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.
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?
should we use the moon?
10 Apr '07, 22:14
The BBC's Horizon programme today posed the question of whether mankind should exploit the moon for Helium 3 - a gas that could be used in a nuclear fusion reaction. There is such an abundance of this gas on the moon that it could provide clean and safe power on Earth for hundreds of years.
However, in order to make use of this fuel, the moon will need to be mined and due to the huge costs involved in bringing the gas back it is likely to be a commercial enterprise that undertakes this mining. This means a loss of the moon as a scientific resource.
It's quite a difficult question to answer. Should we leave well alone. Send small teams of people to make the scientific discoveries (such as we do in Antarctica), or should the moon be colonised and exploited?
Well my answer is not to choose either one or the other, but to have an agreement in place that means perhaps 5 square miles of lunar land is allocated to mining the moon. Within this region, colonisation can take place leaving the rest of the moon safe for scientific exploration and discovery. Preferably this region should be located at the edge of the light side the surface in order to protect the landscape.
The science should start on the boundary of the colonisation region so that as the region needs to expand, it can do so into the regions where all science has been learnt.
In order to safeguard the natural beauty of the moon as much as possible, areas should be designated as Areas of Beauty, much as is done here on Earth. Construction should be planned to integrate with the landscape we see from Earth to minimise visual damage.
The problem here then is how to enforce this plan? Well an International Lunar Coilition should be formed. Those countries that wish to have an involvement in both scientific and commercial activities on the moon would have to sign up to the group which would set out clear conditions on what can and cannot be done on the moon. Breaching the agreement could have heavy financial penalties and perhaps a ban from accessing the satellite. Of course, this would have to be setup under international law but again that's been done for Antartica so it should not be a problem.
I think we have to look at our neighbouring space objects such as the Moon and Mars as potential resources in order to ensure a good future for the Human Race. If we don't, we'll eventually exhaust what resources we have regardless of how careful we are with them.
nasa new horizons
19 Jan '06, 18:11
I'm watching live NASA coverage of the planned launch of the New Horizons mission to Pluto - the first probe to be sent to the furthest planet from the sun. A journey that will take over 9 years even though this is the fastest spacecraft ever built, reaching the moon's orbit in just 9 hours compared to the 3 days that it took the Apollo astronauts in the 60's.
This is NASA's third attempt at launching. The first was made on Tuesday when the launch was aborted at 20:23 GMT (3:23 EST) due to wind speeds exceeding safe limits at the launch pad. Yesterday's attempt was aborted due to a fault.
Hopefully today's launch will go ahead although the launch time has been put back to 18:25 (1:25 EST) due to the cloud cover being to heavy. The countdown is currently at T-4 minutes and holding.
Update 1 (18:13)...
A revision to the launch time has just been made and is now at 18:30 GMT (1.30 EST).
Update 2 (18:26)...
Another revision has just been made and T-0 is now scheduled for 18:40 GMT (1:40 EST). Holdup remains the level of cloud cover which should be scattered, not broken. Countdown remains at T-4 minutes and holding.
Update 3 (18:36)...
Just heard that the launch time of 18:40 GMT is a no-go due to heavy cloud re-appearing even though it looked for a moment that the cloud cover had improved. New T-0 is 18:50 GMT (1:50 EST).
Update 4 (18:48)...
Revised T-0 is now 19:00 GMT (2:00pm EST). This is still assuming that the cloud cover problem is resolved.
Update 5 (18:55)...
This is looking like the best chance yet. At T-4 minutes and holding, check lists are being run through with the aim of releasing the hold at 18:56 GMT.
Update 6 (19:04)...
I'm going to run through the progress as live in this update and post it on launch/hold.
1856 - Weather fronts are Green. Hold released. T-4 minutes and counting.
1857 - T-3 minutes and counting. All is green and good to go.
1858 - T-2 minutes and counting.
1858 - Launch sequence start. Vehicle on internal power. T-1:50.
1859 - T-1 minute and counting.
1859 - T-20 seconds.
1859 - 11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 - Ignition and lift off of NASA's New Horizons mission using the Atlas V Rocket, to visit Pluto and beyond. A journey that will take over 9 years, swinging by Jupiter on the way. Travel speed between 28,000-30,000MPH.
Update 7 (19:12)...
So it's finally lifted off, two days late. I was thinking on Tuesday when waiting for the launch the first time, I wonder if there is any significance to the fact that all space missions I've noticed have launched or arrived at their destinations in January? The Mars Rover missions arrived at the Red Planet in January 2004, the NASA/ESA Huygens probe was arrived at Saturn's moon Titan in January 2005 and today the New Horizons probe launches. Probably just a coincidence though.
Roll on 2015 when it finally arrives at Pluto!
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?
