Today’s Huntsville Times reports on a speech given by Sen. Barbara Mikulski yesterday to a delegation of business leaders from north Alabama. Mikulski talks first about supporting the robotic lunar program office at NASA MSFC, which she and others have asked NASA not to close, as well as the other exploration-related work going on at the center. “We know if it’s made in Huntsville, we can count on it. We want to make sure we keep (space travel plans) on time and on schedule.”
Harmless stuff, so far. Then, however, she says the exploration program is essential to national security: “China also wants to go to the moon, and they want the moon to become a military base in space… We’ve got to get back to the moon first and be able to stay there. The nation’s investment in space should be one of our top national security priorities.” It’s one thing to say that China is “racing” the US to the Moon: while debatable, one can find some evidence to support such a claim. However, to assert that China want to turn the Moon into “a military base in space” goes a bit beyond the pale: not only is there no evidence (that I’m aware of) for such plans, it wouldn’t make much sense in the first place, unless your military thinking is stuck in the 1950s.
I have to say that I am seriously disappointed in Ms. Mikulski. I had thought that she, along with the Republican gentleman from New York (Mr. Sensenbrenner), were rare voices of scientific reason in the last Congress — even in the frequent instances when I’ve disagreed with them. I’ve been a little disturbed at Ms. Mikulski’s willingness to defend her State’s space interests even when it is clearly opposed to the national interest (e.g., Landsat), but even there I recognize that defending her State is her job. But, these statements go way too far. It’s sad, but it looks like she’s going the same way as the Administration in her willingness to take absurdly extreme positions in order to achieve a political goal, albeit in an entirely different political direction.
— Donald
Donald: Congressman Sensenbrenner is from Wisconsin, not New York. Perhaps you’re thinking of former House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert?
Politicians love to speak. Unfortunately for them, it’s an exceptions to the rule of the more they do it, the less foolish they sound.
Of course it all depends on what a hypothetical military base would be for. Using such a facility to strike at the Earth would be silly. But defending China’s percieved interests on the Moon could be just the ticket.
Then again, since China’s space program is run by its military, it follows that any Chinese lunar base would be military. So I don’t think Babs is far off the mark. It is a remarkable change from when she went through the funing for Bush the Elder’s exploration plan like the Visigoths through Rome.
I had thought that she, along with the Republican gentleman from New York (Mr. Sensenbrenner), were rare voices of scientific reason in the last Congress
Why in the world had you thought that? She’s been supporting space programs that benefit Maryland for decades, but I never saw anything she said as indicative of “scientific reason.” Of course, that’s true of almost all members of Congress. And why is science the rational for space, anyway?
Thanks, Jeff, you are of course correct.
— Donald
I was going to write something picking on Mark W.’s tinfoil-hattery over China’s “lunar ambitions”, but he beat me to the punch. We cannot have a lunar base gap!
~Jon
Jon – Not to worry. I’m assured by very smart people that the private sector will be sending people to the Moon any day now, well in advance of any gummit operation, and will be able to hold off the Chinese People’s Army with deer rifles and shot guns.
The “Reds on the Moon” thing is about the dumbest reason to do a return to the Moon since oh whatever reason Bush proposed.
I wait for Mark Whittington (since he seems to believe this nonesese) to explain to us “one” just “one” strategic reason for the PRC to “grab the Moon”…lol
This is the dumbest thing since Saddam had WMD that he was going to fly over and “mushroom” us using drones…
Of course well that worked.
Robert
Oler – The Chinese are very aware of the Moon’s potential as the “Persian Gulf” of this century as a source of energy and raw materials for space industry. Control of the Moon would make China the sole super power. Now even even Senator Mikulski can be aware of this, I’m not sure how you cannot.
Jon and others seem to ignore this one fact. Despite the chest thumping from the Internet Rocketeer Club, China has done one thing that private industry has yet to do: actually launch people into orbit.
I’m not sure what Iraqi WMDs have to do with the subject, except perhaps as a means for Oler to massage his Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The Chinese are very aware of the Moon’s potential as the “Persian Gulf†of this century as a source of energy
I’m almost tempted to roflcopter that comment. I could just as easily say the Chinese are aware of the huge practical difficulties with any such scheme, and this explains their very tepid pace in manned space activities.
Control of the Moon would make China the sole super power.
Sorry, Mark, it’s not 1957. Whether they can analyze the reasons or not, many people do understand at a gut level that the post-Sputnik “high ground” rhetoric was grossly overblown. And at least some space advocates do understand that this kind of hype and over-selling have hurt their cause more in the long run than they ever helped in the short run.
By the time — many decades from now — that lunar resources could be of true strategic consequence, I very much doubt China will be recognizably the same as an international actor. I’m not all that sure the US will be.
But of course, that doesn’t matter if one is concerned less with likelihoods then than with finding a useful bogeyman now…
China’s lunar ambitions are unknown to all but a small number of Chinese. Maybe someday they’ll share their thoughts with the rest of us. In the mean time, China is developing their own world class science and technology educational and manufacturing organizations. As are other countries. China is leading the new players since they’ve put two men in space. When the US and Russia started back in the 60’s, it wasn’t just to loop the earth, we wanted to leave earth for the moon. Russia also got that bug too. I seriously doubt that China has a vision of LEO for its taikanauts. They have the technology, education and wealth to do just about anything they want.
They have the technology, education and wealth to do just about anything they want.
Quite true. So do we. Is “China could do big things in space” your entire argument for pushing the US pedal to the firewall? Or do you have any passing interest in trivial questions such as “Is that the most immediate and/or consequential challenge China poses?”
Or “Which offers more leverage: going to the Moon again, or developing cheaper ways to LEO — which would be cheaper ways to everything beyond?”
Great, another space pissing match. Instead of making progress with what we have, we’ll start over AGAIN!
China has done one thing that private industry has yet to do: actually launch people into orbit.
That would be a surprise to certain misters Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen, Simonyi and a certain miss Ansari.
MarkWhittington wrote @ April 19th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Oler – The Chinese are very aware of the Moon’s potential as the “Persian Gulf†of this century as a source of energy and raw materials for space industry. Control of the Moon would make China the sole super power.
Do you really believe this?
Oh surely this is just some right wing paranoia that the far right puts out and you go along with at the secret decoder meetings…
The Greatest threat the PRC has to this country is that our economy (thanks to Bush deficit spending) is borrowing heavily from them. Instead of going to the Moon to become a superpower they could do waht IKE did when he wanted to shut the Brits and French down at Suez…he started selling Pounds and Franks…and watched their econmies start to “dither”.
If you want to be concerned about something in the “we need an enemy” meetings of the far right wing…try being concerned about this…by 2020 the PRC will probably be challenging Boeing for building Transport Category airplanes…
thats a real problem.
The Chinese controlling the Moon.
“We know for sure Saddam has weapons of mass destruction” (Dick Cheney played on MTP when General Zinni was the guest on Sunday)
Remain calm Mark, the children in this administration will soon be gone.
Robert
Where to start…
The “sole super power”….(laughing off)…They can put two or twenty or two hunderd people on the Moon and what does it get them? Unless they develop the technology and the transportation system to “do something” once they get there that changes life on earth…OK they could rule the Moon but it wouldnt change things down on the Earth.
IF they could come up with a transportation system that would let them afford to do something on the Moon which changed hte balance of power on the Earth well then you might have something…but what is it? HE3?
Well they can bring a lot of that back I guess but unless you have the reactors to put it in then all you have is HE3…
What else do you envision them doing on the Moon which derives them superpower status…
Or do you equate superpower status with PR?
Moving on…”the Persian Gulf of this century”…so you must be thinking of HE3…or what solar energy?
Moving on…â€the Persian Gulf of this centuryâ€â€¦so you must be thinking of HE3…or what solar energy?
Naaa, like any good apologist, he want to throw huge moon rocks at us with a mass driver.
The Chinese might claim the Moon and permanently establish the superiority of their capitalist economy over our socialist economy.
The Chinese might claim the Moon and permanently establish the superiority of their capitalist economy over our socialist economy.
Clearly this is a terrible threat, a China powered by Helium 3 fusion reactors, and billions of well equipped Chinese space troops defending the moon from hostile imperialist invaders. I just knew cowboys and horseys on the moon was a bad idea – didn’t I say that? You guys should have listened to me when you had the chance, now all is lost. ALL IS LOST!
OK they could rule the Moon but it wouldnt change things down on the Earth.
Well, there is potential for abundant precious metals in buried asteroids. That would definitely change some global economics equations. Although, it would probably make more sense to look for them directly on NEOs.
Abundance of certain precious metals would enable lots of different products that are just uneconomical to develop for the masses right now, platinum catalysts in fuel cells come to mind for example.
Mind you, im not saying this will happen, im saying there is potential that can be currently speculated about. And there are definitely unknown potentials that will become known only after extensive presence on lunar surface.
Kert: I think the most likely commercial export from Earth’s moon in the foreseeable future is oxygen for use in space.
The Oxygen Road.
— Donald
The Moon offers zero advantage militarily or economically. Perhaps in a hundred or so years, this may not be the case. But for right now, it is. This was probably the greatest lesson from the Apollo era…”don’t get schnuckered into spending tremendous amounts of $, when you really have nothing to gain from it.”
Apollo was a glorious boondogle, but a boondogle nonetheless. Now we have a chance to do it right, by supporting private ventures to send people (not glorified civil servants) into space.
In the meantime, NASA can focus on what it does best…broadening our understanding of the universe and bringing that message humankind.
I think the most likely commercial export from Earth’s moon in the foreseeable future is oxygen for use in space.
That could be, but this wouldnt change any economic equations on earth in any reasonable way. Precious metals could do that, and for certain metals, there doesnt have to physically much of them to totally turn terrestrial markets upside down.
Kert, you’re making a key economic mistake that many others make, and that substantially exaggerates the hurdle that space industries need to cross to be economically successful. To be considered “profitable,” spaceflight does not need to “change any economic equations” on Earth, reasonable or otherwise. It only needs to make cheaper something somebody is going to do anyway. For example, SpaceX does not need to revolutionize the terrestrial economy, they only need to make access to orbit cheaper for, say, the DoD, or for supplying the Space Station. That is a much lower hurdle to cross.
In the lunar oxygen example, lunar oxygen does not need to directly make anyone money on Earth or even be used on Earth (which is a good thing, since it wouldn’t be!). It only needs to supply return flights from the moon, or the Space Station oxygen requirement, for substantially less money than it takes to supply oxygen requirements from Earth. As long as humanity supports the Space Station and / or sends astronauts to Earth’s moon (if we ever do that again), or does any other substantial oxygen-consuming activity in space, the market is there.
— Donald
Come on, people… you’re missing the MOST OBJECTIONABLE thing that Mikulski said, albeit as the guest of Sen. Shelby:
“We want to work with the NASA administrator to make sure we have reliable transportation to take us [to the Moon].
“We know if it’s made in Huntsville, we can count on it. We want to make sure we keep (space travel plans) on time and on schedule.”
I guess NASA could really depend on those SRB o-rings. And the foam-shedding External Tanks. And the X-33 to show up on time.
Gotta love those Huntsville-designed/managed space transportation projects… ever since Von Braun left, MSFC has consistently produced deadly, broken, costly, and late rockets.
So let’s depend on them for Ares 1 and 5 so we REALLY get to the Moon.
Jeez, Mikulski should be ashamed of herself.
I dunno if von Braun is the model we want to go to for future space exploration. After all, he came up with an absurdly complicated plan for a manned Mars program, the classic “Battlestar Galactica” type of hyper-expensive scheme that sank Bush 41’s proposal.
Apparently the properly sophisticated reaction to pointing out the serious long-term geopolitical challenge that China represents is to sneer that it’s uncool to say such things.
I was also unimpresesd at the gratuitous swipes at the Administration – a playground level “no WMDs, hur hur hur”. Aside from its utter irrelevancy to the topic at hand, how did it educate anyone or advance any debate at all?
Apparently the properly sophisticated reaction to pointing out the serious long-term geopolitical challenge that China represents is to sneer that it’s uncool to say such things.
Considering the real long term geopolitical challenges encompass things like global warming, disruption of oil flow, financial collapse, feeding the masses from a diminishing ecosystem, and of course, asteroids, among other imminent natural and man-made disasters, I would say, yes, being worried about the Chinese beating us to the moon is pretty far down on the list of priorities. Not only is it uncool, it’s totally paranoid.
Now if the Chinese were able to field a credible launcher with a credible propulsion system, and started pouring huge amount of launch dollars into launch operations, then yes, I would say that we have a problem. But the extreme disparity of scale of actual space launch capabilities verses many space exploration fantasies is readily apparent to the rational eye, so until that changes, it’s pretty easy to laugh off paranoid delusions and grandiose visions of cowboys and horseys and plastic army guys on the moon..
Now if the Chinese were able to field a credible launcher with a credible propulsion system, and started pouring huge amount of launch dollars into launch operations, then yes, I would say that we have a problem.
I have to disagree.
If the Chinese were to field a credible RLV — which would be both a military spaceplane, and allow them a path to become the dominant force in Earth orbit in both the economic (as well as militarily) spheres — THEN I would say we have a problem.
The reverse is also true.
I see little military value (in the next Century) in putting people on the Moon, without “cheap access” to LEO. If your goal is national security, I see huge near-term military (and economic) value in achieving “cheap access” to LEO.
Suggesting that investing now in a lunar base — will help with US national security — is similar to suggesting (in the 1600s) that colonizing the new world will help England with its national security concerns in Europe. In 100-300 years, that “lunar base/settlement” might grow enough to effectively intervene in a national security matter (e.g., WWI & WWII), but we have urgent issues on a much shorter time scale. In fact, the only way for that lunar base to grow sufficiently to help is to achieve cheap access to space.
All roads go through cheap access.
– Al
All roads go through cheap access.
Cheep, cheep, do I hear a little birdie cheaping? If you want cheap, you’ll never get to orbit, let alone low Earth orbit, and you won’t stay there. What we need is volume, and then costs will fall, but accelerating a mass to a minimum of 7500 m/s and then making that mass sophisticated enough to carry out a space mission will never be ‘cheap’, unless all you are doing is throwing a mass of something (uranium or plutonium, and a small amount of explosives for instance), and that can be accomplished much cheaper by never reaching orbit. The Chinese know this, that’s why they have volume rockets that can double as ICBMs.
The kind of irrationality I find here is both amusing and frustrating, but it goes with the political territory that now litters the landscape of America, like the disposable carnage of an overflowing landfill.
If you want to get to low earth orbit, might I suggest propulsion and tankage as your first priorities? You know, the rational approach.
The way things are going in America, I may as well go work for Volvo. Even my astrodynamics tools are all European now. As long as America’s goals in space are based on the irrational reasoning of an irrational administration, America is going nowhere, and I see little or no evidence that anything has changed at all here since November 7, 2006. You know America, though, when they do anything, they do it in a big way, and when America decided to go irrational, they pulled out all the stops. And so here we are. If it wasn’t so tragic I’d be laughing hysterically. But since I’m rational, hysteria doesn’t seem to solve my problems.
Kert, you’re making a key economic mistake that many others make
Actually i am not. I am full well aware of benefits that ISRU holds for space missions on its own.
However, if you look above, i was specifically repsponding to the claim that they (chinese) could rule the moon, but it wouldnt change a thing down on earth
I was pointing out that it could, in a very measurable impact to global economics. Ask the shareholders of MMC Norilsk Nickel what they think about opening up a new abundant supply of various PGM metals …
Former House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker toured Star City cosmonaut training facility and saw a Chinese crew training in surface EVA techniques.
http://tinyurl.com/d1zj
I think we would be wise to take space as seriously as the Chinese do.
Leo: Actually, Walker only said that the Chinese were practicing in EVA techniques; there was no specific mention of surface EVAs.
You missed the most incendiary statement from that op-ed:
The op-ed was published in May 2003.
[…] couple weeks ago we heard that we have to go back to the Moon or else the Chinese will turn it into a military base. Now we hear that Democrats want to “cripple” the nation’s human spaceflight […]