What about the agency's plans to return to the moon by 2020?
A lot of people are fascinated by trying to set a goal and an objective. This kind of approach [by NASA] worked really well in the 1960s and 1970s. Having a race [to get back to the moon] is good for sound bites and the encapsulation of progress, but maybe not that good for the people involved. We want to see things done right without wastage, [and as such], I don't think we need a deadline. The question is less when than how, and will [NASA] handle things properly.
What about the proposed manned Mars missions, scheduled to take place by 2031?
Yes, it's not so much about when you get there but what you do when you're there. If you look at approaching Mars the way the Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower [to remain at their destination], that is much preferred to putting someone there who can't wait to get back home again. And if we don't have to pay for [these explorers] to come back, all the better.
It's important to realize it is not necessary to support a Mars program now. It is important to take steps based on a judicious review of the past. The past tells us that in the venture to get to the moon, we filled the gap [between the Mercury and Apollo programs] with the Gemini program. We were also flexible on our options, though we were not flexible after Apollo and did not define what was to follow Apollo. We will have a [multiyear] gap in capability when we retire the space shuttle [before] the next space vehicle, Orion, [is ready].
What should NASA emphasize—manned or robotic exploration?
I think NASA needs a mixture of manned flight and robotic missions. The agency needs to represent national interests in concert with the Department of Defense [DoD] and the Commerce Department. I don't think the management of that has matured as well as it could have over the years. [NASA] tried with the National Space Council, chaired by the vice president. The president has a science advisor now, but this person reports to the [White House] chief of staff, not the president directly. I think we need a cabinet level science position that can work with the DoD more appropriately, rather than [it and NASA] trying to absorb the other. We need to fund things on a long-term, sustainable basis, instead of during a one- to four-year political or budgetary time period.
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentMars is a far better destination than the moon is, as detailed in "The Case for Mars" by Zubrin. Mars is the same energy to go, and net less energy to go and come back because rocket fuel can be made on site. Mars has water and oxygen. A self sustaining colony can be established there. Mars has a payoff that could be huge, where the moon does not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Moon is a far better initial destination than Mars. I have “The case for Mars” and a dead giveaway to a weak argument is to attack other peoples work. The Moon is closer - only 3 days, shallow gravity well – 1/6G, has plenty of H and O for water and oxygen. We can use the resources on the Moon to build space settlements and deliver power to Earth. Once getting off this rock is relatively cheap (tell someone in the 18th century they could go 2000 miles in 4 hours for $500 and ask them if they think it’s cheap) then those who wish to live in a gravity well deep enough to make escape difficult but too shallow to hold a substantial atmosphere can colonize Mars. That said, all of us who wish to create a space fairing civilization need to support each other and stop arguing over what is the best way. I think the only people who benefit from all the difference of opinions (man verses machine, Mars verses Moon verses Space settlements, etcetera) are those who are happy to remain on this rock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is our sense of adventure? I recognize that NASA (just as any government bureaucracy) seeks to minimize waste, but we need a grander goal than analyzing the ice crystals in Martian rocks. If NASA wants to expand its funding, it should focus on a high-visibility mission like sending men to the red planet or flying men back to the moon. Either one will likely elicit a huge influx of money to the space agency. The average Joe doesn't give two farts about water crystals or color pictures from the Martian surface. However, if he saw a man step out of a spacecraft and jog around the planet, he would be hooked on the space program. I guess what I'm asking is how did we land on the moon almost 40 years ago, then drop the program altogether and not return? And now we don't even want to set a timetable for achieving a comparable feat. It should be an embarrassment to today's generation of engineers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I'm concerned Buzz wasn't the second man on the Moon, he tied for first when the Eagle landed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeil got a bit closer when he stepped off the pad in his other spacecraft - EVA suit.
I doubt anyone will ever set "foot" on the Moon. Since Buzz has shared so much more with us than Neil has, why don't we call it a draw?