http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/2010-a-space-odyssey-1752287.html 2010: A new space odyssey beckons The world is on the verge of new manned exploration of the solar system – and, this time, environmentalists are backing it By David Randall, Victoria Richards and Andrew Johnson This weekend, 40 years after man first landed on the Moon, more human beings than ever before are orbiting on a single spacecraft. In 1969, three men squeezed into Apollo 11's command module, a craft little bigger than a Mini. Yesterday, the International Space Station, now as large as a four-storey house, yet speeding at 17,239mph, took on board the crew of the shuttle Endeavour: 12 men, one woman – seven Americans, two Russians, two Canadians, one Japanese and a Belgian. During a two-man space-walk, the crew added a four-ton porch – an outdoor shelf for experiments – to the station. It is yet another small step in space exploration. But next month, a far bigger one could be taken. A panel of specialists will advise President Barack Obama on whether the US should embark on an ambitious 21st-century space programme that could see Americans return to the Moon, and eventually venture further to near-Earth asteroids and Mars. It is an issue that rouses not just space enthusiasts but those who think the world should have other, greener priorities. The President's decision could instigate a space race, this time with China, that might be fiercer than anything seen in the Sixties rivalry with Russia. The Chinese are not participating in the International Space Station, but Beijing is prepared to go it alone, declaring that it intends landing on the Moon by 2020. In September, with its manned spacecraft Shenzhou 7, China became the third power to walk in space. Russia has also committed to a major upgrade of its space capability, the first of the post-Soviet era. Russian engineers have spent 105 days isolated in a mock spacecraft to test the stresses travellers may face on the 172-million-mile journey to Mars. Buzz Aldrin, the Apollo 11 veteran, and the second man to set foot on the Moon, told Fox News yesterday that America could aid its international partners in exploring the Moon and so free up its own spaceflight resources to develop systems for "even more ambitious goals". Once there is an international base on the Moon and in-space refuelling technology, he said, the US should concentrate on sending astronauts into deep space to visit the asteroid Apophis when it passes near Earth in 2021. After that, there is the possibility of a temporarily manned base on the Mars moon Phobos. "By that time, we'd be ready to put people in a gradual permanence on Mars by 2031," Mr Aldrin added. Next year, China's first Mars probe will go into orbit around the planet after a 10-month, 236 million mile journey. There are also the lunar ambitions of India and Japan, plus the rivalry among companies for primitive commercial space flights. Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic and XCOR Aerospace are vying with each other to make the first suborbital flights. Sir Richard has said that Virgin Galactic spaceships will be completed by December 2009 and are "on track to be carbon neutral", with paying passengers by 2011. Yet tomorrow, on the anniversary of Neil Armstrong's small but historic step, the question will be asked: are large-scale ventures into space justified when there are problems – possibly terminal ones – with Planet Earth? Is an enthusiasm for manned exploration compatible with tackling the environment, poverty, and diseases such as cancer and Aids? Or is it only when we reach out beyond our own world that we can maybe make the blue planet a truly green one? After all, in 2016, the US energy firm Solaren plans to send a kilometre-wide panel into orbit to beam back energy. James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia theory, said: "I strongly support space travel. The whole notion of Gaia came out of space travel. It seems to me any environmentalist who opposes space travel has no imagination whatever. That gorgeous, inspirational image of the globe that we are now so familiar with came out of space travel. That image has perhaps been of the greatest value to the environmental movement. It gave me a great impetus. "There are the unmanned spacecraft, which are relatively inexpensive, that I certainly think should continue. The more we know about Mars, for example, the better we can understand our own planet. The second sort, the more personally adventurous sort of travel, offers great inspiration to humans. And, were it not for space travel we'd have no mobile phones, no internet, no weather forecasts of the sort we have now and so on. There's a lot of puritanical silliness about it." Dr Steve Howard, the chief executive of the Climate Group, said: "I don't think space travel is an 'either/or'. Sometimes we feel that we will have to stop other things if we go to the Moon or Mars, but man has always been an explorer. At a time of global recession we have to budget and plan carefully and it needs to be a collaborative venture." Colin Pillinger, professor of planetary sciences at the Open University, said: "Every space mission has spin-offs which are unforeseeable. The Wellcome Trust funded Beagle 2 on the understanding that the team of highly talented people would look at ways the technology could be used for medicine. We have developed an instrument that can diagnose TB in a day. Our instrument, which is going to be tested in Malawi, could save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives." But John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, is sceptical. He said: "Our argument is that Earth hasn't been properly explored and understood yet. I'm not against space exploration, but it mustn't be a trophy- collecting exercise for countries." A waste of money or a good investment? The Obama administration puts the cost of Project Constellation – the plan to put people back on the Moon – at $187bn (£114bn). That sum could, instead: *Wipe out North Africa's foreign debt of £70bn – and still have £44bn left over. *Cover the costs of swine flu absenteeism for 10 weeks. Experts put the toll of this at £1.5bn a day. *Pay for the Olympic 2012 construction costs of £9bn 12 times over. But Professor Stephen Hawking says: "We need to renew our commitment to human spaceflight. Robotic missions are cheaper, but if one is considering the future of humanity, we have to visit other worlds ourselves." Space Dates 2009 Sir Richard Branson has said that his Virgin Galactic spaceships will be completed and ready for testing by December and are "on track to be carbon neutral" 2010 The Yinghuo-1, China's first Mars probe, will be launched by a Russian rocket and will later go into orbit around the planet to study climate change 2011 The £100bn International Space Station is due for completion. It is currently being assembled in low Earth orbit 2020 America hopes to land on the Moon again – 50 years after Apollo 11. But it is in competition with China, which has vowed to do the same
I've been a huge fan of the space program since the '60s, but I'm not sold on the value of manned space flight. I think it's fine to send men into orbit near the earth, there's a lot to be learned. It sure seems like the greatest value of the space program has been in launching satellites that look back on the earth. The moon program was exciting, but only hardcore fans of the program paid much attention to it after the first few landings. By the time of Apollo 13, the networks didn't even cover the flight since the ratings were so poor. There wasn't a whole lot learned from sending men to the moon, other than we could do it. Space rocks and setting up equipment to make scientific measurements could just as well have been done by robots. The most amazing things NASA has done has been with robots to the various planets and moons. Trips that man wouldn't survive, or at least would be a moss massive risk. The debate over manned vs. robotic missions is as old as the program.
I think robotic missions should be the target right now. It's cheaper and more attainable. We can already realistically send landers/floaters to planets for which the cost of life support would be prohibitive. Eventually, of course, manned missions need to be done, in order to establish bases that extend our range and to eventually phase mankind into multi-world inhabitants. But that isn't necessary now and, in the future, the technology will be better and costs will be lower.
Yes, I agree with all of this. My gut reaction was to say, "No! Keep pushing it now..." but the technological advances we can make through non-manned space exploration seem to me as a layperson to be impressive and are laying a solid foundation for cheaper/faster/easier manned exploration later. I wonder, in some sort of alternate history path where no one put a man on the moon but we landed in the same spot we are today in terms of related technologies, how much it would cost to put a man on the moon for the first time. The computers have to be better/faster, the engines and fuels almost certainly are lighter/stronger. Maybe these things are all so much more expensive that the cost would be higher, I dunno, but intuitively I think we're better prepared with our current technology level. Ed O.
You read that article too eh? Fucking freaky shit the pentagon is working on. I swear to god they read too much Sci-fi and forget the Fi part of the equation. Asimov must be rolling in his grave...assuming it hasn't been exhumed and the corpse fed to a robot.
