Not according to the dictionary; not a word in any definition I checked about a frontier being a threat or resource or occupation.

But the semantics are there. Yes, frontiers on Earth are connected to these qualities historically. And everyone would wish space to be a new frontier people can explore and a place they can go to build a new life. My argument is that space is not like any frontier on Earth and referring to it in that context is counter-productive. The private space crowd has pretty much burned me out on lame analogies.

I recently watched this NOVA program “can we make it to Mars?” narrated by Tyson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmaXX59aq8

Go to 49:45 and Tyson gives some closing thoughts on the space “frontier” in agreement with Dr. Spudis. I think this program is an example of the popular culture message being promoted about human space flight; it’s too hard. Like Eugene Parker in his 2006 article on Shielding Space Travelers, Tyson states there is no solution to the cosmic radiation problem (11:45) and also states that zero G debilitation is problematic as well because constructing a spinning spaceship is not practical (11:20).

I am very critical of these pronouncements and wish there was some media exposure contradicting this “it’s too hard” kind of popular science programming. There are solutions. Many of these limits and assumptions placed on progress seem to me either arbitrary or instigated by the constant howling of private space advocates that “it’s too expensive.”

What floats my boat is solutions and they are out there but no company wants to work them because the paycheck is not big enough. No easy money in spaceships just as Tyson intimates.

All frontiers have these qualities — and more. It does not diminish or negate the the argument that space is a frontier by recognizing its diverse properties and characteristics.

I prefer to put resources first, mainly because the “threat” aspect is so statistically remote that it does not make a good political argument for a vigorous program. But whatever floats your boat.

No.

Perhaps the biggest problem space advocates have with promoting exploration is this falling back on analogy to explain. I have yet to hear an analogy that will convince an intelligent, unbiased, and informed person they should support an expanded space program. Analogies do more harm than good when explaining space travel in my experience. Analogy is about matching similar themes and there is no similar theme to outer space. There are valid reasons for human spaceflight but they are not served well with comparisons to 16th century voyages of exploration or the centuries past colonization of newly discovered land masses.

Space is not an ocean. It is not a wilderness with a frontier. It is essentially a hard vacuum seething with radiation. The other bodies in our solar system that could conceivably be reached by humans are uninhabitable. There is no “new world” out there- unless we create it.

So I have to disagree with the idea of space as a frontier, or an ocean, or retirement plan, or whatever. The first best way to understand space is as a threat. And that concept is what landed humans on the Moon in the first place. I believe the second best way to understand space is as a resource. The giant fusion reactor hanging in the sky is what keeps us alive and we always need more energy. And the third way is to understand space as an occupation. Whether this occupation is calculating orbits for communications satellites, deflecting an impact threat, or harvesting solar energy, the place where this occupation earns a living is space.

Threat first, resource second, occupation third.

I hope to keep everybody here informed on our progress. Thanks.

I assume that your intention in joining the project is to get as much of the Phase I Spudis/Lavoie plan accomplished as possible (independent of the current NASA leadership).

I have no idea how much chance they have of success, but I certainly wish them (and you) luck.

Any chance you can keep us posted as to how things are going?

Thanks. I wrote about the Moon Express association in a post on the other blog:

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2013/09/signs-of-life-on-the-lunar-frontier/

Unfortunately, that site has been up and down the last few days (mostly down). Presumably, the IT people at Smithsonian are working on it.

Bob Clark

I was rethinking the whole Moon base thing last week Marcel and it occurred to me the water is what is important right now- in my opinion for cosmic radiation shielding.

If the water is all we want right now I commented we could build a spaceship in lunar orbit and land it on or near the ice site. This pulse propelled ship would weigh several thousand tons and take a couple years to build telerobotically in lunar polar orbit. Like a more expensive space station. Once the spaceship has been landed on the surface and some compartments have been filled with water for a sanctuary it is in effect a Moon base until it takes off.

I would add that our space program will never transport any large numbers of humans to other worlds without the use of nuclear propulsion and eventually a vast solar energy power beaming infrastructure.

The public is dimly aware our space program is at this moment effectively dead with no way to send astronauts anywhere except a Low Earth Orbit space station on a Russian Soyuz. This was done over half a century ago I believe.

The SLS is as good a vehicle as we are going to get for transporting fissionable material to the Moon. The use of nuclear energy is the only way to effect interplanetary travel at this time and if we are ever to go anywhere we will do it from a launch site outside the Earth’s magnetosphere. That would be the Moon.