those Chinese guys destined to live out their existences on the moon. No one else sees this as far worse than a prison sentence? Sounds dowright inhuman to me.
posted by scheptech at 1:41 PM on September 19, 2005

chrominance: From the second paragraph of Wakko's link: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, in unveiling the new lunar exploration plan announced by President Bush last year, said he is not seeking extra money and stressed that the space agency will live within its future budgets to achieve this goal."

Repeated for emphasis. The US would have spent that much by 2018 anyway. NASA will come up with the money by a) cutting short the Space Station, and b) dumping the Shuttle in 2008.

Now, whether you should be spending that much in the first place is a separate question.
posted by Popular Ethics at 1:45 PM on September 19, 2005

For those wanting to play with the 2006 federal budget, here's a simulator.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:48 PM on September 19, 2005

Return to the moon??! We never went there! It was a hoax.....right?
posted by flyboy at 1:48 PM on September 19, 2005

Hell, since we have so many problems on Earth, let's throw money at them from other things - never mind space exploration, let's cut funding for arts. What's the point of all those concert halls and galleries and such, when people are dying? What's the point of operas and ballet, when people are starving?

How about sports, eh? Let's get rid of the Olympics - you'd save billions of dollars in one go. Who cares about a bunch of priviliged athletes when there are millions of people with AIDs, and millions of children with malaria? Get rid of particle accelerators and humanities departments at universities - how dare we spend money on them when there are kids who can't read or write? Get rid of research hospitals - there's no point researching esoteric problems like Alzheimers considering the astounding infant mortality rates in Africa.

And then there's government subsidies for farming... and the defense budget.

Even if you think space exploration is totally worthless, there are a lot more things that cost more and do less. And if you do think space exploration is worthless, then you have no imagination. On a purely economic note, funding space exploration opens the door for solar power generation and mining raw materials from asteroids. The space programme gave us communication satellites - those have come in rather handy, haven't they?

Space exploration is the only hope we have if an asteroid decides to get in our way - not because humans could survive off the planet, but because we would know how to push it out of the way. And if you think that that's far too unlikely to be worth considering, then I'd advise you to look up the statistics, and then think about how much other suffering natural disasters cause.

Then there are the scientific benefits. Trying to make humans survive a journey to Mars teaches us about the *real* meaning of recycling and economising on power. Finding life on Mars, or any other planet would be astounding. I imagine that some people couldn't give a shit. Fine. Clearly this is a problem of lack of imagination again, then. If there's life on Mars, chances are that there's life elsewhere in the universe. It could be advanced. If you're religious, what does that mean to you? If you're intelligent, what does the *certainty* of life in the universe mean to you? For me, it's worth knowing.

Judging by human history, throwing a hundred billion dollars at our ever-present problems isn't likely to make them go away, and frankly, there are plenty of other places that you could get the money from. To be honest, I don't think that we'll solve all of our problems on Earth. But, paradoxically, seeing someone walk on the Moon can make you think we can, and it can inspire you to try.
posted by adrianhon at 1:49 PM on September 19, 2005

Do we have groups of people wanting to move to Antarctica? How about the bottom of the ocean? The top of Mount Everest? Nope, but somehow there's just no interest... and none of these places are less human-friendly than the suface of the moon or mars.

My argument exactly. The only thing manned exploration has got going for it its reduced gravity, and that is for entertainment value rather than practicality.

NASA should be developing more robots, not fewer. Doesn't this new mission directive gut the robot program?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:52 PM on September 19, 2005

Orbiting Rondelle

(Dave on lead)
You will go to the moon
You'll probably be heading there soon
Someday flowers will grow there
But first you've got to go there
Oh, You will go to the moon

(ooo, you gonna get it)

You will live in the stars
Your backyard will probably be Mars
You will ride a crater scooter
And eat off your computer
Oh you will live in the stars

(All)
Your stellar smile will always beam
Knowing you're home and home to stay
And you'll look down upon the earth
And say, "I can't believe we ever lived that way!"

(Dave)
You will go to the moon
There's plans for a hotel and a lagoon
You'll be savoring a star fruit
And kicking off your moonboot
Oh you will go to the moon.

Hey, you will go to the moon
A paradise to rival Cancun
And one side's always sunny
You'll be raking in the money
Oh you get paid on the moon

(All)
It's been our most abiding dream
And a dream is an easy sell
And when the tourists come in droves
You'll be the big cheese on that orbiting rondelle

(Dave)
You will go to the moon
Daring pioneers will call the tune

(vocal solo)

(Dave)
Take it home...

Ah someday flowers will grow there
But first you got to go there
Oh you will go to the moon
I'm gonna tell ya, you will go to the moon
One more! You will go to the moon!
posted by wakko at 1:53 PM on September 19, 2005

On a purely economic note, funding space exploration opens the door for solar power generation

No, funding solar power generation opens the door to solar power generation.

and mining raw materials from asteroids.

Don't you think the earth's mantle has enough... uh... rock already?

The space programme gave us communication satellites - those have come in rather handy, haven't they?

No, communication satellite companies gave us communication satellites.

Space exploration is the only hope we have if an asteroid decides to get in our way

No, unmanned would also work, in fact would be a superior solution given the cost differentials.

Trying to make humans survive a journey to Mars teaches us about the *real* meaning of recycling and economising on power.

Dig a fucking hole in the ground or build an undersea colony.

Finding life on Mars, or any other planet would be astounding.

Robots.

I imagine that some people couldn't give a shit.

It'd be interesting, but we already have evidence of life in the solar system (us) so not THAT interesting.

Fine. Clearly this is a problem of lack of imagination again, then.

Lack of willingess to PAY for this shit.

If there's life on Mars, chances are that there's life elsewhere in the universe.

The chances of life elsewhere in the universe (1.0) would be rather unaffected by the discovery of life on Mars.

It could be advanced.

That is a particularly idiotic statement indicative of the human hubris coating this entire debate. Earth is a speck in a speck in a speck. The law of large numbers says there are countless other planets that have hosted, are hosting, and will host life in this universe. To use the conditional "could" in this is simply asinine.

seeing someone walk on the Moon can make you think we can, and it can inspire you to try.

btdt.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:02 PM on September 19, 2005

Heywood, now you're just being wilfully obtuse.

Yep, the Earth's mantle has lots of rock. Running out of metal, though.

Sure, communications companies built communications satellites... which they wouldn't have done without the space program to get 'em up there.

Don't be so asinine.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:05 PM on September 19, 2005

How do you think we "come up" with a better, faster, safer, and more efficient propulsion system? We make one through programs like this!

What does that have to do with going to the moon?

I'm not saying all research should be cut or NASA should be scrapped, but wasting money on a trip to a useless, airless, worthless rock floating in space (that we've already BEEN to, natch) is a stupid priority.

To repeat wakko, just the rocket itself is $104 billion. That's outside of the budget of NASA. Waste.

The space shuttle missions. Sometimes useful - but in 25-odd years of flying these missions, we still can't get the damn tiles to stay on? We're still losing astronauts to old O-rings? Or even: we can't think of a better way to get it into space than attaching a ginormous tank full of highly flammable liquid to the bottom?
posted by fungible at 2:05 PM on September 19, 2005

"BFD. We'd have earned that reward. The universe is quite a big place and I don't think they'll be missing us at all."

Heywood Mogroot, I'm not trying to be snarky here, but - take a gun and use it on yourself now - is the only real answer I can offer to a person arguing from nihilism.


"It's a lot more noble and courageous to stay here and fix the problems we currently have instead of running away from them."

Whatever.
It’s a lot more noble and courageous to be out actually doing things and helping people than typing on a blog.
ndeed, what’s your entertainment budget? How often do you eat out? - Obligatory “with children starving in Africa, health care, etc etc” addendums.


+ what adrianhon & chrominance (et. al) said better and earlier than I.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:06 PM on September 19, 2005

fungible, have you actually read the thread? The $104bn, over the next decade, was--read carefully--part of NASA's budget anyway. Got it? This is money already earmarked for NASA.

And yes, there are better ways of getting into space. The best is probably a space elevator (I believe Arthur C Clarke was one of the earliest proponents)... which will require something in space (at one of the L5 points, if memory serves) to attach it to. We don't just wander out into the middle of the ocean and build an oil rig; we build it at the shore and tow it into position. Ditto boats. A base on the moon gives us a manufacturing complex, with some gravity, with rather less likelihood of, say, being blasted out of orbit if something goes wrong.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:09 PM on September 19, 2005

C.Columbus: let's go discover some other lands!

Nay-sayers: but why? what a waste...what's the point? it's too expensive! let's spend the money on making our place cleaner and better!

C.Columbus: lata suckas!!!


That's not the way the conversation went. The conversation was:

C. Columbus: You give me a little bit of money for some boats and I'll make you rich beyond your wildest dreams for having provided a faster route to the spice markets of the Indies.

Nay-sayers: That's nonsense, he doesn't know what he's talking about. It will be money thrown down the loo as he loses himself at see.

The Royalty: Well the potential return on investment makes it an interesting gamble. And we want him out of our hair.


When it comes to manned space flight, I'd prefer that it be left to private industry. If there are enough peopel that want to go up there, someone will figure out how to do it. Let Mr. Branson figure out who do it in such a way that it makes economic sense. If the government is involved maybe through some leasing arrangement of government technology and facilities that could serve to fund other, more scientific explorations.

If the purpose of the expenditure is practical, I'd prefer they focused on figuring out how to generate a direct benefit. Perhaps bypassing other gravity wells and focusing on exploitation of the resources available in the asteroid belt.

If the intent is purely scientific that is why god created computers, robots, and an RF spectrum that allows communication across distances.

That said, it is cool. I get giddy at the prospects. It is always fun to realize we live in the future. But rationally, it is hard to justify putting four people on the moon so that they can drive around doing what robots could do much cheaper.
posted by obfusciatrist at 2:10 PM on September 19, 2005

Running out of metal, though.

Dubious assertion. How deep do our mines go? How closely have we looked at the seabeds that cover 70% of the surface area?

Sure, communications companies built communications satellites... which they wouldn't have done without the space program to get 'em up there.

It was military rocketry that provided the seed capital. Actually reading on Telstar I see it was a Bell System enterprise, basically quasi-governmental.

Being a proponent of directed research for alternative energy, I don't have a big problem with the government spending money on speculative but potentially worthwhile research programs.

I just think a MANNED program is an idiotic misapplication of resources. Robotics feature great mission overlap while providing a lot more spinoffs here at home, eg. mining all those scarce metals here on Earth.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:21 PM on September 19, 2005

Firstly, it's laughable to say the money could be spent better elsewhere. It's budgeted for NASA, and to NASA it shall go. Sure, we can redirect federal funds all day long on MeFi, but the real world is not, as was pointed out above, a zero-sum game. The real question here is what NASA should be doing with our money. This is all about manned missions vs. robotic exploration.

Manned exploration has feel-good points. An American is up there! An American is on the moon again! An American held off the Chinese single-handedly! Wow, God bless us all, there's a fucking American doing one-handed push-ups on the moon.

Robotic exploration makes many more places easily accessible. Which would you rather have? Three or four Americans on a rock about which we already know a great deal, or twelve or thirteen unmanned robots orbiting Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus, doing real scientific research for years at a time? Hell, how about another space telescope? I've been wonderin' just what the fuck happened 14 billion years ago, and we aren't going to get any closer to the answer by webcamming zero-g water balloon videos to classrooms of first graders.

Fuck it, this pisses me off. I have been a self-proclaimed dork interested in working for NASA since I was playing with Lego bricks, and I see the major problem is greater than one of budget. It's one of universal worldview.

Sending manned missions back to the moon is like saying "Look at us, Americans are the best, we own this rock." It's like having the most meticulously manicured lawn in the neighborhood, yet never once visiting Yosemite.

Spending money on robotic missions and deep-space telescopes says, "We want to know what is out there, where we are, and what got us here." It's a means of pointing our eyes, ears, and minds towards the distant unknown and the deeply mysterious.

Now ask yourself: what kind of person, what kind of government (remember whose idea this was?) would prefer to gain control of a symbolic piece of land with little practical value instead of investigating the very nature of our universe more effectively?

Sound familiar?
posted by plexiwatt at 2:22 PM on September 19, 2005

Running out of metal, though.

There's lots of known (let alone unknown) deposits that aren't being utilized because they're simply more expensive to work than current prices allow. A lot of metal is also 'hidden' behind regulatory or political issues. In any case, it will be an extremely long time before it becomes cheaper to fetch metals from mars than even the most difficult places on earth.
posted by scheptech at 2:22 PM on September 19, 2005

Heywood: "Who the fuck wants to live "off planet"?"

I'd go, if they asked for volunteers. In a heartbeat. Imagine being among the first permanent settlers in space... like riding on the Mayflower. Romantic I suppose, but also highly historic, and part of the greatest adventure ever.

With all this back-and-forth about the propulsion systems and the money and all, why don't we give a bit of that money to these guys? They plan to have the Elevator working by April 12, 2018... just in time to beat NASA. Apparently their projected budget is $15-20 billion... so if we give them $1 bn a year for the next 12 years, maybe that will speed up some, eh?

Then we won't have to mess with all that explosive fuel crap, and we can ship a whole colony's worth of hardware up the ladder, 30 tons at a time, much more safely (in theory, at least). Certainly if the development is that cheap we ought to fund it, rather than dumping many billions into a rocket we're only going to throw away.

Personally I think we should get the Elevator working, then use it to ship up an actual large space habitat at the geosynchronous level, to which we can lift fuel and ships which we can then use to get around the system. Moon colony, yes - since we can use moon resources without the huge earth gravity penalty... but I think a big permanent habitat outside the gravity well, with an Elevator running up to it would be a better stepping-off point.

We really are blowing way too much money and effort on stupid wars... what is it, 60% of the Federal budget going to the military. Sheesh. We could already be permanently off-planet, and not in some LEO tin can, either.

Also Heywood: "No, funding solar power generation opens the door to solar power generation."

Well yes, but you see, there have been plans for 30 years to build huge solar power collectors up there in geosynchronous orbit - where the sun is always shining at full intensity - and to send the energy down to earth via various methods (usually a diffuse microwave beam system). The problem has been, of course, having a lift system that will allow you to put huge collectors up there. The Space Elevator would handle that problem pretty effectively... so therefore, funding both the elevator and the solar generating systems could really pay off, freeing us from fossil fuels. I'm sure it sounds farfetched to you but it's been very, very thoroughly researched.

scheptech: "In any case, it will be an extremely long time before it becomes cheaper to fetch metals from mars than even the most difficult places on earth."

In fact it's highly unlikely that we will ever do such a thing, because there is an asteroid belt full of metal asteroids that we could mine a lot cheaper than lifting metals out of Mars's gravity well. Much, much easier and cheaper in energy; some of those asteroids are highly pure iron, for instance. Plus if you do all the smelting in space (using solar power, like a big parabolic mirror to focus sunlight to melt the metal), you remove the pollution of that (not to mention the burning of fuels to create the heat) from earth's surface.

There's a lot we can do up there - in very different ways than we do here - that will help things down here.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:29 PM on September 19, 2005

Heywood Mogroot: The chances of life elsewhere in the universe (1.0)...

Explain briefly how this is true would you?
posted by Acey at 2:36 PM on September 19, 2005

If the space elevator is really feasible, I don't think it will have any trouble finding investors. The profit potential is huge.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:37 PM on September 19, 2005

"When it comes to manned space flight, I'd prefer that it be left to private industry..."

When it comes to stem cell research, I'd prefer that it be left to private industry...

I'm just sayin'

Although I do concede the efficiency of robots.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:38 PM on September 19, 2005

People have been watching way too much sci-fi around here. Unmanned space exploration is the way. If we really cared about the science there is no question about it.
posted by ozomatli at 2:49 PM on September 19, 2005

Zoogleplex, thank you for presenting the space elevator and all of its benefits in a concise easy to understand manner. To me, this seems to be the future...not rockets. In the context of the space elevator, the idea of asteroid mining and solar power seem very realistic. I for one would whole heartedly support the space elevator. (no...no sarcasm...i mean it.)
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 2:49 PM on September 19, 2005

The moon? President Bush said we were going to Mars!

Who the fuck wants to live 'off planet'?

A new life awaits you in the offworld colonies. A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure.

posted by kirkaracha at 3:03 PM on September 19, 2005

The robots thing is the real issue here. Yes, there may be other things we could spend our money on, like health care and solar power that would be better, but we actually have a really large amount of money. Space exploration makes sense from a variety of perspectives, including scientific and political. But manned exploration, at least at this stage in the game, is just dangerous, expensive, and stupid.

Unless it's for the purpose of developing zero-G sex clubs, cause I'd be all over that shit.
posted by freedryk at 3:11 PM on September 19, 2005

Unmanned space exploration is the way. If we really cared about the science there is no question about it.

Care about science in what way? Care about greatest potential revenue generated per time/dollar investment, or care about ever-deepening human contact with the unfathomably beautiful universe we live in?
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:18 PM on September 19, 2005

From The Artemis Project:

"Helium-3 is the perfect fuel for nuclear fusion, yielding energetic reactions with no radiation whatsoever, but is only present in so many kilograms on Earth. The Moon, however, has enough to fulfill Earth's energy requirements, and support the lunar resource extraction industry described in this chapter of the Artemis Data Book, for the next 10,000 years " (Emphasis mine)

If humanity are to solve problems like inequality, powerty, starvation, global warming and conflicts over resources, we'll need a large source of clean and reliable energy.
There are some very, very good reasons for going to the moon.

While it may be true that in the short term we could save some lives if we invested all that money in for example healt-care, that's not a long-term solution since it doesn't address the underlying problem.
posted by spazzm at 3:21 PM on September 19, 2005

robocop - AT LAST SOMEONE REMEMBERS CHAIRFACE AND THE TICK
posted by sourbrew at 3:22 PM on September 19, 2005

When it comes to stem cell research, I'd prefer that it be left to private industry...

I'm not going to argue with you on that either. But if the government is going to do stem cell research, I'd rather they fund research than a program to minituaturize Raquel Welch so that she can go look at a stem cell directly for herself.

Similarly, if the government is going to do space-based research I'd rather they focus on actual research than showboat efforts.

But still, as much as I think it a misdirection of money, if they should ask me, I'll be on the next plane to Canaveral.
posted by obfusciatrist at 3:25 PM on September 19, 2005

Metafilter: Fuck the moon!

Hee hee.
posted by Haruspex at 3:36 PM on September 19, 2005

sonofsamiam: "If the space elevator is really feasible, I don't think it will have any trouble finding investors. The profit potential is huge."

They seem to be doing very well so far, actually. They're doing a lot of stuff that has more immediate payoffs down here, in things like improving carbon nanotube composites (which is absolutely necessary to make the Elevator ribbon to the proper strength), so as you say they're not having trouble attracting investment.

However, we could probably help them along, with some of that NASA money, eh what? :)
posted by zoogleplex at 3:46 PM on September 19, 2005

The stated purpose of sending people to the moon in 2018 is exploration. I'm calling nonsense on this anyhow. The only possible purpose can be a political one: occupation or ownership establishment. Think of it as a military outpost, not a new lifestyle option for the rest of us. It will remain tough duty for a long while, a brutal six month rotation a miniscule number of folks will take on to advance their careers, a half year sacrifice.

Meanwhile: but it won't be your grandfather's moon shot ... what NASA has old Simpson's writers on staff now?
posted by scheptech at 3:49 PM on September 19, 2005

the other space race.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:51 PM on September 19, 2005

So long as we're quoting lyrics, let's not forget the only #1 song that criticized US space policy -- Tasmin Archer's Sleeping Satellite:

I blame you for the moonlit sky
And the dream that died
With the eagles flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights
When I wonder why
Are the seas still dry
Don't blame this sleeping satellite

Did we fly to the moon too soon
Did we squander the chance
In the rush of the race
The reason we chase is lost in romance
And still we try
To justify the waste
For a taste of man's greatest adventure

More incisive verses here
posted by borborygmi at 4:04 PM on September 19, 2005

ozomatli: "Unmanned space exploration is the way. If we really cared about the science there is no question about it."

And so we should continue all the unmanned exploration - we can afford to do both. Colonization of near-earth space and the moon, however, is not about science primarily, but establishing a foothold for humanity to move outward. It will also give us science by necessity, but this world has its limits and we need to make the next move outward, IMO simply for the survival of the species (and probably many others too).

We should defintely not stop doing robot exploration, it's working extremely well. Plus, having a GEO station at the end of the Space Elevator ribbon would allow much, much cheaper launches of more unmanned probes. For instance, the Cassini probe total weight at launch was about 13,000 pounds/5800kg, or 6.5 US tons, 5.8 tonnes. The Elevator will start out with max lift payload around 5 US tons (ramping up to 30 tons over a few years) - almost enough; Cassini could have been taken to orbit in 2 lifts and assembled. With the SE able to lift 5 tons every 3 hours or so (with a 2-week trip to GEO), we could literally launch a couple of Cassinis per day.
And even better, because the SE ribbon will extend well out past GEO (about 60,000km total length) we can launch probes outward by simply letting them run out the length of the ribbon, accelerated by centripetal force and the ribbon's tension as the ribbon rotates with the earth - a launch to the outer solar system with zero fuel expended for initial boost.

Cassini cost a few hundred million to get off the ground, with a lot of that being expended rocket booster. This would save us an awful lot of energy and cash.

cloudstastemetallic: No problem. I've been all about the elevator/tether/skyhook stuff since I read about it in Hans Moravec's "Cable Cars to the Sky" in Jerry Pournelle's The Endless Frontier back in the early '80s. The fact that some people are actually developing the thing gives me some real hope that we can start climbing out of the well in earnest.

Note that the projected lift cost for the SE starts at about $100/pound. Right now with rockets it costs $100,000 a pound. Even if they only get it down to $10,000 a pound it's a massive improvement (90% savings, actually, heh!). However, the economy of scale enabled with a 5-ton lift every 3 hours will definitely cut the price way way down.

With the obvious dangers of sending stuff up on top of a flying bomb, getting this thing developed should be a major priority. I'm kinda surprised - but then again, not really - that NASA seems to be mostly ignoring it (though they are giving some money to Liftport in the form of research grants, which is good).

It's just not something that's reached the public eye much, as it seems kind of outlandish... but the physics and the concept are sound. They just have to advance the carbon nanotube composite materials technology to where the tensile strength is high enough, about 5x what we've reached so far I believe.

It could really be the first step off, a cheap and safer way to get stuff into space. Worth every penny.

Long live Space Race! Long live.... MOLVANIA!
posted by zoogleplex at 4:11 PM on September 19, 2005

"Similarly, if the government is going to do space-based research I'd rather they focus on actual research than showboat efforts."


Agreed.



CHAd?
CHArlie?

I love Ben Edlund's work..
posted by Smedleyman at 4:41 PM on September 19, 2005

To much to read, so sorry if this is mentioned above but I have to get it off my chest.

I am a huge proponent of space exploration. BUT, I am looking to find the reason we have to send people to the moon. 10 billion would create some nifty robots and another 10 billion for the rockets would probably put something up there in there years to travel around and get some things done. Send up more robots at 200 million each, and they could run around for years probably (no batteries needed.) Build a whole complex and wait for people to arrive.

Why do we need to send people at this point and time (meaning even 15 years from now.) The space station is already an albatross around our neck.

Before I am jumped on, show me the science that the station is worth. Cost = billions + two shuttles + 14 astronauts + misdirected funding towards true science.

The people to the moon is only going to add plus signs to that equation...

And yes I get the idea that we have to take baby steps to Mars. And this is what I am suggesting with complex rovers to the moon. We can launch and be on the moon in four days.

And to someone else's comment about the bad design of the shuttle. It was a beautiful thing until the military chimed in that it had to carry "large" payloads and then Congress spoke up with their requirements and suddenly you had this monster with engines. It was a true glider with an expected low maintenance time - well, this is what we got. (Doesn't change the tile problem I am presuming though...)
posted by fluffycreature at 5:53 PM on September 19, 2005

zoogleplex >>> "a launch to the outer solar system with zero fuel expended for initial boost."

More to the point, there's really only energy expenditure for the beginning of the elevator's lifespan. Once stuff (raw materials, finished products, passengers) starts coming back down, then it basically becomes a pulley system. Drop stuff down to Earth, the energy it accumulates (yes I know that's not really what happens; you know what I mean) is used to send stuff out into orbit.

Pratchett explains it the same as a kangaroo bounding across the landscape. The initial jump is the major expenditure. After that, inertia and tiny hops keep propelling it forward.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:05 PM on September 19, 2005

Well it's a lot easier to establish a claim that we inhabit the moon as a colony and thus own the helium-3 than sending robots up there to study it.
posted by geoff. at 6:18 PM on September 19, 2005

rather than just sending the robots to study it, I should say. If we send a bunch of robots everywhere and finding a lot of valuable mineral x and then the Chinese send some suicidal astronaut who gets the claim? We discovered it first but the Chinese got there and lived there longer. It'd be a lot easier to say "ahh! we were there and living there keep your hands off of it." Petty now, but you wait until the Moon Wars of 2038.
posted by geoff. at 6:19 PM on September 19, 2005

And so we should continue all the unmanned exploration - we can afford to do both.

Please educate yourself regarding the federal deficit and the national debt. Thank you. Also please realize that, although Katrina happened in the South and for that reason seems mega-distant to people in other parts of the country in a way that 9-11 did not, New Orleans is part of the United States and we will be paying out the nose for the aftermath, regardless of what Congress ultimately decides to do.
posted by raysmj at 6:46 PM on September 19, 2005

$104 billion dollars could put $346 dollars in the pocket of every American.

Over 13 years that's $26.61 per year (assuming 300 million American men, women and children.)

The actual price per adult tax payer will be greater.

At this point though should we really trust NASA with 104 billion put toward MANNED missions? They should stick to robots.
posted by wfrgms at 6:56 PM on September 19, 2005

I will bet everyone who has posted so far $1000 that Burt Rutan or an employee of Scaled Composites walks on the moon before a Nasa astronaut.
posted by the theory of revolution at 7:05 PM on September 19, 2005

" $104 billion dollars could put $346 dollars in the pocket of every American."

Didn't Bush already do that, back in 2000? His "election bribe" to make people happy that they got their tax money back, even though it's really a loan. Gee, what could we have spent that money on? Hmmm!

raysmj: I'm well aware of our debt and deficit spending. This is why I voted against the current administration twice, although it was clearly futile. I'm also well aware of the devastation of Katrina and what it will cost. I'd point out that if we weren't currently borrowing a billion dollars a day on the war, not to mention having cut taxes to the point of destroying a huge budget surplus, we'd have plenty of money around to rebuild the Gulf Coast and help its population, as well as certainly being able to afford both types of space development quite handily.

So, yeah, the current money problem is a complete mess, and we should have put the money into actual useful things. However, that being said, I personally believe running up the debt to fund the Space Elevator and robotic exploration (and of course, disaster ameiloration and preparedness) is worth it, while blowing it on DU ammo and Blackwater mercenaries is not. Our national priorities are clearly totally fucked up.

And I don't appreciate your patronizing tone, thanks.

theory of revolution: I'll take that bet. Scaled is an extremely long way from fielding a lift vehicle that can take anyone to the moon and back. The scale of energy use is about 4 orders of magnitude higher than that of SpaceShip One. They'd basically have to duplicate the Saturn V.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:39 PM on September 19, 2005

Shit I Would Rather Spend 104 Billion Dollars On Instead Of A Stupid Moon Mission Which Will Provide Us With Absolutely No Benefit Ever Except In Stupid Peen-Size Comparison With The Chinese:


# Healthcare
# Research into alternative energy sources
# Cancer/disease research
# Third-world debt relief
# 104 billion scratch lotto tickets

or, fixing me.
posted by JRun at 8:04 PM on September 19, 2005

To the naysayers who parrot the standard "lets try to spend that money on more pressing concerns, like alternative energy sources, or blah blah blah".

Folks, it's unavoidable. We can't not explore outer space. It's human nature to explore the unknown, and as long as we have the capability we will go. So please, enough with the "we've got enough problems down here!" line. We're going. Get used to it.

That said, I think it's debatable whether or not we should go to the moon, or spend our energies on Mars, a real space station, a space elevator, etc. One project that would be a milestone in astronomy would be a giant telescope on the moon. With no atmosphere (therefore no light pollution), a giant telescope would open up our understanding of astrophysics several orders of magnitude. It would kick Hubble's ass.
posted by zardoz at 8:04 PM on September 19, 2005

t.o.r: I'll take that bet too. Burt Rutan is a genius, but he simply doesn't have the resources it would take.

Can we please drop the mining asteroids / Helium 3 canard? It sounds just like the "manufacture perfect bearings" fantasy pundits were using to justify the space station. We have yet to get fusion working at all with readily available tritium. Lets not consider mining the moon for a fuel which will take ten times as much energy for ignition.

There are good arguments to be made for a manned space program. This isn't one of them.
posted by Popular Ethics at 8:07 PM on September 19, 2005

$104 billion may be budgeted now, but it can always be 'unbudgeted'.
posted by mischief at 8:11 PM on September 19, 2005

(chance of other life in the Universe being a p = 1.0 proposition)

Explain briefly how this is true would you?

Basically I'm going by how fast life sprung up here, just a billion or two years, vs. the expected life of the solar system (~10B years).

Finding life (alive or extinct) on any given planet at any time is basically a monotonically increasing function of time from the origin of the system. This indicates to me a p of ~ .99 of finding life on planets with (exact) earth-like conditions after say 6 billion years, 3 sigma from the observed value (I also argue that the appearance of life on an earth-like system is described by a normal function, with the mean, median, and mode AFAIK at 1.5 - 2B years).

There are other variables like the stability of planetary systems and how "friendly" suns like ours remain over time, etc. that make extrapolation somewhat hazardous, but the thought that we are the only life in this immense universe, given the number of star systems like ours in this galaxy and number of galaxies in the known universe, the age of the universe, how fast life appeared here on earth, is simply mathematically infinitesimal given the immense number of parallel trials that have been going on among 2nd-generation star systems like ours in the known universe.

Not to mention totally unknown modes of life forming in OTHER more alien environments. We have no idea how many different kinds of life can arise.

So IMV the p = 0.999999999999... that we will find life somewhere in the "billions and billions" of star systems in the universe.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:12 PM on September 19, 2005

I'm well aware of our debt and deficit spending.

Nothing you've stated shows me that you have any conception of how huge the problem is--it's of Depression-inducing and socially destablizing size. Your take, however, (after stating that you'd rather have Iraq taken out of the equation, in all fairness) is more or less as follows: "If we're going to waste money, let's do this." The problem is wasting so much money, not how to waste money.

Meanwhile, I don't like that Iraq happened either, but it did, and GW is not pulling out soon, Congress will not stop him. Leaving Iraq would not solve the deficit problem regardless. And with Katrina on top of all that (and possible future worst-case scenarios that we should be saving for), wasting what we don't have is not a good idea. There are myriad other problems with the country that aren't getting funding either--infrastructure out the wazoo, rising health care costs (I've experienced those lately--our system crazy as far as costs go), huge environmental problems, a growing gap between the rich and poor, inexcusably massive problems with inner city and poor rural schools. Do you realize that the Smithsonian museums--or at least many of them, including the National Air and Space Museum--are falling apart? And you want astronauts toi go to the frickin' moon again, like they already did before most, if not many, metafilter members were even born?
posted by raysmj at 8:39 PM on September 19, 2005

If the probability of life in a star system is P > 0 (which can be clearly demonstrated by the fact that there's life in this star system), and there are infinite numbers of stars, then the expected number of inhabited star systems is...
*punches numbers on calculator*

...infinite.


If there are not an infinite number of stars, well, then things are a lot different.
posted by spazzm at 8:46 PM on September 19, 2005

And even better, because the SE ribbon will extend well out past GEO (about 60,000km total length) we can launch probes outward by simply letting them run out the length of the ribbon, accelerated by centripetal force and the ribbon's tension as the ribbon rotates with the earth - a launch to the outer solar system with zero fuel expended for initial boost.

lots of stupid shit gets posted around here these days, but this really wins. the centripetal acceleration due to the rotation of the earth at the equator is about 3cm/s^2. that's 0.35% of g, the gravitational acceleration near the earth's surface.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 8:50 PM on September 19, 2005

sgt. sandwich:
Uh, you don't get it.
Once you get past GEO the centripetal acceleration is larger than g.

Think of it this way: At geostationary orbit, a sattelite in freefall is rotating around the earth in 24 hours and g and centripetal acceleration cancel each other out.
If you go HIGHER than that while still maintaining an orbit period of 24 hours, your speed will be so great that the centripetal acceleration outweighs g.

Not textbook correct, but an intuitive way of understanding it.
posted by spazzm at 8:55 PM on September 19, 2005

no, i do get it. i take issue with the "zero fuel expended" part and the notion that connecting a string to something above geostationary orbit will make things magically suck themselves off the planet.

geostationary orbit as you describe it (move towards earth, accelerate towards earth; move away from earth, accelerate away from earth) is what is called an unstable equilibrium - like trying to balance one ball on top of another.

ask yourself why untethered satellites that happen to be placed a few meters above the geostationary orbit altitude don't eventually go zooming away from earth at a million miles per hour.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 9:22 PM on September 19, 2005

*punches numbers on calculator*

...infinite

Actually, with independent trials you multiply the converse... so let's say the chances that the average star system is sufficiently earthlike or otherwise hospitable is 0.000000001% (I have no idea if this optimistic or pessimistic), or 0.00000000001 (one in ten trillion). The converse, life not arising in a star system is 0.999999999999.

Life not arising in our galaxy by these numbers is 0.99999999999^100e9 = 99%, or just a 1% chance of life arising somewhere in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way.

But there are ~100 billion galaxies in the universe, so taking that 99% chance of not finding life in one galaxy and raising it to 100 billion is, well, 0, according to Excel, meaning there is a certainty that life exists elsewhere.

The point where the math flips from certainty to uncertainty is around 1 in 18,000,000,000,000,000 ... that earthlike or otherwise life-hospitable conditions exist in a particular star system. Better than that, and life somewhere else in the universe is certain. Less than that, and it is zero. I think earthlike systems are a bit more common than that, but of course I have no idea what the actual weirdness factors are.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:15 PM on September 19, 2005

I miss Carl Sagan.
posted by Balisong at 10:46 PM on September 19, 2005

"no, i do get it. i take issue with the "zero fuel expended" part and the notion that connecting a string to something above geostationary orbit will make things magically suck themselves off the planet."

Hm. It said "above GEO" so then you can disregard the fuel expended creating the tether and the fuel used to get the sattelite up to GEO.

"geostationary orbit as you describe it (move towards earth, accelerate towards earth; move away from earth, accelerate away from earth) is what is called an unstable equilibrium - like trying to balance one ball on top of another."

Wrong. To move a sattelite in stable GEO orbit closer to earth, the sattelite would have to decrease its velocity, which would mean a retro burn and costs fuel.
To move it away would require accelerating it, again costing fuel. The acceleration would not be up/down, however, but along the path of the sattelite, which is to say horizontally.


And things don't get "magically sucked off into space" - the added velocity of the tether-connected sattelite comes at a price of reduced rotational velocity of Earth. Since the Earth is so large relative to the sattelite this doesn't have any practical consequences, however. Tidal braking from the Moon slows us orders of magnitude more.

"ask yourself why untethered satellites that happen to be placed a few meters above the geostationary orbit altitude don't eventually go zooming away from earth at a million miles per hour."

Because they are not attaced to a tether, so their velocity is constant. A sattelite connected to a tether that gets pushed above GEO faces two possibilities:
1. Decelerate the tether.
2. Accelerate the sattelite.
Since the mass of the tether above the sattelite is greater than the sattelite, option 1 is impossible.

It's not rocket science...oh wait.
posted by spazzm at 2:49 AM on September 20, 2005

People often argue that space exploration produces valuable tangential benefits (the invention of Teflon or Tupperware or whatever), but if you're looking for certain results it is better to fund those research areas directly. If mankind really can't get by without a nonstick cooking surface, then put the money into developing one, don't hope that someone stumbles on the solution while trying to invent a heat shield for a moon rocket. And if you're just looking for a way to employ scientists and technologists, perhaps as a cure for a rotten economy, then at least throw those herds of scientists and technologists directly at a real and current problem.

A quarter of the people reading this thread will die of cancer unless something changes. If it's not you, then your mate or parent or child will die of cancer. So let's say it's a cure for cancer, not a walk on the moon, that we decide is worth looking for, and that the total additional budget we have for it is the 104 billion USD that the rocket is supposed to cost. Make 104 separate quarter- or half-billion-dollar investments in 104 distinct approaches to finding a cure. Reserve the rest of the money for further investment in programs that show promise.

The return on investment for a fairly general cure for cancer would of course be immense, and all the people and time and money, all the thought and emotion, now wasted on fighting cancer and dying of cancer slowly and painfully could be refocused on other things, maybe even including road trips to the moon.
posted by pracowity at 4:24 AM on September 20, 2005

Does anyone have a good reason as why it will take so much longer to return to the moon? Is it because of the shuttle and space station sucking up resources? having to rebuild and retool? WHAT?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:43 AM on September 20, 2005

If NASA is already going to spend those 100+ billions, then where is the new stimulation to the economy coming from?

I don't have any confidence in plans hatched by the current administration. This is unfortunate, as I like space exploration a great deal. Sending people to space is loads more complicated than robots, but we learn more in the process, and it has kewl factor.

The Space Elevator (I prefer the term 'bean stalk') is certainly the most promising space option in the works. Why isn't NASA directly involved?

I'm less sure about the moon vs. Mars question. The Mars trip is far more interesting technologically. The moon is a been-there-done-that kind of thing. If there are useful, accessible resources on the moon, fine. Otherwise, why not establish a real orbital station, and go for the useful stuff? Again, the Space Elevator seems the better bet.
posted by Goofyy at 4:55 AM on September 20, 2005

t.o.r.: NASA astronauts walked on the moon in 1969.
posted by Pendragon at 5:44 AM on September 20, 2005

Does anyone have a good reason as why it will take so much longer to return to the moon?

It takes a long time to develop and test such a thing. The Apollo program took 8 years, 3 deaths, and lots of crazy risk to get someone to the moon. The shuttle program took 9 years to get a crappy dump truck into orbit. If they say 13 for this, why not? They probably figure an extra 4 years of research and testing is worth it. With telescopes getting better and better, NASA wouldn't want to leave a permanent monument on the moon to bad planning that will one day be visible from every stargazer's backyard. "See that black spot, kids? That's the site of the 2011 moon disaster. And that bright spot? That's China 1."
posted by pracowity at 6:04 AM on September 20, 2005

cloudstastemetallic writes "They went broke...is there perhaps a lesson to be learned here? nahh, screw it...I'm on the bus, lets go to the MOOOOON!!!"

Ya, it couldn't have been all those nuclear weapon systems or a planned economy. It was the space race that doomed them.

Heywood Mogroot writes "Don't you think the earth's mantle has enough... uh... rock already?"

Ever seen a strip mine? I know I'd rather have that taking place far, far, away from anywhere I've got to live.

As to who wants to live off planet? Me! Me! Me!
posted by Mitheral at 6:45 AM on September 20, 2005

fluffycreature writes "Why do we need to send people at this point and time (meaning even 15 years from now.) The space station is already an albatross around our neck."

A human is a very versatile tool. Much more so than any robot. Plus a human can make the "Hmm, that's funny" observation that has proved so invaluble in the progress of science and technology.

pracowity writes "A quarter of the people reading this thread will die of cancer unless something changes."

Eventually we are all going to die of something. A case could be made even that we already live too long.
posted by Mitheral at 7:08 AM on September 20, 2005

Mitheral: A case could be made even that we already live too long.

A flippant case could be made for almost anything, but if you get cancer (the odds are very good that you will), I wonder whether your opinion of research priorities will change.
posted by pracowity at 7:34 AM on September 20, 2005

My understanding of why NASA is not going the space elevator route is due to it being best placed at the equator, and preferably on something really, really high up (thus saving an enormous amount on the base of the stalk). 3 guesses where the best place to build that would be (clue - it's not in the USA and would therefore require investment in another nation's infrastructure).
posted by longbaugh at 8:03 AM on September 20, 2005

Pendragon: Wait, what? Moonmen you say?
posted by the theory of revolution at 11:06 AM on September 20, 2005

If it takes us 13 years to make first landing, we'll be asking permission from the Beijing Moon Consulate for overflight permission.

I don't doubt for a minute that the current aim (and momentum) of the Chinese space program will get them there before us--if we have to wait nearly a decade and a half.

If we as a nation are to make this effort have real meaning, we have to get off our duff and accomplish this in less than half the time currently proposed.

(And on a related note, there's no way this proposal will be in this form once it passes through Congress. Nor do I think it likely that future Presidents (especially if they're not of President Bush's mindset) will hold this program of the same budget importance.)
posted by dott8080 at 11:23 AM on September 20, 2005

Thanks to everyone who defended the "zero fuel" concept. The way the math works out is that the endpoint of the tether has a much higher angular velocity than the GEO point - it is rotating around the earth at a much higher speed, because it's out farther from the center but maintaining position over the same point - and thus an object that is run out the ribbon past geo is accerated along the tether by centripetal acceleration, but also has a very large amount of angular velocity added to it in the direction of the earth's rotation - at a right angle to the centripetal force - using the tension of the ribbon itself as the accelerating medium.

The ribbon stays nearly straight, but anything on the ribbon that is moving outward must accelerate to match the ribbon's rotational velocity. I don't have time to make the calculations right now, but IIRC the added angular momentum from running out to the very end of the ribbon and letting go is near or exceeds solar escape velocity.

longbaugh, the folks at Liftport are going to put the earth end of the ribbon on the Equator out in the Pacific Ocean on a movable platform, so it can avoid earthly weather and also move the part of the ribbon that goes thru LEO, where all the high-velocity space junk is, so it doesn't get hit. Remember that the entire weight of the ribbon is supported by the tension generated by centripetal and angular acceleration along its 60,000km length; none of its weight is supported on the ground at all. It works almost exactly like spinning a rope with a weight on the end of it around with your arm. It's not a compressional tower at all, so the earth end can be right down at sea level.

raysmj, there's a lot of seriously fucked up stuff going on in this world, but I submit to you that since NASA's budget is less than 1% of the total Federal outlay, whereas "defense" eats around 65%, it's pretty clear where the money that we're borrowing with gleeful abandon is getting wasted. I understand your concerns, but I think the potential benefits of the Elevator far, far outweigh the benefits of blowing all that cash on "bigger penis" military dominance.

And I'm still not crazy about your tone, though given your obvious frustration (which I share, actually) I can understand it.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:40 PM on September 20, 2005

since i’m not going to live forever, I’m relatively ok with no cure for cancer for a bit. It’s too late for some folks in my family and I really don’t want to be the last one to die. Looks kinda lonely. To me, space exploration is a hope for the future. Whether NOW is the time is debatable, but spending resources on it, reaching off this stupid rock, helps to ensure the future survivial of mankind. Some folks don’t seem to care about that. I happen to want my great great great great great great great great grandkids to survive. I’d like Shakespeare to survive. I’d like Bach to survive. Hell, I’d like Nuclear Assault, Pantera and Metallica to survive - whether it’s on Earth or not. But I am certain our species has better odds if we reach out than if we stand pat.
The death of our kind is more than physical.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:28 PM on September 20, 2005

I'd echo zoogleplex sentiments on defense spending.
I would assert this could be seen as part of defense (the moon is the ultimate high ground), but I’d certainly rather see space exploration programs funded than shoveling more money into Haliburton.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:32 PM on September 20, 2005