{PDF EPUB} Taking Science to the Moon Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program by Donald A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Taking Science to the Moon Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program by Donald A. Beattie Moon Smasher: Links & Books. LCROSS Home Page www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/ Learn about the latest developments in the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite mission at this website from NASA. Ames Research Center Vertical Gun Range www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/technology-onepagers/range-complex.html Want to know more about the research lab in which scientists slam objects into simulated space surfaces? The Ames Research Center houses instruments designed specifically for the study of hypervelocity aerodynamics. Find out more at this website. Northrop Grumman web page with LCROSS mission information www.northropgrumman.com/review/008-nasa-lunar-crater-observation- sensing-satellite-lcross.html At this website from Northrop Grumman, you can learn more about the LCROSS mission, check out a photo gallery, and more. NASA Lunar Science Institute lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov Learn all about NASA's Lunar Science Institute at the official website. Be sure to check out "Lunar Science for Kids" and "Ask a Lunar Scientist." "Water on the Moon" lcross.arc.nasa.gov/audio/WaterOnTheMoon.mp3 Download or stream this song written by LCROSS deputy project manager John Marmie. Books. Exploring the Moon: The Apollo Expeditions by David M. Harland. Springer-Praxis, 2008. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program by Donald A. Beattie. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space by Harrison H. Schmitt. Springer, 2006. Photographic Atlas of the Moon by S. M. Chong. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Articles. "Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb the Moon and Find Water" by Michael Milstein. Popular Mechanics , September, 2008. www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4277592.html. "Moon Water Discovered: Dampens Moon-Formation Theory" Carnegie Institution for Science , July 9, 2008. www.ciw.edu/news/moon_water_discovered_dampens_moon_formation_theory. "Crash is Planned in Hunt for Lunar Water" by Warren E. Leary. The New York Times , April 11, 2006. www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/science/space/11moon.html?scp=1&sq=LCROSS moon&st=cse. Disclaimer. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation, a cofunder of this site. Just how full of opportunity is the Moon? In his recent article about the reasons for lunar exploration, Paul Spudis asserts that “…some complain that the reason for going to the Moon is still unclear.” (See “A Moon full of opportunity”, The Space Review, January 22, 2007) That is, unfortunately, an incorrect understanding of why there are objections to returning to the Moon with an emphasis on human settlement and exploration. To characterize as “whiners” those who have expressed concerns that NASA is pursuing the wrong goal does a great disservice to legitimate debate. These concerns are well founded based on disagreements about the benefit and attainability of the goal. Proposing a grand “Vision” to explore our solar system has value; however, what the pace and emphasis should be needs to be continually debated based on evolving national needs and the ability to find required resources. We can “…do everything else that we want to do in space” without detouring to the Moon. All indications are that such a detour will inhibit everything else we “should” do in space with the limited resources available. To provide a detailed analysis of why there are disagreements would require a lengthy response; the following discussion briefly presents the key points. The six themes that are the foundation underlying the rationale to return humans and robots to the Moon: human settlement, preparation for Mars missions, science, economic expansion, international cooperation, and public engagement, were predicated on many false assumptions. The fact that NASA’s Lunar Architecture Team worked for many months considering recommendations from multiple sources is interesting but not necessarily significant. Using a relevant quote: “If a committee is allowed to discuss a bad idea long enough, it will eventually adopt it because of all the work they put into it.” (K. Kruikshank) Proposing a grand “Vision” to explore our solar system has value; however, what the pace and emphasis should be needs to be continually debated based on evolving national needs and the ability to find required resources. There is no question that it would be possible to build human settlements on the Moon. Such a program was proposed in the late 1960s when all of the infrastructure was in place and paid for, but it was denied by Congress and the Nixon administration. A Space Exploration Initiative that included returning to the Moon, similar to the program currently underway, was unveiled by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. It was also denied by Congress. There were no compelling reasons then, and there are none now, to spend a major fraction of the nation’s space budget to return humans or robots to the Moon. Some claim that the theme of human settlement will be important as it supports the goals of all the other themes. That may be true, but its importance is doubtful because it places a high value on very questionable objectives as discussed below. Human missions to Mars, if and when they might occur, are so far in the future that lessons learned on the Moon will have little relevance. If humans eventually travel to Mars, technology that would be used will be far advanced over that which NASA would employ on the Moon in the next twenty years. The first humans who might travel to Mars will probably not have the immediate objective of establishing a settlement. Rather, they will go as explorers and spend only that amount of time required to meet initial objectives, with their staytime defined by orbital mechanics. Determining how to utilize lunar resources to supply a lunar base will not have applicability to a Mars base as the technology and processes needed to use Mars raw materials will be unique to Mars resources. Other surface conditions on Mars that human explorers will have to cope with will also be much different than those found on the Moon and will require specific technology to ensure safe operations. Costly and risky human exploration of Mars may never be needed. As robots become more capable, the major scientific and philosophical question that drives Mars exploration—does life exist or has it ever existed on Mars—may well be answered by robotic missions. The need to establish human settlements on Mars in the future is problematic. Scientific investigations, discussed in the recent National Research Council (NRC) report “The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon” define an extensive exploration program. If pursued, the program would add additional information to our present knowledge of the Moon’s early history and current state. However, we already have an excellent understanding of the Moon’s history and composition compiled from data returned from Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo missions. The more recent Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions also contributed to our understanding. Added detail is only of interest to those who have spent most or all of their professional lives studying the Moon. It is unlikely that any new information collected during detailed lunar exploration will resolve fundamental questions being asked regarding the origin and evolution of the solar system. Making this theme even more suspect in terms of its importance, a successful implementation of NRC program would require numerous robotic missions complimented by many human missions. The robotic missions would have to be more capable than the present Mars rover missions for, in addition to making detailed chemical and mineralogical measurements, many would require deep drilling and sample return from both the Moon’s near and far sides. To date, there have been no estimates of how much such an ambitious campaign would cost. NASA has dodged the question of cost for both robotic and human missions, including establishing human settlements, by hiding behind the slogan that returning to the Moon is based on an “open architecture.” Or in other words, to defuse the critics, it is whatever you want it to be. Not a very strong position on which to ask the Congress to commit to spending huge sums. There are no lunar resources that, when processed, would have any economic value if utilized on the Moon or returned to Earth. Lunar in situ resource utilization has been shown by several analyses to not have a positive cost benefit. Enthusiasts who have made claims to the contrary have done so by using questionable and very optimistic projections of what would be required. They would be well advised to reopen their chemistry and physics textbooks and spend some time with real-world mining and drilling operations. There are no lunar resources that, when processed, would have any economic value if utilized on the Moon or returned to Earth. A case in point is the assumption that water ice will be found at the lunar poles and could be mined to supply a base and other activities. (See “Ice on the Moon”, The Space Review, November 6, 2006) Based on measurements of the Moon’s polar regions made during the Lunar Prospector mission, some believe that large quantities of water ice will be found in permanently shadowed lunar craters. It should be remembered that Lunar Prospector did not record the presence of water ice, only an indication of “excess” hydrogen that some infer means water ice. If water ice exists, large amounts of lunar soil would have to be processed in the shadow of rock-strewn crater walls in order to recover sufficient quantities of oxygen and hydrogen to be used for either fuel or life support.