Most of the media attention regarding a House Appropriations Committee subcommittee hearing two weeks ago about the NASA budget focused instead on claims by members of the subcommittee that the US was engaged in, and perhaps losing, a new space race with China. The American Institute of Physics published its own summary of the hearing yesterday, one that focuses more on budget issues than foreign policy.
A major theme of the hearing, according to the AIP, was that cuts in science programs were unfortunate but justified because flying out the remaining shuttle missions and developing the CEV were more important. NASA administrator Michael Griffin said that the agency had “created an irrational exuberance” in the science community by leading them to believe that 5-7 percent annual growth could be continued indefinitely when the overall agency budget was increasing at only 2-3 percent. While some tweaks to the science budget are possible, he cautioned against larger shifts:
However, he cautioned the committee that NASA’s budget request “represents a careful balancing act,” and strongly urged them to resist the temptation to “rob Peter to pay Paul” by shifting funds from the CEV and human exploration to NASA science missions. He argued that the gap in U.S. human access to space between the shuttle’s retirement and operation of the CEV would be “far more damaging to the space program overall” than some loss of space and Earth science expertise. Human space flight capabilities, he said, are part of what “define a nation as a superpower.”
That seemed to have triggered the discussion about the space capabilities of other nations, and China in particular. One interesting quote not widely reported elsewhere, though, came from Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who seemed concerned that any kind of space race with China might be “a dangerous road to take because it may not lead us where we want to go.”
Griffin is taking a hard position on the NASA budget. He is to be applauded for resisting the inevitable pressures from all those groups that benefit from ever increasing taxpayer subsidies. It was refreshing to see that he effectively refused more money while stating that program goals could be reached within the existing budget. By setting a hard ceiling for the total budget he is forcing programs to prioritize themselves internally while allowing the administration’s requirements determine the overall shape of the program, this is as it should be.
Griffin is absolutely correct. The Agency needs to complete the ISS, retire the Shuttle and build the CEV/CLV. With respect to science funding – it’s pain now or pain later (and latter pain may be terminal). The real issue is how SMD deals with their bottom line. One could argue, for example, to delay the next Mars Scout mission and relieve some of the pressure on research. On the other hand, it’s not clear to me why NASA should be doing genetic analysis of microbes.
I have little sympathy for the scientific community’s refusal to accept that not all science is automated. Astronauts exploring Earth’s moon will be doing science, and in my opinion a lot more than the same money thrown at automated Mars missions would achieve. Different science, yes, but more and better.
Likewise, the exploration project is paying for significant science of the more traditional variety. The lunar reconnaissance orbiter and the new impact sub-payload both represent real science.
Finally, scientists could stop whining about NASA’s changed priorities and figure out how to pay for using the nearly free transportation provided by the reconnaissance orbiter’s Atlas, some of which I believe remains available.
— Donald
Indeed, Donald, sometimes I wonder whether the space science absolutists even realize that if we get the CEV and some form of the CaLV built we’ll be able to put actual SCIENTISTS on the moon, etc.
They always seem to ignore this fact and think that we’re building new ships just for the hell of it, and that these ships will be commanded by science-illiterate astronauts. Argh. It just drives me so crazy.
OK, I’ll rise to the bait. We’ve been to the Moon. We had at least one scientist on the Moon. We’ve had quite a few science literate astronauts on shuttle and ISS. And what have we gotten out of it that compares in any way to what the science directorate (and scientists on the ground) have gotten otherwise from missions that don’t involve in situ human presence? (Well, human physiology aside …)
Now, we have had remarkable success with HST refurbishment and repair by astronauts. More power to them, and to that enormously productive use of humans in space. Building, servicing, and maintaining science instruments in a way that we could hardly manage otherwise.
I’ll stay uncommitted on the productivity/$ of scientists on Mars, but scientists on the Moon won’t buy us science that we couldn’t get otherwise. That’s not to say that there aren’t other good reasons to send humans back to the Moon but, for my taxpayer dollar, science isn’t one of them. Lunar science is important and fascinating, but the huge expense of making it a hands-on activity simply hasn’t been justified.
OK, if you’re there anyway, go pick up some rocks. But don’t give me the line that that’s why you’re there.
To wit, the issue isn’t why we won’t send scientists to the Moon. The issue is why scientists should feel better about cutting real science priorities in order to do it.
OK, I’ll rise to the bait. We’ve been to the Moon. We had at least one scientist on the Moon. We’ve had quite a few science literate astronauts on shuttle and ISS. And what have we gotten out of it that compares in any way to what the science directorate (and scientists on the ground) have gotten otherwise from missions that don’t involve in situ human presence? (Well, human physiology aside …)
Why do you persist in the fundamentally mistaken notion that the purpose of the space program is to do science?
Donald Robertson: I have little sympathy for the scientific community’s refusal to accept that not all science is automated. Astronauts exploring Earth’s moon will be doing science, and in my opinion a lot more than the same money thrown at automated Mars missions would achieve. Different science, yes, but more and better.
It would be one thing if you argued some purpose of the space program other than science: Colonization, or tourism, or bankrolling the Wright Brothers of space, or what have you. But here you have reverted to the familiar bad idea of doing science that scientists don’t want.
Well, just don’t bother. If the best use that you can think of tax money is science that scientists don’t want, then the money is better left unspent.
- Why do you persist in the fundamentally mistaken notion that the purpose of the space program is to do science?
I didn’t say anything of the sort.
As Greg says, colonization, tourism, etc. are at least rationalizable, if arguable goals for a human lunar return. To these one might well add ISRU development. What I’m complaining about is justifying the lunar program by appealing to the opportunity of having of a live human standing there with a PhD around his/her neck. Doing science that could just as well be done vastly more cheaply with human intelligence and perception, but without actual human flesh.
I mean, let’s put a scientist up in a weather balloon. There’s all sorts of good atmospheric stuff a Real Scientist could learn up there, no? Never can tell what they might discover!
People in space can do very important things — science and otherwise, but turning over rocks on the Moon just isn’t one of them.
People in space can do very important things — science and otherwise, but turning over rocks on the Moon just isn’t one of them.
Apollo demonstrated otherwise. The most interesting samples we got were when we sent a geologist on Apollo XVII, but in general we got much more science out of Apollo than we did from all of the unmanned lunar exploration. What we really need to send are good miners and prospectors.
What we really need to send are good miners and prospectors.
I concur whole-heartedly. But then NASA may be the wrong agency to be leading that charge.
Rand Simberg: Apollo demonstrated otherwise…In general we got much more science out of Apollo than we did from all of the unmanned lunar exploration.
Even though you said that the point was not to argue that human spaceflight is better for science than robotic spaceflight, here you revert to the same position as Donald Robertson, claiming that human spaceflight is good science after all.
Well, Apollo demonstrated no such thing. There are three reasons that we got more science out of Apollo than out of unmanned lunar exploration. The first reason is that Apollo was vastly more expensive; there is no telling how much space science could have come out of that amount of money. (Although we can safely say that on the ground, the NSF has funded far more science than Apollo, and at less total cost.) The second reason is that the unmanned lunar exploration was designed to support Apollo and not to maximize science, especially by being placed on Apollo missions so that Apollo would get credit for them. The third reason is that robots were 20 times less useful then than they are now, while humans haven’t changed.
The vast majority of space scientists simply don’t want astronauts for their work, and not because they are dolts who are predisposed against Apollo. In fact, a lot of them are big fans of the idea of human spaceflight, either because it inspired their careers or, more cynically, because advocacy helps them win funding. But they aren’t fans of it for their own projects, because they know exactly what Apollo does and does not prove.
- robots were 20 times less useful then than they are now, while humans haven’t changed.
Precisely. For people who consider it necessary to leave actual footprints in order to inherit the spirit of intellectual curiosity of explorers like Lewis and Clark, I suggest considering the robotic resources that were available two hundred years ago. Lewis and Clark had no choice. We do.
Human space flight is wonderful. Apollo was a dramatic expression of national determination and accomplishment. Worth every penny. But with regard to human return to the Moon, which used to be formally about practice for going to Mars, it’s about resource development and property rights — not science, and arguably justifiable.
With all due respect to Harrison Schmitt, and sidestepping any evaluation of value, the science he did on the Moon on Apollo XVII doesn’t require the expense and risk of human presence that it used to.
Even though you said that the point was not to argue that human spaceflight is better for science than robotic spaceflight, here you revert to the same position as Donald Robertson, claiming that human spaceflight is good science after all.
No contradiction. Both are true. Science isn’t the only reason to do space, but Apollo in fact did do pretty good science, even for the money.
The vast majority of space scientists simply don’t want astronauts for their work, and not because they are dolts who are predisposed against Apollo.
So? The vast majority of space science isn’t particularly helped by astronauts. But where it is (planetary surface exploration), they are better in a big way.
With all due respect to Harrison Schmitt, and sidestepping any evaluation of value, the science he did on the Moon on Apollo XVII doesn’t require the expense and risk of human presence that it used to.
We’re still a long way from being able to replicate the ability of a geologist on the ground to figure out what’s interesting and what’s not, without a geologist on the ground. And if you want to return significant amounts of samples, it doesn’t cost that much more to send along a selenologist or aereologist to pick them out.
Apollo in fact did do pretty good science, even for the money.
That would only be tenable if the moon were more important than all other objects in outer space put together. Which it isn’t.
So? The vast majority of space science isn’t particularly helped by astronauts. But where it is (planetary surface exploration), they are better in a big way.
No, even space scientists who do planetary surface exploration no longer want astronauts for their own projects. Many of them do bang the drum for human spaceflight, for the reasons that I mentioned before, but not for direct use in their own projects.
No, even space scientists who do planetary surface exploration no longer want astronauts for their own projects.
Steve Squires disagrees.
Steve Squires disagrees.
No, he doesn’t. He doesn’t disagree with my careful statement, only with your interpretation of it. Squires wants human spaceflight, and he even claims to want it for science, but he isn’t asking for it for his own project. All that you would have to do to get a different answer from him is assign him to human spaceflight. Then he would feel supremely cheated.
Also, although I have no reason to doubt Squires’ sincerity, it helps his career to promote human spaceflight to Mars. His career of course is robotic exploration of that planet.
Doug, et al, the Apollo missions were far more scientifically productive than automated missions of the same era. The folks above who said that robots are ten times better and human are the same are simply wrong. Whatever you think of that project, there is no way the Apollo astronauts with their equipment and the experience to date could have built the Space Station with its hundreds of near-routine EVAs of great complexity. Yes, robots are better, but humans are better, too, and while this is unprovable until we do send them back to the moon, their abilities in space are likely to have improved at least as much as robots.
More importantly, our choice today is not whether to send all of our money sending robots to Mars, or human expeditions to Mars. The latter isn’t going to happen for at least decades. The question today is whether to spend our limited money sending robots to Mars or geologists to Earth’s moon. A strong case can be made either way, but the latter certainly should not be dismissed.
NASA’s estimate for operational costs for Dr. Griffin’s plan is about $2 billion per mission — not that different from the cost of sending a sophisticated rover to Mars. Since the United States will continue to fund human spaceflight, the development cost will be paid anyway (as it was for automated Mars rovers in the past), so this really is a choice.
Mars in many ways is a more interesting body than Earth’s moon, but that does not mean the latter is uninteresting. Ironically, even though Apollo proved the the moon is a rather special place generated by an impact with Earth, the surface of the moon is far more representative of surfaces in the inner Solar System, and probably at other star systems, than is Mars. The brecciating processes that formed most of the lunar surface are very different from what can be found on today’s Earth, and again more representative of what is common in the Solar System. Lunar volcanism was very different from what we have, while at least some of Mars’ volcanism is more familiar. All of this makes the moon an exceedingly interesting place, even ignoring its record of the early near-Earth environment and the fact that it probably contains samples from Earth that are no longer extant here.
At our current level of knowledge, geological exploration and resource exploration are pretty much one and the same.
Anyone who thinks the moon has no surprises — and everyone on both sides of the human versus robotics debate — should read Exploring the Moon: the Apollo expeditions by David M. Hartland, especially the section on Apollo-16. This excellent book covers the geology that was attempted by the last three Apollo missions. It sits uncomfortably between a popular book and a technical one, like many of Spranger’s space science series, yet it is the only book of its type I’m aware of. The point here, though, is that expectations from both remote observation and automated probes turned out to be dead wrong, and a whole new theory of geological processes no longer extant on Earth was developed because of Apollo-16’s discoveries (semi-fluid brecciating flow creating a fill that from a distance looks like remarkably like lava fill).
This book is interesting, too, for the insight in provides on what the astronauts were capable of doing. Even I was surprised at the extent and detail of the field geology undertaken, even under the severe operational constrints of these first-generation human missions. Not everything falls on my side of the debate, but as the only real experience we have, this book is a must read for those involved in what may be one of the more important debates of our time.
The geology of brecca’s is the geology that most likely dominates the Solar System (and, indeed, most star systems). As such, it deserves great study. At the risk of over-stating my case, I’ll argue that, today, here and now, sending gologists to the extraordinarily accessible moon is probably the best way to teach us about the processes creating the surfaces of most worlds throughout much of the galaxy.
— Donald
A lot to answer, but good discussion.
– Even though you said that the point was not to argue that human spaceflight is better for science than robotic spaceflight, here you revert to the same position as Donald Robertson, claiming that human spaceflight is good science after all.
Um, no. No reversion here. I never claimed what you said I claim. I said that human spaceflight has the potential to strongly add to science. For most of the expenditure on human spaceflight up to now, it hasn’t added to science in proportion to the expenditure. On the basis of implementations planning for future human space flight, it won’t do much better. No one ever formally asked the science community (e.g. National Academy) what would give ESAS architecture the most science potential, for example. And human spaceflight in itself isn’t science at all. Nor is robotic spaceflight. But I don’t think Donald meant it that way if he really said that.
– No contradiction. Both are true. Science isn’t the only reason to do space, but Apollo in fact did do pretty good science, even for the money.
That Apollo did pretty good science? Sure. Nothing “pretty bad” about the science it did. But for the money? Nope, I don’t think so.
– The vast majority of space scientists simply don’t want astronauts for their work, and not because they are dolts who are predisposed against Apollo.
That’s an interesting perspective. I think it’s true that many scientists haven’t devoted much thought to how human space flight could add to their research efforts and there certainly is a reflexive them-or-us mentality. But that’s fixable. You don’t fix that by shoving opportunities down their throat that aren’t scientifically compelling, however. The challenge is to make a good case for what it would allow them to do that they couldn’t do otherwise, and I think that’s possible to do.
– We’re still a long way from being able to replicate the ability of a geologist on the ground to figure out what’s interesting and what’s not, without a geologist on the ground. And if you want to return significant amounts of samples, it doesn’t cost that much more to send along a selenologist or aereologist to pick them out.
I certainly agree that we’re a long way from that. But the budget for putting MER on Mars is a long way from the budget needed for putting a geologist on Mars. A loooong way. I really agree with Steve Squyres about humans on Mars. I’d rather have a human flesh geologist there than a MER, but it’s a zero sum game and I’ll bet one can make a dandy MER for a pound of that flesh. Also, Steve was talking about Mars. That’s quite different than the Moon, in terms of science value. I don’t think you’ll find many scientists who would value lunar science efforts over Mars science efforts.
Also, there can’t be any argument about how easy it would be to return significant samples with an astronaut. The hard part is returning the astronaut in the first place!
– … the Apollo missions were far more scientifically productive than automated missions of the same era. The folks above who said that robots are ten times better and human are the same are simply wrong.
OK, press reset here. The Apollo missions were far more scientifically productive than Ranger, Lunokhod and Surveyor? They were HUGELY more productive than Ranger, Lunokhod or Surveyor. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Were talking science value per dollar. Also, you’re right. That factor of ten was dead wrong. Moore’s Law would make robots now about five hundred times better than they were thirty years ago. Not ten times better. Fast comm links and telerobotics just multiplies that number. Let’s call it a thousand. That’s provable. Humans are … well, I dunno, we’ve got steroids now, but we’re not supposed to talk about that. Was there something I missed that makes humans better than they used to be?
With latency of a second, you can be there on the Moon, even if your flesh is not, if science was what you wanted to do (which, as I said, it is not exclusively the case). The point being (again) that science doesn’t justify the endeavor of going back to the Moon. So don’t say that it does. If something else does, then say that instead. Shooting down science as a reason to put humans on the Moon is too easy.
As to Apollo astronauts building the space station, c’mon. That has little to do with being smart about picking up rocks. It does have a lot to do with building big things in space, but that’s quite different than building big things on the Moon.
– NASA’s estimate for operational costs for Dr. Griffin’s plan is about $2 billion per mission.
Heh heh. NASA’s estimate for operational costs, eh? I have my own well researched scaling factor, and I’m sure you do too.
– Mars in many ways is a more interesting body than Earth’s moon, but that does not mean the latter is uninteresting. [+400 words that follow …]
Granted. As I said, I think the Moon is a very interesting place. But ya know, it’s science per dollar. There are lots of interesting places in space. Many more interesting than the Moon, to scientists at least.
Doug: You have run together some of my comments with Rand Simberg’s, and in one case you responded to a comment that I made about Rand’s position rather than yours. Generally I agree with what you are saying.
But I can quibble with this a bit:
Moore’s Law would make robots now about five hundred times better than they were thirty years ago.
Actually, Moore’s Law says that CPU speed doubles every two years, so that the brain of a robot, if you spent the same amount of money for it, would be 30,000 times faster now than 30 years ago. However, N times faster is not the same thing as N times more useful. “Useful” and “better” are really qualitative terms.
The fair statement is that robots are qualitatively superior to what they were 30 years ago. Which is why they are now widely used in just about every environment that is hostile to humans, from war (UAVs) to deep-sea science (AUVs). Deep-sea oceanographers have been spared, or have spared the rest of us, the tedious ideology that what they do is so much more exciting when humans are on site. Sometimes they use manned submersibles, but increasingly they don’t.
Doug, first of all a rare agreement with Greg. Your argument about robotic improvement is absurd, mainly because increased processing speed does not directly equate to improved software, improved software-hardware interfaces, or improved hardware control — all areas where human beings will be far superior for the foreseeable future. Extending that, the Mars rovers are superior to the Lunokhod rovers, but only to a (surprisingly, actually) limited degree. The main improvement — and it’s certainly a big one — is that they can operate at Mars. A secondary improvement is that, with great difficulty, they have managed to automate a few simple parts of a traverse. And, of course, they last longer. However, they are not superior in kind. Ask yourself, what can one of the Mars rovers do that a Lunokhod could not at least in a rudimentary way? The answer is a pretty limited list.
Fast comm. links, for example, would benefit human astronauts just as much as it does robots, and thus cancel out of this debate.
science doesn’t justify the endeavor of going back to the Moon.
That is your opinion. It is also the majority opinion (though that does appear to be eroding; any number of papers arguing the opposite have recently appeared in the scientific press). Being in the majority does not by itself make your opinion correct.
So don’t say that it does. . . . Shooting down science as a reason to put humans on the Moon is too easy.
You’re right. It is always done too easily. Since we have believed for a long time that automated science is cheaper per dollar than human science, you, and others, argue that alone makes it true, usually without any other supporting evidence. I don’t believe it’s true — as do an increasingly large number of other observers and participants — so I maintain the right to continue arguing so. Knowledgeable individuals who have actually tried to analyze the issue in detail — e.g., looking at the actual historical performance at comparable levels of development, Mr. Sidiqqi — have come to question its truth, as have a number of scientists.
What I do agree with is that the science that automated probes can do and that astronauts can do is different science. We won’t be sending astronauts to Titan in my lifetime, but we can send geologists equipped to do detailed field work and extended traverses to Earth’s moon in a few years, and possibly to nearby asteroids and the Martian moons with straightforward extensions of existing skills and technology. So, the question is not whether humans are better than robots on Titan, or even on Mars. The question is, do human geologists on site give us enough improvement to justify sending them where we can send them — Earth’s moon? I believe the clear answer is yes.
I am not arguing against automated science where it is appropriate. It should never be appropriate where it is possible to send human geologists, at least not until robots can do a significant part what a human geologist can do — which even Mr. Squires admits is not likely to happen in any of our lifetimes.
— Donald
…which even Mr. Squires admits is not likely to happen in any of our lifetimes.
Except that Squyres is not really “admitting” to anything. (NB, Rand misspelled his name.) When Squyres argues for human spaceflight to Mars, he’s really hyping his own field. It doesn’t hurt him in any way to take this position. If he were assigned to a Mars astronaut project, that really would hurt him. Because, of course, human spaceflight to Mars is decades away, at least. In the meantime, robotic exploration is the only option.
Because, of course, human spaceflight to Mars is decades away, at least. In the meantime, robotic exploration is the only option.
Only partially true. Robotic exploration of Mars is the only option for now. As I argued above, the surface of Earth’s moon is probably more representative of most extra-terrestrial bodies and therefore at least as worthy of exploration, and far superior human beings are an immediate option there. And, while I don’t expect you to agree with this, the cost per unit science is probably lower. It would take hundreds of rovers to do what two geologists and a pilot could do in far less time, and the costs of the former strategy would quickly climb beyond the latter. To put it another way, the far greater efficiency of a human expedition would quickly overwhelm the greater up-front costs, high though they are.
— Donald
I am a big advocate of science, but these debates often have a high signal-to-noise ratio.
So let me interject a potentially controversial viewpoint in all this.
“Science” is NOT an end in itself. Science is not, and can not be, self-justifying.
Science is a tool, and only a tool (albeit an effective tool) to answer questions. The value of those answers is “depends”. Answers to some questions are generally accepted by most people to be extremely valuable (e.g., Is there other intelligent life in the Universe?) Others are much less so. (In many cases, as Donald says, it is a matter of subjective opinion for each person. In other cases, we can acutally put an economic value on the answer, as some scientific answers lead to economic growth and development (e.g., the scientific theory of quantum mechanics led to many breakthrough developments … such as transistors, which led to the semiconductor revolution, which has transformed human society in many many ways.)
Ipso facto, to understand the value of the proposed science, you need to know the purpose.
As such, when anybody asserts that “science on the Moon” (or insert favorite place) is valuable, or extremely valuable, they should back it up by explaining what the end purpose of that science is. Or what questions they propose to answer with the proposed science.
Donald, what kind of science could humans do on the Moon? What is the end purpose of that lunar science? What questions could this science answer, and what is the value of those answers?
After you answer, I will be able to formulate an opinion on whether this has any significant value. Without this, I have no real opinion.
– Al
PS — I can think of lots of “engineering” projects on the Moon that would be valuable. But that is a different subject. Please distinguish “engineering projects” from “science” in your answer.
Science happens to be the tool that has created every other tool you have ever used, every tool since we began shaping rocks, and sharpening sticks.
That pretty much elevates it to the highest position possible in my book of methods.
I think you should give it a little more respect.
Al, first a note of clarification. I do not agree with those who state that science is the only, or even the most important, reason for undertaking spaceflight. It is a reason. More important reasons (in my opinion) are the initial search for exploitable resources; learning to do the kinds of engineering we will need to exploit, say, asteroids; and (here and now) simply learning to function in space (e.g., with the Space Station and an early lunar base).
Science (geology) on the moon is important for (at least) the following reasons.
As I said above, and based on the book I advertised above, the surface of the moon is a far more complex place than most of us realize. This is partly because the actual geologic traverses done during the Apollo missions were largely ignored at the time because people were more interested in the success of actually getting there, and scientists wanted to hare off to Mars. I argue that this wide-spread ignorance of what Apollo actually accomplished resulted in a great distortion of the value of human exploration versus robotics that has damaged our space program ever since.
The stratigraphy of the cratering can be used to date the basin-forming impacts, and thus more tightly constrain the largely unknown history of the early bombardment.
The moon’s surface is a very common type of surface in the Solar System, while Earth, Venus, and to a lesser degree Mars, are all special cases. In many ways, it is more important to understand the moon’s surface than the special cases; and once you do, the special cases will make more sense. Impact breccia’s are virtually unknown on Earth and the early ones will be heavily modified on Mars, yet their behavior probably determine the surface properties of the vast majority of bodies in the universe. As such, understanding them and their behavior over time is probably more important to understanding the universe than is even understanding the (special case) Earth, and certainly Mars.
Detailed exploration of the surface is the best way to map exploitable resources. The asteroids that we may be able to exploit in the relatively near future will have breccia-dominated surfaces. Understanding them is important both for understanding asteroids, and understanding how to separate usable resources, especially early on when the latter will of necessity be on a small scale.
There are bound to be surprises (e.g., Apollo-16) which are totally unexpected from what we believe today.
The moon probably contains preserved materials from the earliest terrestrial continents, long since destroyed on Earth. These materials may preserve records of the earliest formation of life and its precursors. As such, they have a value (to us) beyond measure. However, they will be rare, scattered, and probably deep. Yet, they could never be found by robotic missions, and it would take an extensive geologic infrastructure to find them with human expeditions. The latter must be capable of traveling great distances and drilling great depths at many locations. Such an infrastructure could not be placed anywhere but on the moon in the near future — but it can be there.
Similar preserved remains may survive from the earliest periods from the other planets, particularly Mars and Mercury and the asteroids. The same may be true of interstellar materials and even the outer planets. Earth’s moon has been a static trap for most of the history of the Solar System, and its accessibility makes it far more valuable (to us) than the other such traps.
Finally, Mars surface may contain a poorer record of early breccias and processes in the early Solar System than does Earth’s moon, but otherwise the surface of Mars probably is dominated by modified breccias and thus has much more in common with the moon than with Earth (or Venus). As such, understanding the lunar surface will teach us more about Mars than understanding Mars will about Earth. If we are ever going to go to Mars, Earth’s moon probably provides a good analog.
Combine that all this with its extreme accessibility, and I think there is an excellent case for returning to Earth’s moon and conducting detailed exploration before we get ahead of ourselves haring across the Solar System with robots. Doing the latter has given us great information about the easy stuff and the surfaces — reconnaissance — but in the long-term, our successes have probably done us a disservice.
The history of science is replete with the wrong conclusions being drawn because you took a quick-and-dirty look at broad areas while failing to take a detailed look at the sites you can reach. We can reach the moon. We can do detailed geology of a type that we cannot do anywhere else for decades to come. That’s what we should be doing. It would be most valuable done with continued automated reconnaissance, but if you have to choose, you should do the former before you do that latter.
— Donald
Oh, yes, I fogot one of the most important of all: it is likely that life formed on Earth during the bombardment, therefore life may well have formed on a surface quite unlike today’s on Earth — a surface dominated by breccias. Understanding the behavior of breccias is important even to understanding the formation of life.
— Donald
Donald,
The “most important” reason you suggested, in MY opinion, is that early forms of Earth-life may have been deposited on the Moon, and are just waiting for our discovery. Now, that is a very interested possibility. I don’t know how “possible” it is that this has happened, but that is interesting.
I also happen to think that “exploring” the Moon to discover potential sources of PGMs near the surface from asteroids, as suggested by Dennis Wingo is another good science-based reason.
As we all know, we have a limited budget. I am always partial to investing in science that has a higher probability of turning space exploration & development into a “self-sustaining” activity that produces positive economic returns on investment. The White House understood this when they put “sustain” in the White House policy about the VSE. (Answering fundamental questions about life & the universe is also very good.)
– Al
Thomas Lee Elfritz said:
“Science happens to be the tool that has created every other tool you have ever used, every tool since we began shaping rocks, and sharpening sticks.
That pretty much elevates it to the highest position possible in my book of methods.
I think you should give it a little more respect.
*************
Dear Mr. Elfritz,
Donald had the appropriate response.
I am a big supporter of the scientific method. Our society could make do with much much more use of reason and logic that is encapsulated in what we call “science”.
But there is a general tendency among advocates (of any kind) to hype their approach as “THE SOLUTION”, and to ignore everything else. Many science advocates are no different. Since scientists are highly intelligent, they are fully capable of making a logical case of their work that is based on the value of the end result. Since they can do it, not doing it is just laziness.
The average tax-paying citizen intuitively understands that not all science is valuable. I can use science to answer questions about the number of atoms of fuzz in my navel, but that does not mean it is important. To argue that we should just support science “because scientists (and their supporters) say we should” is circular logic, and does not connect science to the end objectives that would be supported by the tax-paying public.
This is a recipe for failure.
Scientists have an responsibility to communicate what the end purpose of the proposed science is, to communicate why this is important to the general public, and to explain why this justifies use of the taxpayer’s hard-earned money.
– Al
Al: The “most important” reason you suggested, in MY opinion, is that early forms of Earth-life may have been deposited on the Moon, and are just waiting for our discovery. Now, that is a very interested possibility. I don’t know how “possible” it is that this has happened, but that is interesting.
I believe that it is widely accepted that this must have happened. Recall that the bombardment must have stuck both Earth and our moon at the same time. Both bodies probably had impact-generated lava oceans with a “scum” rising to the surface that became the first crust. This may have happened repeatedly, although even on the moon, the record of this has largely been destroyed by later impacts and covered by debris from the last basin-forming impacts. Apollo had great difficulty locating samples of this first deeply-buried crust, although they are believed to have succeeded.
Life on Earth appeared immediately after the final solidification of the crust, and may have appeared independently in the (possibly) multi-million year inter-impact periods.
Just like samples of Mars and the moon have been found on Earth, the giant basin-forming impacts on early Earth would have splattered the moon with debris. The trick on the moon will be to look at layers of the “scum” preserved under the impact debris, and amongst the debris itself.
Finding such material would be of immeasurable value to geology, biology, palaeontology, and other sciences, but finding it will be extremely difficult. It will involve searching through great quantities of material at great depths.
However, there is hope. Large modern impacts excavate material to great depth, and secondary impacts can leave much of the excavated material more-or-less intact. Explorers should look for areas where modern craters have excavated the “scum” crust and lower layers of early impact debris and distributed it on the surface. Material from the deepest layers will be on the rims and central peaks of the craters, so the ability to climb steep slopes covered with lose regolith and talus will be required. Astronauts can do that with relative ease (even Apollo astronauts handled more than twenty-degree slopes, and new-generation spacesuits will have far greater mobility).
— Donald
OK, repeat after me … science per dollar, science per dollar, science per dollar … That’s the mantra that this is about.
I have no problem with the idea that a human geologist offers potentially more scientific perspective than a robot. Or, more precisely, a telerobot, since in that case human geologists on the Earth will be doing the real work. But until one can get that geologist to the surface of the Moon anywhere near as economically as we can get smart, mobile, and dextrous hardware there, using science as an important justification for sending a real person there, and at considerable risk, is not justifiable. That’s true at least for the Moon, where telerobotic latency is small. See, when that lunar astronaut dies in the name of science you said he was going there to do, one better be able to look to that science to honor his effort and not see something that could have been done robotically at lower cost. Should it be the case that a human wasn’t necessary, or even cost effective, that’s a big “oops”. I believe that’s largely why, post-Columbia, we never hear much about science as a justification for ISS anymore.
Thanks, Greg for your correction on Moore’s Law scaling. I accept the proposition that capability (processor speed, memory capacity) might not translate directly to usefulness, but I still think there is a compelling case that the latter bears strongly on the former. Are two scientists twice as good as one? Well,yes, I think so. For precisely that reason.
As to the functional comparison of MER and Lunokhod, reach for that reset button again again. I know rather little about Lunokhod, and know quite a bit about MER, but saying that the capabilities of the latter are superior to the former in just a “limited” way seems a long stretch. Perhaps someone that knows about Lunokhod smart navigation, multijoint precision dexterity, and high resolution imaging and spectral sensors can enlighten me.
As to comm bandwidth and functionality, the main way an astronaut can benefit from Mb/s to do science is if she is playing the role of a robot, sending detailed info back for analysis to be carried out by remote intelligence. So I don’t think bandwidth at levels much higher than needed for voice comm counts as much as it does for a non-human agent as it does for a machine. In that context, the Mercury astronauts could certainly have assembled the ISS. I don’t think they were less intelligent, or less physically dextrous than those who actually did. But they needed good tools and well engineered components, both of which apply to robots as well. Mb/s comm links would not have helped them a lot, except to the extent that we use the astronauts as telerobotic agents. “Show us what your problem is Mr. Shepherd, and we’ll tell you what to do about it.”
As to the importance of science, I think we all agree. (Thank goodness.) As to the value of lunar science, I think we also agree, though perhaps not completely with regard to relative value. As to the importance of human spaceflight, I think we agree as well, but it’s just a question of how humans in space can best contribute to science.
I thank Don for his excellent summary of lunar science questions. All well understood questions. But the existence of those questions is not the issue at hand. As I recall, the question was whether science could be considered a compelling reason to send people back to the Moon, not whether there would be some science for them to do once they got there. Fine to say that as long as we’re going back to the Moon to do X,Y, and Z (things that we couldn’t do otherwise), we might as well do some science. But not fine to say that science can justifiably drive that return.
Back to work!
Doug,
I agree with your mantra “science per dollar, science per dollar” within a process that establishes science priorities, and with the clarification that you mean “science *value* per dollar”, and that “science value” is a subjective measurement.
This subjective nature is why we have open deliberative science organizations (like the NAS) help establish science priorities.
That being said, I think the strongest arguments for going to the Moon have nothing to do with science. IMO, NASA already focuses too much on science. If we are seriously concerned about science in this country, let’s give the NSF or the NIH some of NASA’s science funding. NSF and NIH have much better “science value for the dollar”.
Right now NASA needs for focus more on a breakthrough in economics. (WHAT IF NASA had a $5 billion annual budget for for the purpose of developing breakthroughs in space economics? The space world would become much different in a short period of time.)
I believe that the White House is on the same page. Look at the recent statements by the White House Director of OSTP (Marburger) about using the resources of the Moon, such as in situ generation of oxygen (and hopefully water), as being critically important.
Here is the Director of the Office of SCIENCE and Technology Policy focusing not on the science of the Moon, but on the economic sustainability issues.
Gerard O’Neill was right. The in situ resources of the Moon, such as oxygen, are critically important to opening up the solar system to economically sustainable development.
On a similar issue, I also think Bob Zubrin is right . The in situ resources of Mars are critically important to establishing a permanent settlement on Mars.
– Al
Doug: But until one can get that geologist to the surface of the Moon anywhere near as economically as we can get smart, mobile, and dextrous hardware there,
I was going to bring up the subjectivity of this statement before I read Al using the word immediately above in a different context.
“Smart,” “mobile,” and “dextrous” are all subjective measures. Let’s reduce this to a simple question. “Can any foreseeable robot be expected to find a small number of difficult-to-locate samples — like pieces of Earth’s early crust — hidden in the regolith on Earth’s moon? Or a fossil on Mars?”
Given how difficult it is for geologists to do these tasks on Earth, I believe the answer is a fairly unambiguous, “No.”
You obviously believe otherwise. At this point in time, neither of us really knows, but if I am correct any relative “cheapness” of robots is irrelevant — they cannot find what we are after. Remember Viking, which, while a complete technical success, totally failed at its primary mission. Automating science — as opposed to “reconnaissance” — is really, really hard.
Astronauts have already demonstrated their ability to do this sort of thing, as when the Apollo astronauts managed to correctly identify and return a piece of the early lunar crust. This turned out to be much harder than was expected, and its a safe bet that no likely robot could have done it.
using science as an important justification for sending a real person there, and at considerable risk, is not justifiable.
That, too, is a subjective measure. If the science isn’t that valuable, why are we “wasting” so much money sending robots? If it is so valuable that it’s worth the lost opportunity costs of all that money, surely it’s worth a volunteered life or two.
Again, people have completely forgotton what the Apollo astronauts achieved. Partly this is because its lost in the mists of history, partly its because of an anti-lunar bias, and partly it’s because the infrastructure required by the automated science crowd was paid for by someone else, and robots therefore appear to be much cheaper than they really are.
Which brings us to the economics. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is rapidly proving that the operational costs of sending an orbiter to the moon still comes in at half-a-billion dollars. The operational costs of sending a crew is only some five times that. Even doubling that, I think the crew is more than worth it.
If we are going to bill the $100 billion needed to re-create the Saturn infrastructure, than the LRO and MER and so on need to start refunding all the billions taxpayers spent to develop their Deltas and Titans and Atlasses. . . .
Yes, the latter are already developed, but what would we have foregone had they not been developed? In purely scientific terms, what will we be giving up if we fail to develop the infrastructure needed to send geologists to Earth’s moon? I know I am in the minority, but, even in purely scientific terms, I think its a lot more than we’re giving up by reducing the growth in what we spend on robots.
— Donald