Get in Contact
Name:

Email:

Subject:

Message (no HTML):

Elsewhere on the Web

I can also be found at the following sites. Click on an image or text link to visit.


DigitalSpy Forums | Talk Photography

man (not) on the moon 01 Feb '10, 22:39

I'm really quite disappointed. President Obama has scuppered plans to send people back to the moon.

George Bush announced the idea back in 2004 that NASA would return man to our nearest celestial neighbour before aiming for Mars. If all had gone to plan, humans could have made the first return journey by 2020.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like that will happen. Owing to budget shortages, and what Obama calls a lack in innovation, he has recommended in the 2011 budget that the Constellation vehicle be abandoned.

A White House spokesperson says this isn't a step back, and that the ambition is still there but I can't help treating the comment with a little scepticism.

My view is that returning people to the moon is important and not just for the excitement for all of us who get to observe. I thought this time it could lead to a more permanent space presence. This would provide opportunities for science of course; a launch pad for vehicles to move further out into the solar system and also as a mining base. It's fairly well known that the element Helium-3 is present on the Moon but rare on Earth. This element could prove vital in providing power from Nuclear Fusion. Solving the world's energy problem seems a pretty good reason to go, and I'd have thought the sooner this happens the better.

Of course, money at the moment is a big problem and there are always other projects and needs which require funding. I've questioned before why there isn't greater international co-operation in space ventures. It doesn't need to be America that returns to the moon. Lets get space agencies from around the world all involved in a common goal and sharing the cost.

1 comments | Related Entries: 2 | Related Links: 5 | Attachments:

Tags: space, nasa, opinion, moon

Subscribe to All Posts Share with StumbleUpon Share with Reddit Share with Facebook Bookmark with Delicious
Charlie 13 Feb '10, 20:43
What is there for America to "conquer" on the moon except a flag, some spanners and Neil Armstrong's glove ?
* Cookies are required to submit comments
Name:

Email:

Comment (no HTML or BBcode):


co-operation in space exploration 17 Jul '09, 23:36

With the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11's moon landing only 3 days away, and as the Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-127) rendezvouses with the International Space Station, my thoughts turned to the future of space exploration, and in particular, manned exploration.

Sadly I wasn't around to see any of the moon landing missions, but like many I am quite familiar with what happened in July 1969. When I think that it was 40 years since man traveled around 250,000 miles to step foot on another world, and then think of the technological advances made during that time; I wonder why we haven't progressed further. Why is man trapped in low Earth orbit?

The story is well told. People lost interest in Apollo after the first few moon landings. For the layman, the interest was getting man there and returning him safely. Scientific and technological interests did not play a part. And so, budgets were cut and the Apollo programme (after the 17th mission) was axed.

Now, as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the United States has a renewed drive to send man back to the Moon and then, just possibly, on to Mars. Finally it looks like my generation has an boundary-pushing event of it's own to awe and inspire. Only, is it that simple?

Once again finance is coming into play. It's not really unexpected. Here I can use the awful phrase; the "Credit Crunch". The global recession is undoubtedly making politicians rethink their priorities when it comes to funding. That's not to say that the trip to the Moon is under threat of being axed. However, a commission will look at NASAs plans to use an Ares 1 rocket. A rocket that, following technical problems, is now too expensive. Politicians favour the cargo ship Ares 5 to carry crew and cargo.

It's here that I had my epiphany. Why is the United States doing this? Why NASA? Since the 1970s, an increasing number of nations have either become space-faring or have ambition to. Russia is an obvious nation as a player in the space race, but now China, India, Japan and Europe. All have interests in space and have launched either manned or unmanned vehicles.

To me it seems space offers an opportunity. One that can bring nations and people together in a peaceful pursuit. So why not pool resources? Instead of the US going-it alone, why not get all interested nations together in one International Space Agency? All countries can contribute funding, technologies and personnel to make the next space adventure truly one for humanity - not one for a single nation.

The International Space Station is a visible sign of what can be achieved, but the principles should be extended to all of space exploration. The question is, can we as a people realise that, before the moon is divided up into territories for each nation that lands there?

0 comments | Related Entries: 1 | Related Links: 5 | Attachments:

Tags: space, nasa, moon, opinion, iss, space shuttle

Subscribe to All Posts Share with StumbleUpon Share with Reddit Share with Facebook Bookmark with Delicious
No comments to display
* Cookies are required to submit comments
Name:

Email:

Comment (no HTML or BBcode):


Last.fm: Last played:

03 Sep '10, 19:10
Jimi Hendrix – Bleeding Heart

Last Microblog Post:

22 Aug '10, 21:03 via Identi.ca
m0gky: Got an #XBox today, but having problems with #XBoxLive. Just me or anyone else? Re port forwarding, is incoming on 80 required?