What do you think of NASA's efforts to develop new technologies for getting humans in and out of space?
NASA does R&D in a lot of subjects. For example, the agency spent a lot of money on the X-33 program, which was for a craft that would take off horizontally like a plane and get into orbit. But that project was set aside. The return capsule being developed for the Orion module [the shuttle's replacement scheduled for 2014] is probably the right stage to use at this point. But space tourists in a future inflatable hotel shouldn't have to use a capsule. We need to have redundancy options [for getting people back and forth into space], and these are not being worked on at this time.
A craft that takes off and lands like an airplane would also be highly marketable to India and China and would increase [the U.S.'s] prestige. What we need is a way to deliver people and to do what we originally committed to do, which is have an emergency return vehicle at the International Space Station, rather than relying on the supposed cost effectiveness of a [Russian-made] Soyuz ship. If that's the only way we can get to the $100-billion space station after 2010 [when the space shuttle is retired], that is rather unfortunate. So it may make sense to extend the shuttle for a few more years. There are other ways of filling a gap [in craft availability and mission objectives] rather than squeezing it at both ends. That's what NASA did with the Gemini program between the Mercury and Apollo programs in the 1960s.
What do you think about fellow astronaut Edgar Mitchell's claims that the government is covering up the existence of aliens?
Well, despite the ridicule of other people, some people maintain that improbable things exist. Someone wanted to proclaim that when we landed on the moon that we would sink 50 feet [15 meters] into the lunar dust. That would have been a Nobel Prize–winning statement if it had turned out to be true; this now-unknown person could have been the famous predictor of the Apollo disaster. But for now, Edgar has carved out a future for himself and he's got to live in it.
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?