| Mr. Bowers' proposals fall in two categories - robotic spaceflight primarily for now, and research into the technologies needed for Star Trek.
Mr. Bowers first talks about the moonbase, and Greg Easterbrooks's suggestions that we need to focus on planetary defense first, specifically with regards to Near Earth Asteroids, and the danger they present. Mr. Bowers specifically targets the moonbase, and by extension, space colonization .
Easterbrook is absolutely right about all of this. The permanent Moon base, while superficially attractive in a very American pioneer sort of fashion, doesn't make any sense. Without even considering other projects NASA could pursue for a moment, the folly of permanent human settlement on either the Moon or Mars is better explained by science fiction writer Bruce Sterling in an article that received a lot of play four years ago. Long story short, Sterling points out that we haven't settled many inhospitable places on Earth yet, like the Gobi desert. However, no one ever argues for permanent settlement of the Gobi desert, even though it would be far easier, cheaper and more profitable. A permanent Moon base would be like Spain deciding, after circumnavigating the globe, that Antarctica was the best place to colonize.
There is great irony in this statement, as you'll see later. There are multiple problems with Mr. Sterling and Mr. Bowers assumptions. Their main assumption is that the hostile environment of space offers no unique economic benefits. However, thats not true, as I've talked about in the past. And, while lunar activities don't have zero-g, the assumption that there isn't resources on the moon to exploit is a mistake.
The second mistake that Mr. Bowers (which Mr. Easterbrook also makes) is that there isn't really a full-fledged plan for a moonbase yet - not even close. Look at the proposed list of missions that Orion will fly between now and 2021. Orion will not have its first manned flight until 2014, which is after the next presidential election (and this assumes everything goes according to plan). And as for the first mission that actually sends humans to the moon, if Obama were to win both this year's election, and the 2012 election, and were to fully fund NASA, and no problems happened, Obama would be out of office before the first humans returns to the moon.
I wish I could find either the paper itself, or a video of it, where Rick Tumlinson talks about his work with NASA, after the Columbia accident, in terms of convincing NASA to go with a Moon base. The rational behind going from a series of sortie missions, to the primary purpose of starting right in with a moonbase, had some solid logic behind it.
The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be a clear understanding of what NASA has actually proposed rather than criticize the general concept of a moonbase. Mr. Bowers (and Mr. Easterbrook for that matter) would've done better to look at what NASA has actually proposed. And there is plenty to criticize with ESAS, from duplication of existing vehicles, engineering problems and funding methods, just to name a few.
Mr. Bowers then turns to the question of what NASA should be doing - for actual missions to space, he proposes a series of unmanned missions - DSCOVER, Exo-planet telescopes, and Near-Earth Asteroid Identification. He explains why each is important, and about how much money is involved in moving those programs forward.
However, missing from Mr. Bowers comments is what we should do with regards to ISS, or what we should do with regards to any form of human spaceflight. It is this area that I would have been most interested to hear his comments. However Mr. Bowers did not include any comments, and so one is left to wonder what he would propose. As for his comments on the unmanned projects - there is a great deal of science, however I am probably not the person to comment on the science and unmanned missions, since it is not my main focus.
The 2nd major proposal is to research and develop breakthrough technologies - things like Faster Than Light (FTL) speed, and building the space elevator. With regard to investigating and researching FTL - while I wouldn't put much money into it, and neither would Mr. Bowers, I do think its worth our time to investigate this. You never know when something revolutionary will present itself. So here I have no problem.
However, he also endorses the idea of beginning construction of a Space Elevator
Second, a space elevator, constructed sometime in mid-century, somewhere in the continental United States west of the Mississippi, would provide the U.S. with a virtually permanent monopoly on space travel. A space elevator would make existing rocket technology obsolete, and vastly reduce the cost of traveling to outer space. Long-term, it would also allow the U.S. to construct a permanently inhabited city in geo-synchronous orbit about 200 miles above our country (UPDATE: OK, I was wrong about the distance). Given the extremely low costs of space travel that a space elevator would create, the city would even have sustainable industries including tourism, massive solar energy production, zero gravity ore processing, satellite upkeep, research, and even potentially a space dock for travel to the Moon or Mars. And it would only be accessible through the United States, providing more "national pre-eminence" than you could shake a stick at.
This is why I think Mr. Bowers' comments about space colonization are somewhat ironic. While arguing that we are many years from real space colonization, he also endorses something that would make space colonization really practical. Of course, I do understand his reasoning - the underlying issue is what will actually stimulate space colonization?
The theory is that space elevators will provide cheap access, which is really the holy grail in some respects of space development and space colonization. Get cheap access, and the game changes suddenly, because you can transport material and personnel to and from orbit, without much difficulty.
However here is the question - if cheap access is the goal, why limit ourselves to one potential option, that is, space elevators? For many people, especially those who come from a lay person's perspective, the assumption is that cheap access will require some new, truly exotic technology - scramjets, elevators, airships to orbit (magic flying carpets :D ).
However, there is a growing body of evidence and an emerging argument that the problem with cheap spaceflight isn't about the need for some exotic technology, but better management and implementation of the technology we have. Consider this panel from ISDC. Or consider this article from Rand Simberg.
The point I am getting at, here, is that if we want cheap access, then lets pursue cheap access, regardless of it is form. Also we need to understand that it is not just about technological research, but it is also about societal development. There are actually a series of articles, over at The Space Review, that talk about this - here is a link to the most recent part - I will review the entire series at a future date.
In his final paragraphs, Mr. Bowers recaps his comments about the moonbase, the mistakes of the Bush administration, the concerns about Senator Obama's comments with regard to space policy, and suggests that you come and listen to the space policy debate that he will be taking part in at Netroots Nation. BTW, I would also suggest that you do so.
Mr. Bowers biggest mistake is, IMHO, the same mistake that Senator Obama (and many liberals in general) make about space policy - they see space policy purely through the eyes of science, and inspiration/national prestige. There isn't a discussion about space development, space commerce, military space, etc. While there are some areas where NASA won't have much of a role, if any (like military space), space policy needs to be coherent (or at least it should be), and NASA will have a role to play in more areas than just science and national prestige. If we truly are intent on developing space, we need to look at all of these issues.
BTW, two things somewhat unrelated to Chris Bowers' diary, that I want to note - I want to ask you to donate to Senator Obama through the Space Policy Advisory Group. Second, (and here I am rather annoyed with myself), I finally found the C-Span links to listen to the Space Policy Debate at ISDC, that had representatives from Obama, McCain, and Clinton (Senator Clinton was still in the race when the debate occurred). It is worth your time to watch it.
UPDATE - grammar has been edited upon request. |
STATE BLOGS
