Going Back to the Moon

11 Responses to Going Back to the Moon

1. William Mellberg says:

   April 21, 2015 at 12:30 pm

   Nice interview and good comments about China’s lunar ambitions.
2. Glenn W. Smith says:

   April 21, 2015 at 7:16 pm

   Bravo, Paul! I really, really do think this interview is going to change some important minds!
3. billgamesh says:

   April 21, 2015 at 10:44 pm

   “Everyone keeps waiting for the precipitating moment where the financial floodgates open and NASA will be showered with money. That’s not going to happen. But that’s where NASA is sort of at today — awaiting the money.”

   I have to disagree with the good Doctor on this one. It could have happened already if not for a political campaign contribution. The way I see it, Elon Musk wanted to build rockets and needed NASA tax dollars to subsidize it. His hobby rocket, using an obsolete propellent and a cluster of low thrust 60’s technology engines, could just make it into Low Earth Orbit with a useful payload. The space station to nowhere had been scheduled to close shop this year. That changed.

   At the same time this scheme was playing out a project Dr. Spudis was involved in discovered strong evidence for ice on the Moon. If not for the NewSpace agenda this discovery could quite easily have translated into a massive increase in NASA spending. Why? Because one of the main reasons a Moon base was not pursued with continuation of Apollo was the Moon was considered bone dry. Moon return has been made taboo by the present administration for a reason. Bypassing the dead end of LEO by returning to the Moon with Super Heavy Lift Vehicles dumps the NewSpace business plan in the trashcan. The infamously blunt “been there” speech did not come out of thin air and is why I consider SpaceX the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.

   Water turns living on an airless world from next to impossible to fairly easy. It is much like the military axiom that amateurs study tactics and experts study logistics. Yes, I am ex-military.

   2010 rightfully should have been the beginning of a second space age and Dr. Spudis would be in all the textbooks as the new Carl Sagan. I am not practicing any flattery here because he will be the first to tell you we are not the best of friends. I am speaking from my own experience as I was not that interested in space until Chandrayaan 1. The idea of ice at the lunar poles opened the door to a whole new world for me. But money had already changed hands and the Moon was taboo. The money to start a second space age is a decision away. It could be made on the basis of any one or a combination of several issues; telecommunications, defense, and energy to name a few. I have high hopes of the next President changing the course of the Space Agency. There are already many signs that “Lunar Return” could be a major campaign issue.
   • Joe says:

     April 22, 2015 at 1:22 pm

     “There are already many signs that “Lunar Return” could be a major campaign issue”.

     As much as I would like to believe that is true, signs of it must be escaping me.

     Could you list some of them?
     • William Mellberg says:

       April 22, 2015 at 2:05 pm

       I thought the same thing when I read that comment. And I remembered that even if Mitt Romney had won in 2012, NASA would be no closer to a lunar return today. Remember this exchange between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney during one of the GOP primary debates in Florida?

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePcJhoF4ATM

       Unfortunately, Mitt Romney had no idea what Newt Gingrich was talking about — although in fairness Newt Gingrich did not express his idea very clearly. His use of the term “colony” instead of “permanent outpost” or “permanent base” confused the issue. But he was certainly right about ceding the Moon to China.

       In any case, with all of the other problems facing America and the world today, I do not expect a lunar return to be a “major campaign issue” in 2016.
       • Joe says:

         April 22, 2015 at 6:54 pm

         “In any case, with all of the other problems facing America and the world today, I do not expect a lunar return to be a “major campaign issue” in 2016.”

         True. To further complicate the situation the only two current likely candidates for president (at least as far as I know) to have any position on space policy are:

         Democrats – Hillary Clinton. Likely to appoint Lori Garver as NASA Administrator. If that does not terrify everyone it should.

         Republicans – Rand Paul. As a United States Senator submitted a proposed budget that would have ended all funding for Human Space Flight.

         That is not exactly as bad as it sounds.

         Both of the House Chairmen of the controlling committees (Culbertson – Appropriations/ Palazzo – Authorization) have made public comments favorable to not only lunar return, but to Lunar ISRU.

         Would still need to get the Senate Chairs (Shelby – Appropriations/Cruz – Authorization) officially on board. Both are “space exploration” supporters, but again (as far as I know) neither has specifically endorsed lunar return.

         Cruz is a presidential candidate and there are others that would likely be potentially supportive (Rubio, Bush etc.). So it could all come together, but it would likely do so “below the radar”; not as a “major campaign issue”.
         • billgamesh says:

           April 23, 2015 at 8:16 pm

           “China’s Chang’e 2 spacecraft moved in and out of lunar orbit, went to an L-point [a gravitationally stable Lagrange point], loitered there, left and intercepted asteroid Geographos. All of that activity is classic space control. If you combine these activities with their anti-satellite warfare experience, it’s pretty clear what they are up to. I think that’s their real agenda.”

           The DOD just allocated 5 billion dollars for “classic space control.” The connection between the military and the Moon is another taboo subject and there is an inconvenient truth that nobody will touch concerning the ultimate high ground. The big subject in military circles for the last couple years has been A2/AD (Anti-Access- Area Denial). Moore’s law has made the new anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles unstoppable and any nation with a sufficiently large arsenal can simply shut down sea lanes and air space profoundly changing the character of warfare. Like cavalrymen insisting on keeping their horses after machine guns were invented this is not being appreciated by the military or the defense industry.

           A Kessler Syndrome event where near Earth space becomes a dead zone is a not unlikely scenario as an opening move in any major conflict. A half a dozen launch vehicles can carry enough tungsten pellets into near Earth space to deny it’s use to all combatants. No more satellites. Besides nullifying the U.S. overwhelming advantage the nation with assets outside the dead zone then has the unbeatable advantage.

           It would take years to clear the debris and make near Earth space navigable again. An independent base on the Moon during those years is the logical military solution. A cold war took us to the Moon in the first place and out of practical necessity could begin a new race tomorrow. If it became a campaign issue we might have a base on the Moon sooner than anyone imagines.
     • billgamesh says:

       April 22, 2015 at 6:59 pm

       I have explained it in my comments many times Joe.

       Communications: The GEO junkyard is a threat to the global communications infrastructure. 3000 tons of stuff up there and talk of thousands of little satellites to add to it. Anti-satellite brinksmanship is a threat. The campaign promise to safeguard near-Earth space for America?

       Human-crewed GEO space stations. The hundreds of tons of shielding required for these stations to come from the lunar poles. And the stations will make money- over a hundred billion dollars in revenue a year comes out of the satellite industry.

       Defense: The nuclear deterrent is aging and must be replaced. It is not avoidable. The Ohio Replacement Program alone is citing mind-boggling costs. Replacing the aging bomber, submarine, and ICBM force will cost upwards of a trillion dollars in the next couple Presidential terms. But the bad news is deterrence requires survivability and submarines can no longer hide, ICBMs are now precisely targeted, and the hazards of keeping a hundred or so H-bombs in the air on bombers 24/7 caused us to stand them down long ago. The airbases are completely vulnerable to a first strike. The campaign promise to safeguard America from a nuclear first strike by assuring deterrence?

       Base the nuclear deterrent in deep space on human-crewed spaceships. Add a propulsion system to those space stations being assembled in lunar orbit from wet workshops and they become….spaceships. The cost will be less than new fleets of subs, bombers, and missile systems. There will be far less chance of an accidental exchange with the weapons weapons months away from Earth instead of a few minutes away. And they can also be used to defend Earth from comets and asteroid impacts. I read there is another Chelyabinsk possibly headed this way. Actually, there is ALWAYS another Chelyabinsk headed this way and the Europeans take it seriously but we ignore it.

       Energy: Whether you believe in climate change or not, it is a very powerful political issue. The campaign promise to actually solve climate change, provide limitless cheap energy, and insure a prosperous future for America?

       Space Based Solar Power. Gerard Kitchen O’Neill.

       Lunar return.
       • Joe says:

         April 23, 2015 at 10:33 am

         Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

         That is a list of potential reasons that Lunar Return should be major campaign issue and I agree, but you said what I interpreted as you saw signs the presidential candidates might be taking it up.

         That is where any evidence escapes me. Just as an example, here is an illustration of how seriously some in our political and journalistic classes take the entire subject of space.

         http://abcnews.go.com/US/south-dakota-offers-alternative-dying-mars/story?id=30516548
         • billgamesh says:

           April 24, 2015 at 6:11 am

           I see the signs that “could” make the Moon an election issue in terms of solving all those problems William mentioned but….you are right, nobody in the media is reporting them as such.

           I was a long-hair in the 70’s and now I am being paid back in full for that minor transgression; the tattooed- pierced-saggy-pants-grungy-freaks I saw shambling around Seattle do not inspire much hope of a second space age. We do not seem to be doing any of the amazing things I took for granted would be in the future.
4. billgamesh says:

   April 23, 2015 at 9:11 pm

   The military may have to get back into the Human Space Flight business if it is determined a “Satellite Armageddon” is likely and near-Earth-space use curtailed. In that case the only place to safeguard and maintain space assets would be a Moon base or bases with access to resources allowing independent operation (water). Such facilities cannot be constructed and maintained with robots. Concerning treaties stipulating the peaceful use of space, spy satellites are not viewed as weapons as such and platforms carrying sensors are not necessarily spy satellites- until used as such. There is money being spent and new strategies being worked out right now.

   “Requires the SecDef and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to develop and implement a space science and technology strategy.”

   “Requires the SecDef, the DNI and the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a plan to strengthen national security space stewardship, leadership, management and organization while streamlining decision-making and limiting unnecessary bureaucracy.”

   http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hasc-subcommittee-proposes-changes-to-rd-180-restrictions

Comments are closed.