After receiving criticism from the aerospace world, including Neil Armstrong, on the cancellation of the Constellation program, President Obama has worked out what he thinks is the best path for American space flight. I watched and listened, alongside my colleagues, as our commander in chief stirred up emotions with memories of the 1960′s space race. He reminded us with his typical eloquence of how, with burning hearts of national pride, paper, pencil, and slide rules, we placed 12 men on the surface of the moon and brought them all back safely. From there, for me, the inspiration dropped off quickly as the President outlined his plans to land us on an asteroid in 15 years and then orbit (yes, only orbit) Mars in 25 years. He explained to all of us that we have already been to the moon – been there, done that – and wrote it off as a waste of time and money.
After shaking thoughts of Armageddon and Aerosmith songs from my head, I imagine what value the US will gain from landing on an asteroid. Keep in mind that the moon is about 237,000 miles from the earth and it took astronauts 8 days to get there, walk around, and get home. Mars on the other hand, at its closest approach, is 35 million miles away. I expect fuel-efficient missions to and from Mars would last 1.5 years. That is quite a difference. An asteroid, however, at least one we could actually reach, is 5 million miles away, and experts estimate a mission to and from would last 200 days. The asteroid has no gravity to escape. This simplifies many things, but creates new obstacles. Landing softly on the moon and lifting off again requires a lot more fuel than escaping an asteroid. ”Landing” on an asteroid is not possible, and every step taken would be a push off into space without something to hold the astronaut down. A spacecraft would have to just float alongside the asteroid.
So what are possible benefits of going to an asteroid? We would gain valuable experience in longer space missions, learn more about the history of the solar system, possibly gain valuable platinum or other materials, push forward propulsion technology, better radiation shields, and it would be cheaper than landing on the moon. All of these things would help us get to Mars more safely.
What are the benefits of landing on the moon? We could gain valuable experience in longer space missions (assuming we stay longer than the Apollo missions), learn more about or natural satellite, possibly gain valuable resources, push forward propulsion technology (because Mars is still the goal), better radiation shields (because we will be in space longer), and we could begin building a permanent base there.
The benefits of both seem similar, except that in the end, you can say you landed on an asteroid (yipee) and
getting to Mars isn’t any cheaper, or you could have machines on the moon harvesting hydrogen for future moon launches to Mars – which long-term, will save money. I remain skeptical of the intrinsic value of landing on an asteroid rather than the moon. If I had it my way, we would do both, but an exploding debt and an increase in social program spending makes it nearly impossible. I hope, in the end, we get to Mars before the Chinese. And if the President wants to land on an asteroid and I am privileged enough to get on the team that makes it possible, I will do so with pride and the toughness and competence Gene Kranz told us never to forget.
Loading ...
Raging Kitty