Book Review: Blogging the Moon

I've had the pleasure of listening to Paul Spudis talk about his future vision for the moon several times, most recently at Marshall Space Flight Center, and this book--a collection of entries from his Air & Space Magazine blog--provides fleshed-out versions of arguments he makes in his standard stump speech. The short version of Spudis's take on the human future in space is simply to build capabilities for living and working in space, starting with the Moon as a base. Spudis makes the case that the Moon is the best place to start human expansion into the solar system because it's close, it's (scientifically) interesting, and it's useful. That's the short version. The longer version, addressed in various ways in this book, covers a variety of issues related to this cause, and it ranks with The Case for Mars, Mining the Sky, and The High Frontier as one of the major "visions" to be found in the space advocacy community.

As I noted in my earlier blog, there are several things I like about Spudis's vision for space development:

• He keeps his development program affordable by keeping the process incremental, using a combination of robotic and human activities to get the various jobs done.
• He concentrates on building technological capabilities and infrastructure that, while tested on the Moon, might be used at other destinations, such as asteroids or Mars.
• He focuses on a target that we know how to reach and that has become a lot more interesting in the last 40 years (more on that momentarily)
• He doesn't depend on hype or that overused word, "inspiration" to get the general public to support space--as he points out more than once, the general public really doesn't care about space unless there's something dramatic going on, and even then it's a 50/50 coin toss on whether they support what we're doing up there.
• He ties his program to realistic policy concerns that are ongoing, not flavor-of-the-year: national security, science, and economic development--and the Moon can support all three.

What was curious to me was how much the blog entries in this book felt like "deja vu all over again." Writing at the height of the debate over and subsequent cancellation of the Constellation Program, Spudis's blogs covered a particularly painful time in my life, as I faced several personal stresses resulting from the fact that my professional life was in a bit of doubt. Aside from reading about events and arguments that I'd forgotten--purposely or otherwise--what was curious to me was how many of the issues, discussions, and arguments Spudis addressed about Constellation have reared their ugly heads today as I support the Space Launch System. Does our space program have a mission? Is a heavy-lift launch vehicle necessary to accomplish said mission? Where are we going to go next? The arguments haven't changed, and neither has some of the "attitude" involved. What makes today different from 2009-2010 is that we know that Constellation ended--so what now?

Spudis's answers to the the first three questions are no, not necessarily, and, not surprisingly, the Moon. He is not shy about his dislike of the dismantling of the Vision for Space Exploration, which he differentiates from the Constellation Program. He saw the VSE as a strategic direction, designed to establish a permanent human presence in space, while he sees Constellation as a vehicle program that didn't necessarily follow the intent of the Vision. It might not make some NASA strategists happy--like Robert Zubrin, he's not shy about criticizing the government space agency--but it is well worth reading as an informed opinion on the topic of space.

This book is more timely now, perhaps, than the original entries that were published in them because they were written as several lunar missions were just beginning to collect new information about that battered sphere in our sky, including Chandrayaan, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), and others. The data that has come in from these missions--some of which is summarized in the video presentation included in the DVD at the back of the book--have made a solid case for water ice on the Moon. And water, as Spudis points out, is just about the most useful substance humans could find there, as it can be used for air, water itself, insulation material for habitats, and most importantly, rocket fuel. Spudis seems torn somewhere between frustrated in these entries, as he considers the current state of affairs unlikely to produce the vision he lays out, which is a permanent human presence throughout the solar system. Still, one never knows what will come next, or how the current program might be used to advance Spudis's vision.

If there is one disadvantage to the blog format of this book as opposed to the other big space-vision books I mentioned earlier, it is that the vision is not organized systematically. Often reacting to the events of the day, Spudis does not have the opportunity in a weekly blog to lay out a step-by-step argument for his vision. Still, his vision is there, and he makes his primary points again and again over the course of several years. If you want a more complete description of his approach to space development, you can always check out his website. I'd heard one person call Spudis a "one-trick pony," which is hardly fair, as his architecture is hardly simple. I might call his work principled or consistent, and he consistently concerned about our nation's future in space, as we all should be.

The NASA Budget, Part III

As usual, the following opinions are mine alone, and do not reflect the positions of NASA, my employer, or the National Space Society. They are the reactions of a private citizen (and NASA contractor) who cares deeply about space exploration.

Let me be positive first. The NASA budget proposed for 2011 increases funding for environmental monitoring, technology research for long-term exploration needs, basic science, and commercial launches to the International Space Station. All of these activities are worthwhile, and I have no problem with any of that.


However, by closing down the Constellation Program and ramping down the Space Shuttle, the administration is killing long-range human exploration beyond Earth orbit in this country.


I did not come to work at NASA to write about satellites or robots or some orbital taxi service to a space station that, quite frankly, bores me. I want to see people on the Moon. On asteroids. On Mars. On the moons of Jupiter. Boldly going where we've never gone before. That's the inspirational part of space for me. That's the mission I signed up for. And yes, I'd like to go to one of those places myself one day.


A lot of other people are like that, too. I love the Mars rovers, and I've been impressed by their longevity. But they're not people. The emotional connection isn't there. Most people my age (40) or older can name the first men to walk on the Moon. Can anyone name a designer of the rovers? That's part of the point: everyone can at least imagine what it would be like to ride a rocket or set foot on another world. Only a select few could imagine or care about building a robot.


The program proposed by this new budget lacks that inspiration. NASA will be reduced to inspiring people who want to build robots or composite widgets, or whatever. It will kill jobs in numerous states (including, obviously, mine), and it will deprive Obama, who claims to support science and engineering education, of one of the most powerful motivators out there: "Study real hard, Judy, and one day you, too, can be an astronaut!"


And from a space settlement perspective, it's a step backward from getting people closer to living and working in settlements off of Earth. So we still need Constellation or something like it for space to reallly inspire people. I just don't know if we can make the sale in the current political or budget climate, which is most unfortunate, because NASA is one of the few federal programs I can name off the top of my head that actually give the taxpayer a productive, useful, and inspirational return on their tax dollars.

Much as I dislike political wrangling, I hope the Congress will fight this budget--NOT to stop what IS being spent, but to PRESERVE what has been cut. Imagine a space program that increases funding for environmental monitoring, technology research for long-term exploration needs, basic science, commercial launches to the International Space Station, AND human missions into the great beyond. How inspirational THAT would be!

Potpourri XXXIV

Lots of stuff out there about the NASA budget and the upcoming review being led by Norm Augustine.

Speaking of the budget, the Obama administration has released its $3.4 TRILLION budget. Dang. I mean, really. Trillions. And I learned from Tracy that the theme of the 2010 budget is--wait for it, put your drink down first--fiscal responsibility. They're going to save(!) $17 billion by cutting a couple of token programs. I heard somewhere that the 2010 Obama budget racks more debt in one year than all of the other presidents built up combined, from George Washington to George W. So if the economy is recovering do we really need a high-debt budget that we can't afford? "Fiscal responsibility." Wow. Pardon me while I LOL.

The Orion crew exploration vehicle now has a presence on Facebook (must be a member to view). Ares is coming soon--promise!

Hat tip to Father Dan for this reminder: starting June 1, you will need a passport to enter Bermuda, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean region.

Tip o' the fedora to Marianne for finding this editorial on why the Law of the Sea Treaty is bad for the energy industry.

Two thumbs up to Tracy for finding this useful statistic comparing Apollo exploration and the Mars rovers:

On Apollo 17, the total EVA distance covered by two astronauts was 22.2miles (19.3 nautical miles). This included 4 hours and 29 seconds of LRVtravel. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-30_Extravehicular_Activity.htm

Compared to around 12 miles covered by 2 robotic rovers in 5 years.

I am impressed and proud as I can be of the Mars rovers and the folks who built them. But just imagine how much more can and will be done when we send humans there!

Speaking of humans in space, here's a YouTube video of the two shuttles on the pad--last time this will happen, folks! The one with the three big towers around it is Launch Complex 39B, where Ares I-X will be launched later this summer.

Some warm and fuzzy reading courtesy of Brother Allison to help rock you to sleep at night: bio-war in the 21st century.

Rick Steves has a new book out titled "Travel as a Political Act." That means, yes, he's going to talk about politics. And being a good liberal, Mr. Steves will have many admiring things to say about European socialism. I'm not a fan myself, maybe because every time socialism has been tried in the U.S., our politicians have overreached, and people have inevitably pushed back when the programs became too expensive or intrusive (witness the election of Nixon after Johnson, Reagan after Carter, and the 104th Congress after Clinton's attempt at "HillaryCare." But Steves is no fool, and he's traveled and spoken with enough people around Europe for decades to find things to like. He made a video on this topic, which I got as part of my European tour welcome stuff.

I'm guessing he's going to lecture his reader quite a bit. As if someone going to Europe needs someone reminding them "Now, don't forget to learn things from other cultures, and don't forget that they have different ideas from you, and don't be an ugly American..." (Rolling eyes, "Yeesssss, Mom.")

I'm very much looking forward to my Rick Steeves tour. I've been aware of his political opinions for awhile, but that's not influencing my approach to taking one of his tours. When I go somewhere new, I'm there to watch, listen, and learn. If someone asks me where I'm from or what I think, I'll tell them, but I'm not there to be the "ugly American" and shove my way of doing things down someone's throat. The locals will have their views on things, and I might agree, but then again I might respectfully disagree. Travel should be a learning experience (in both directions!) but it always makes me appreciate my home that much more when I get back. And if people from other countries wouldn't want to trade passports with me, well, the feeling's mutual. Fine. Next topic?