Our Future Is In Space

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, it is not clear if the Oct. 2 editorial "Ground This Mission" represents a failure of nerve, a failure of imagination, or both.

The editors should understand that:

* If you do not provide for the future, you can't count on there being one, much less the one you would like coming to pass.

* The dichotomy between people and robots is largely false. In space, robots act as extensions of people, forging the trail of exploration, but it is the combination of people and robotics that will make space exploration and settlement possible.

* The trade-off is not between basic social services and NASA programs. The problems the editorial cited are systemic and are affected more by dedicated personal involvement than specific amounts of funding.

The limited funds that the nation devotes to space exploration and development are "seed corn" for the future. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, the price of the stars is our willingness to sustain a quest for better tomorrows.

GARY PEARCE BARNHARD
Chairman of the Executive Committee
National Space Society
Washington

It would be wrong to put NASA on hold

A recent Letter to the Editor by Suisun City resident Muriel Birland (DR Sept. 25) suggested "we need serious thoughts of what our top priority should be . . . Putting NASA on hold until we take care of our people (affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita)."

From 1961 to 1975, $220 billion and 58,000 American lives were spent to preserve democracy in Vietnam (we lost, by the way). During the same time, over $500 billion was spent on the War on Poverty, also known as the Great Society Program. We lost that one, too.

However, we invested $24 billion on the Apollo program which we won - but then threw away - due to inept political leadership that failed to recognize what the U.S. had gained in the effort.

What am I missing here?

For many ignorant Americans like Birland, shooting for the moon again is "Pie in the Sky." That's just what the moon is to them; a barren, lifeless place that serves no practical purpose going back to, because we've already "Been there, Done that."

However, those "Moon Dreamers" at NASA have uncovered what a valuable resource and solution our moon can be to some "down-to-earth" problems. The loose lunar soil - which requires no disfiguring mining - contains valuable raw materials for many useful building products. Items such as important metals and alloys; oxides for making glass, fiberglass and composite materials as strong as steel; ceramics; even cement and concrete.

Additionally, there are considerable volumes of valuable "volatiles" such as hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen and neon that have been absorbed into the fine soil particles that can be "harvested" by heating up the material.

As a result, lunar building materials can be used to expand the first human outpost on the moon and eventually build larger, permanent settlements. The moon's natural resources also allows us to build larger, cheaper space stations, laboratories, factories and tourist facilities in low Earth orbit (LEO), as well as clean solar power satellites to handle Earth's energy needs without polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

The moon? It's not just a "rubble pile" anymore! I suggest Birland and other critics of her ilk return to grade school for a refresher course in science and math again, because the future waits for no one.

Jim Spellman

Fairfield

Robert L. Park says the proposed return to the Moon is a "poison pill," signifying the end of human space exploration. But the poisonous notion is that humans should not venture beyond their immediate biosphere.

Humans must push to their limits, whatever those end up being, to ultimately survive as a species.

Machines are an invaluable tool and will undoubtedly play a larger role in future human exploration. There are indeed places they can go that we cannot. We should not choose, however, to explore always and only by proxy.

As for the current program's 13-year gestation over Apollo's eight, today's NASA must phase out two existing programs, the shuttle and the International Space Station, to proceed without the luxury of an Apolloesque money-dump.

Greg Zsidisin President, New York City Chapter
National Space Society
New York, Sept. 22, 2005

Not too long ago, it was conventional wisdom that astronauts were national heroes, boldly going where no one had gone before. But conventional wisdom changes and the current consensus is that humans in space are obsolete, superseded by cheap and versatile robots that go farther than humans can. Unfortunately, this new conventional wisdom, although persuasive, is a half-truth.

But on other missions, humans do a better job than robots. No matter how cheap robots become or how capable their functions, there are missions that only humans can do.

The servicing or repair mission is a case where humans are often better than robots. When a shuttle mission to the Hubble Space Telescope was canceled, a robotic mission was proposed as a substitute. But studies showed that the human mission, if conducted safely, would provide the best outcome for the telescope. (NASA will look at the results of the shuttle's Return to Flight before deciding whether the human mission will go ahead.)

The missions that only humans can do have been given many names — colonization, settlement, "extend life to there," "permanent human presence in space" — but they all refer to the same idea: Humans should live beyond Earth, just as we live on Earth today, and just as our ancestors lived in the savannas of Africa. When our ancestors went out of Africa to explore and settle the rest of the world, they encountered strange and hostile environments. But they used technology — fire, shelter, clothing, tools — to survive and eventually prosper in the cold climates. Our spacefarers are carrying on the tradition, except today they are using the technologies of rockets, spaceships, spacesuits and life-support systems. Humans struggle to survive beyond Earth, but we are learning and improving all the time, and someday we will survive and prosper on other worlds.

The mission of colonization, when completed, may protect the human species from one of the worst disasters imaginable: a planetary extinction event, such as the one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the many others that have occurred in Earth's history and will occur in Earth's future.

We should not assume that we are immune to these events, or that we will prevent every one using our intelligence and technologies. In fact, our intelligence may make a catastrophic event more likely, due to our invention of weapons of mass destruction. Putting humanity and life on many worlds, not just one, could be the act that ensures a hopeful future for the species and for life itself.

For all these reasons, humans must continue to go to space. In response to the question "Humans or robots in space?" conventional wisdom should answer, "Both." NASA has embarked on voyages of exploration using both humans and robots. Why do they go?

For us.

Michael Huang runs "Spaceflight or Extinction" at www.spaext.com.

NASA Chief Michael Griffin and Hubble
By George Whitesides and Gary Barnhard

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s confirmation testimony, in addition to showing a certain wit, also showed the wisdom of a seasoned engineer. Such wisdom was particularly clear in his testimony on the future of the Hubble Space Telescope. In response to a direct question from Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Griffin responded: "And so I believe that the choice comes down to reinstating a shuttle servicing mission or possibly a very simple robotic deorbiting mission. The decision not to execute the planned shuttle servicing mission was made in the immediate aftermath of the loss of Columbia. When we return to flight, it will be with essentially a new vehicle, which will have a new risk analysis associated with it and so on and so forth. At that time, I think we should reassess the earlier decision, and in light of what we learn after we return to flight we should revisit the earlier decision."

Assuming that return to flight does go well, NASA should make another good decision and choose to upgrade Hubble.

Decisions based on real data and certainty tend to be better than those based on a lack of data and uncertainty. Griffin’s confirmation testimony wisely resets the agency’s plans to a more reasonable, wait-and-see mode. If, God forbid, there is a problem with the next shuttle mission, then NASA and the space community will have more serious challenges before it than servicing Hubble.

If, on the other hand, it goes well — then the right thing to do is to make a historic fifth journey to our window on the universe.

There are at least four good reasons to service Hubble:

First, a shuttle servicing mission would be a concrete demonstration of the importance of humans in space exploration at a time when such a demonstration is needed. Simply put, a successful Hubble servicing mission at this point requires both people and robotic systems working together. A shuttle mission thus supports a central tenet of the Vision for Space Exploration: that we must send humans to explore the space frontier.

Second, the public wants it. Here at the National Space Society, we have received innumerable pleas from our members to do what we can to "save Hubble." It has stirred some of the strongest feelings amongst the public that we have ever seen as advocates for space. Committing to a plan that the public manifestly desires will be to achieve a key recommendation of the Aldridge Commission: to periodically achieve successes related to space exploration that will buoy public support.

Third, important Democratic leaders want the Hubble to be serviced. As many have noted, achievement of the Vision for Space Exploration will require bipartisan support long into the future. Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) made their interest in Hubble explicitly clear during the administrator’s confirmation hearing. NASA and the space community must, where possible, seek to maintain bipartisan support for the vision. Such leaders also might be partners in allocating additional resources for such a mission.

Fourth, upgrading Hubble would enable it to continue its prodigious scientific productivity. At a time when there are questions from the science community about the president’s Vision for Space Exploration, preserving and extending the life of NASA’s most productive scientific instrument would be a strong sign that the vision will further science.

Administrator Griffin has started strong, with broad endorsements from all corners of Washington and with smart answers at his confirmation hearing. His engineering skills and Washington experience will serve him extremely well in the trials ahead. His initial pronouncements on Hubble bode well for his tenure.

George Whitesides is executive director of the National Space Society (NSS), and Gary Barnhard is chairman of the NSS executive committee.

Published: Feb 3, 2005

While I'm not surprised that the Feb. 1 Tribune had no mention whatsoever of the anniversary of the Columbia accident, I was saddened. However, when I looked at the ``On This Date'' history section, what was the pictured article? Janet Jackson's bared breasts. That picture appeared more important than remembering seven brave astronauts dying. While I accept that Americans would rather honor classless losers like the Jackson clan, I cannot accept that a once-good newspaper wouldn't even mention Columbia; indeed, the Tribune mentioned Challenger and Apollo 1 on the anniversaries of both disasters, so why snub Columbia? I would much rather read about a brave bunch of people striving to make the world a better place than read one more line about Michael Jackson - who graced the back page.

Congratulations, Tribune, you've now stooped to the level of a tabloid rag, honoring hype and sensationalism over heroes and courage.

JASON RHIAN Plant City

NASA Still Ambitious

Nice to see the Trib is blasting NASA again. The Dec. 21 cartoon again shows that those in the media just don't get it. NASA does have a large ambition; you need ambition to go to other worlds. As for its management being too small for the task, well, the Trib hasn't followed the change NASA's been undergoing.

Not long ago NASA did little to help free enterprise in space; it now
encourages it. NASA once dreaded the death of the shuttle; now it views the shuttle as dead weight. A new age is dawning at NASA. The NASA shown in the cartoon was the ``old'' NASA. Now NASA is transforming itself into what it should be. We should celebrate that, not belittle it.

JASON RHIAN Plant City

It's about time we return to the moon

Regarding the announcement by President Bush regarding a commitment and timeline for building a permanent base on the moon:

Many will argue that we have too many problems here at home to "waste" a ton of money on going back to the moon. Others will say, "Why go back to the barren, desolate moon? Mars is where it's at!"

We must go to the moon. The difficulty of sending people to the moon will force the development of better launchers and space infrastructure. There is no better test bed than the moon for hardware that would be needed on a future mission to Mars. Also, the far side of our moon is the best place in the solar system to put a radio telescope, in that radio interference from Earth is blocked by the moon itself. Optical astronomy will also benefit greatly from clear skies and much larger primary mirrors.

Solar energy is tremendously abundant -- there's never a cloud in the sky.

My reaction to the president's plan: It's about time! Indeed, we should be celebrating the 25th anniversary of our permanent presence on the moon by now. Still, it's not too late to go for it!

KEITH WICK
GRAND RAPIDS

Moon/Mars Offers Physics Opportunities

The August/September APS News highlighted a June resolution of the APS Executive Board, urging review of the Moon/Mars proposal and NASA's recent redirection. Calling the 10-15 year timeline for a return to the Moon a "rapid pace", the statement indicated concern about the impact on science and budgets.

Given that the most immediate scientific impact of the new "vision" is a termination of physical science research on the space station, there is certainly reason for this concern. But coming from APS the new statement is ironic in light of the still unrevoked 1991 APS Council "Statement on the Manned Space Station": "The United States needs a vigorous space science program, but such a program can be implemented for the foreseeable future without the proposed manned space station."

With a limited budget, hard choices have to be made on which programs will benefit society more. The money spent to make the aging space shuttles safer, since the Columbia accident, is taking away from science programs at NASA right now. The space station still has billions of dollars worth of committed funding before it can be declared even minimally complete. Bush, in announcing the new Moon/Mars direction, called for an end (by 2010) to the wasteful space shuttle, and thereafter a phasing out of space station commitments as well. This will both protect the substantial continuing science programs at NASA, and leave room for the new program as well. Whatever your views on our president, it's a logical way to proceed.

The reason we need humans in space is not for science. It is to learn how to do things better in space. Robots don't have the intelligence and insight that humans bring. The problems are basic: in our laboratories on Earth we take for granted simple things—shelter from the outside world, a steady internal climate, access to substantial electric power, and of course an abundance of graduate students to put the equipment together, twiddle the knobs, and fix it when it breaks. Fixing things in low gravity isn't so simple—even soldering doesn't work. Small-scale bench-top science that could bring great breakthroughs in space requires all of these, and we don't know how to do any of them cost-effectively yet—and we'll never learn by just sitting in our armchairs and thinking about it.

If the APS is interested in having any real impact on NASA's future, it should make an effort to understand the changes under way. Is it a good idea to turn NASA centers into independent research centers more like the DOE labs? Are there physical science areas that can contribute significantly to the new program, and should receive new funding?

Can we imagine any science we would like to do if the more robust and inexpensive private and federal space infrastructure expected actually comes to pass?

The Moon/Mars decision doesn't have much to do with science—and despite its political origin, has an inevitable logic that a new administration would be hard-pressed to reverse. NASA people are energetically tackling the new challenges they've been given—there are real opportunities here for physicists and physics research, if we are willing to be a part of it.
Arthur Smith,
Selden, NY

Let's support space program

As a teacher of a highschool course on the space program, I greatly appreciate Newsday's regular coverage of space news, especially the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft ["Visiting Saturn," News, June 30] and the 35th anniversary of Apollo 11 ["Fly me to the moon," News, July 20]. This coverage makes Newsday stand out. We are the only nation that has an independent space effort, and we should support the president's plan for NASA's future.

Joseph F. Russo
Valley Stream

NASA Needs Funding.

The July 25th editorial cartoon in the Commentary section, about the only thing NASA Couldn't do was send a man to the Moon again - was a glaring example of the smug ignorance rampant in the media.

To do incredible things requires support; something the public has denied NASA. Its budget is cut every year, but God help them if there is an accident! Then they're incompetent! This is the logic of the person who drew that cartoon.

During the Apollo years, NASA had the backing and funding required to accomplish the unimaginable. Now, with the loss of Columbia, a bold initiative is starved for support, and Congress is trying to cut the budget again- on the 25th anniversary of the first Moon landing, no less!

Jason Rhian

Dear Congressman Charles Bass,

I am writing to voice my support for the President's Vision for Space Exploration. The loss of Columbia and her crew bring unprecedented scrutiny to NASA and the purpose of America's manned space program. For over thirty years our manned space program has wandered aimlessly with little or no direction. Now we finally have a President that has given us a mission, one of exploration and one that America can be proud of. Revisiting the Moon and living on Mars will rival the tales of Apollo and inspire the next generation of explorers in much the same way Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did in July 1969.

I am a student working towards an aerospace engineering degree and am an avid space enthusiast. If this Vision gets Congressional approval, in a few years I will be privileged enough to enter the workforce during a very exciting and challenging time. I hope you share my enthusiasm and support for this new initiative.

Sincerely,
Ryan Caron

Dear Chairman Young:

My wife and I are dedicated, longtime members of both the National Space and Planetary Societies. Our names, along with the signatures of over 600,000 space enthusiasts are, courtesy of the Planetary Society, inscribed on a specially designed plaque aboard the Cassini spacecraft now orbiting Saturn. Needless to say, we were extremely disappointed the House Appropriations Subcommittee recently voted to recommend NASA’s annual budget be cut by a whopping 7% (over $1 billion) from the amount required to adequately fund President Bush’s visionary space initiative proposal and they did it right on the 35th Anniversary (July 20th) of America’s greatest and most spectacular scientific achievement of the century (America’s first astronauts on the moon)! While your Appropriations Subcommittee was busy cutting NASA’s funding, Apollo 11 Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins were attending a rare reunion right there in Washington, DC to help celebrate one of America’s proudest moments in its glorious history.

Since the final Apollo 17 mission back in December 1972, no human has traveled beyond low Earth orbit. In at least some respects, it would certainly seem as if our manned space exploration program has actually gone backwards over the last three decades. The President’s bold space initiative proposal calls for the aging space shuttle orbiter fleet to be retired by about 2010, after the International Space Station is fully assembled, and replaced with a newly designed state-of-the-art Crew Exploration Vehicle. This visionary plan is specifically designed to finally break our manned space exploration program out of low Earth orbit and back to the moon and then eventually on to Mars over the next couple of decades at a sensible, reasonable cost that will be affordable to all Americans.

We’ve also written to House Science Committee Chairman, Sherwood Boehlert regarding this matter and hope to receive a reply from his office within the next couple of weeks or so. Over the next few weeks, my wife and I will be writing similar letters to every member on the Appropriations Subcommittee expressing our thoughts and feelings concerning the future of America’s manned space exploration program.

In conclusion, we would like to strongly suggest every member of the Subcommittee take the time to carefully read the Moon, Mars & Beyond Presidential Commission’s comprehensive final report and its extremely thoughtful analysis and recommendations on the best and most efficient methods to reorganize NASA in order to meet the various challenges and goals of the President’s bold space initiative. Perhaps some of the Subcommittee’s key members could briefly meet with a few of the Commissioners (personally we would choose astrophysicist and Hayden Planetarium Director, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who in 2002 also served on the President’s Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry Commission, because we’ve often heard him speak so very clearly and eloquently about a wide range of subjects over the years) in order to better understand the thinking that went into the Commission’s various recommendations and help clarify any particular aspects of the Commission’s final report.

We would greatly appreciate if your office could please advise us if the Appropriations Subcommittee has received other letters similar to ours regarding this issue and, if so, approximately how many. We’ll look forward to your response on behalf of the House Appropriations Subcommittee at its earliest convenience.

Ad Astra (“To The Stars”) always,

Eugene & Frances Cervone
adastracervone@mindspring.com

A New Space Age
Published: Jun 29, 2004

SpaceShipOne's recent flight might begin a second space age. After the moon shots we lost interest in space. The only reason we went to the moon was because of the Soviet threat. I wonder what would have happened if we weren't so fickle, so saturated with apathy. Some say robots should do spaceflight. Some say, ``We should deal with problems on Earth first.''By that logic, we'll never go. As long as there are people, we'll have war, hunger and disease. We're a society shackled to the couch, too timid for risks. Our heroes aren't those who do great deeds; they're trashy celebrities mired in scandal. Will we ever pull free of mediocrity and dream again? SpaceShipOne will, I hope, start private spaceflights. Maybe then our dreams will be reborn.

If the president's new space plan is approved, I hope it will include plans to tap the limitless resources found in space because, apparently, inspiring kids to reach for the stars isn't enough. We need economic reasons now to go. Today's heroes aren't named Glenn, Armstrong or McAuliffe. No, they're Eminem, 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg.

JASON RHIAN Tampa