Paul Spudis doesn’t think so. Neither do I. In fact, given what they’re doing with it, they apparently have too much.
Category Archives: Space
An Interview
And, by the way, I don’t want to start yet another long and dumb argument, but I am not going to capitalize it. Capitalize Luna, capitalize Selene, but not moon.
Because “moon” isn’t its name. It’s “the moon.” The word takes a definite article. We don’t say, as Tarzan might, “Me going to Moon.” We say, “Me going to the moon.” When we use the definite article, at least in context, we all know which moon we mean (if it were a discussion about Jupiter and its satellites, then we would know from context that it wasn’t Luna). When we stop using the definite article for it, and it gets officially named “Moon,” then I’ll start capitalizing it. I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
How Far Does ESAS Stray From Aldridge?
So far that you can’t even see it from there. A devastating analysis that I hope everyone on the Augustine panel reads. And note that this is something that the press, even the space press, rarely, if ever, talks about.
Down The Rathole
Dick Shelby wins, our space future loses:
Shelby’s argument has been that the exploration funding in the bill was intended solely for reducing the Shuttle-Constellation gap, a spokesman for the Alabama Republican told the paper (although there is no specific language dictating that in the bill). And certainly Constellation can use every bit of additional funding it can get. However, would that $100 million have a greater effect towards reducing the gap in US human space access if it’s spent on Constellation (where it might accelerate schedules by on the order of a month), or on commercial efforts that might (but are certainly not guaranteed to) be operational years before Ares 1 and Orion?
It can’t use it in any way that’s beneficial to either the taxpayer, or a space enthusiast. I almost weep when I think of the useful things we could do with a mere hundred million dollars. Shelby is quickly making himself public enemy number one of anyone who wants a sane and cost-effective space program. More over at the Sentinel.
[Update on Saturday]
A lot more comments over at NASA Watch.
Men On The Moon
The next three weeks or so leading up to the anniversary are going to be full of pieces like this, from a British journalist who covered the event. It’s a good piece, and I don’t want to diss it–it’s obviously a key part of his own personal history and inspired him, but I disagree with this notion, which will also be a common one among the upcoming commemorations:
A new era was to begin: there would one day be huge satellite cities in space, colonies on the moon, an outpost on Mars, and all before 2001.
This is just not true, much as we’d like it to be. Apollo, for all of the wonder of the achievement, was in fact a detour from the road to those goals. I’ll be explaining that more in my essay a little later this summer in The New Atlantis. I would also note that Eagle didn’t separate from “Apollo.” It did so from the spacecraft Columbia. But that’s just a nit compared to the other point, and I encourage people to enjoy the piece anyway–it’s generally a good historical description of the event.
It’s It
Really. It’s It. A schlocky space movie review (the movie, not the review). You should always start your day with Lileks.
[Afternoon update]
I have to say (via Lileks’ commenters) that this is the kind of space future that I was really looking forward to back in the seventies. (Wow. Is there some kind of anti-gravity device holding those things on?)
What? Of course I’m talking about the interplanetary robot dogs. What else would I be talking about?
[Bumped]
[Evening update]
OK, someone points out in comments that there is a spaghetti strap going on there.
Looking closer, I see it now. I guess I was distracted by the…errrmmm…robot dogs…from seeing that strap.
Yeah, that’s it. I mean, they look great, don’t they?
The robot dogs, I mean.
I’d love to be able to play with a pair like that.
Fortieth Anniversary Coming Up
It’s less than three weeks until the fortieth anniversary of the first human lunar landing. Alan Boyle has a roundup of links. It’s also a good time to start planning a commemoration ceremony with friends and family. HappilyUnfortunately, it’s on a SaturMonday this year, a good eveningnot such a good evening to have a party.
Link is fixed, too thanks to commenter “Jim.”
Another Space Bleg
I’m quite sure that Doug Stanley is on record as not being on board with the moon as a goal for VSE, and wanted to use the opportunity to build a (heavy-lift) infrastructure for Mars. But can anyone point me to a citable source for this?
Yes, I am working on a major piece for a serious publication…
New Space Bleg
I have a recollection that at some time within the past few years, Burt Rutan made a statement to the effect that if we weren’t killing a few people to open up space we weren’t pushing hard enough. But a diligent search of the Intertubes doesn’t turn up anything like that. Does anyone else recall this, and if so can they provide a citation? Or was I just imagining it?
Advice For Augustine
Wes Huntress has some. I agree with a lot of what he says, but not all:
The directive to land on the Moon by 2020 is not achievable given the agency’s current limited out-year budget, costs for Constellation development, and the looming requirement to support the International Space Station beyond 2015. The best approach to lower cost and sustained development is to leverage existing space transportation infrastructure to the maximum.
I absolutely agree with the second sentence, but not the first. It is possible to get to the moon by 2020, within the available funding. But in order to do so, NASA has to focus its resources on getting to the moon, in an affordable and sustainable manner, using that existing infrastructure. As long, though, as they focus on developing their own launch systems, it will never happen. And not just because they’re not very good at developing launch systems.
I wouldn’t emphasize the international part, either. I don’t mind doing partnerships, if they make sense, but we shouldn’t do things internationally for its own sake. I wouldn’t abandon the moon–I think that NASA should be developing a lander, but that’s really the only major hardware element (at least in terms of transportation) that’s lunar specific. We need to develop a general deep-space transportation infrastructure, and it NASA had focused on that instead of Ares/Orion, they’d be a good way down that road now.