Forwards to 2001
There are times when blogging is a way of spreading news or sharing experiences, and there are times when it feels more like extended therapy. In the latter category lie my attempts to come to terms with manned spaceflight. I’ve always wrestled with this; I believe in the inspirational power of rising above our atmosphere and I’d go like a shot if you asked me - even if all you were offering was a one way ticket to Mars with my name on it. As a scientist, though, it’s difficult for me to justify the return. (There’s a case to be made for non-astronomical science, I admit, although I’m still not convinced by that).
On top of that existential dilemma is added the problem of assessing NASA’s current plans, which call for a rapid retirement for the shuttle and the development of a new set of launchers (as anyone who watched March’s Sky at Night will know (link opens in Realplayer).
I embarked on the round of interviews that became that program as a sceptic as to whether any of these ambitious plans, including a return to the Moon, would ever come off, but returned believing that NASA were playing a clever game. The political issue is the ‘gap’ - the time between the retirement of the shuttle and the launch of the first of the new generation. Whatever the attitudes of the new president, it doesn’t seem politically viable to me that the US would abandon all hope of a manned space program at a time when the Chinese in particular are increasing their presence in space.
This is a gamble, though, and the decision to demolish the shuttle program as quickly as possible, designed partly to make sure the commitment to press on is absolute (I think we may already have passed the point where it’s more expensive to build new shuttles or renovate the existing ones than to build Orion, at least on paper). The point of bringing this up now is that three posts from three different blogs yesterday illustrate the nature of the gamble we - or rather NASA - are taking.
First, Universe Today reported on John Glenn’s criticism of the current plans. Glenn - Apollo astronaut, the oldest man to fly on the shuttle and once a US senator - argues for a longer term investment and criticises the decision to rely on Russian vehicles to travel to and from the station.
That concern is underlined by the recent Soyuz landing, carrying three crew members down from the ISS. As James Oberg explains, something went badly wrong, sending the crew onto a ballistic trajectory (which is as scary as it sounds) and landing 400 km or so off course. The cause is still unknown, but Oberg’s conclusion is worrying :
After decades of service, it’s hard to imagine that the Soyuz has a design flaw of any significance, so the issue here may instead be fabrication quality. This is a frightening possibility, since the Soyuz manufacturer, the Energia Korolev Rocket and Space Corp., in Moscow, has had to double its Soyuz production rate in preparation for the increase of the space station crew from three to six people next year. .
Is it me, or would that make you think twice about relying on Soyuz for roughly five years worth of trips to and from the ISS?
Where does this leave us? With a sense of frustration, perhaps, because it’s the 21st century now and it’s supposed to be the future. Whatever you think of the ISS - and it’s an impressive piece of kit whatever it does - it’s hard not to echo Phil’s response to comparisons between real 2008 and fictional 2001.
For those of us who want to believe in making fiction reality (and ‘wanting’ is about as sophisticated an analysis as I’ve ever come up with), there’s an overwhelming desire to just shout ‘GET ON WITH IT’. That wouldn’t help, and if blogging about this really is therapy then I have, as usual, talked myself into a corner.
P.S. ESA are looking for astronauts, although it’s not clear what they’d be doing for the next ten years or so - or if the worst happens and funding gets cut across the board what unemployed astronauts do.
on May 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Like you I am sceptical about manned space flight.Too much effort has to be put into jut keeping the humans alive. But also like you I would be first in the queue to be sent out there, even on a one way ticket.
on May 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
In the main it’s just the Human brain that we want up there and as mentioned the cost of keeping humans alive is big. So robots with a human brain would be ideal the ultimate computor in an ageless piece of hardware, mind you the way the Japenese are advancing with robots the human brain may no longer be required!
on May 16th, 2008 at 7:22 am
1. It’s perfectly clear what the new ESA astronauts would be doing “for the next ten years or so”. Serving their duties on ISS.
2. “the US would abandon all hope of a manned space program”. Private US companies are bending metal as I’m writing on both manned orbital spaceship and station. Go check Bigelow Aerospace (two habitat prototypes in orbit) and SpaceX.
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:48 am
[...] paranormal, post humanism, science, secrets. Tags: aliens, Big Brother, carnival of space, Vatican trackback This week’s Carnival Of Space is hosted by Altair VI, a blog I don’t read enough of:I’m glad that Paul Gilster at Centauri Dreams nominated his “Rethinking Galactic Empire”post for this week’s Carnival, because it was the most mind-expanding blog post I read all week. Will we outgrow our visions of interstellar expansion when we go post-biological? As Paul reported, astronomer and SETI philosopher Milan Cirkovic thinks that it’s possible, and that it might help to resolve the Fermi Paradox.Catholic Sensibility offered up “Brown Sugar Astronomy”, a yummy educational demo on the density and structure of Solar System objects. Reminds me that I need to come up with a dessert for Samantha’s preschool open house on Friday. Rob Simpson at Orbiting Frog is also playing with sugary foods in the interest of science education. Have a bite of his clever “Measure the Speed of Light Using Your Microwave” demo.Bad Astronomy debunked UFOsthis past week, and Charles Lintott summed up his anxiety about the future of spaceflight using astronauts. A Babe in the Universe looked at the “Science of Iron Man” and concluded that there might actually be some. Space Cynicssuffered the psychic pain of seeing a hero knocked from his pedestal, and Out of the Cradle looked at novel forms of lunar recreation. Starts with a Bang considered the best way to deflect asteroids, while Mang’s Bat Page proposed the Great Astronomers Badge Swap. And, AstroEngine shared some nifty video of dynamic coronal loops from the STEREO mission. [...]
on May 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
CentEur
Perhaps I didn’t make that clear enough; my point was that the pitch for the job talked about the Moon and Mars - not about the ISS.