Science

A robotic spacecraft called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, is currently orbiting the moon. The LRO is sending back so much data, however, that NASA is asking for help in analyzing it. Oxford astrophysicist Chris Lintott created the website MoonZoo.org (part of the Zooniverse Project), where anyone can log on, watch a training video and begin identifying objects on the lunar surface.

Today I created an account on MoonZoo and very quickly I was identifying craters, boulders, mounds, linear features and other objects. There’s even a tiny chance that the picture you’re shown will include man-made objects: a non-functioning lander from the 1960s, for example. It’s very absorbing—I spent about 30 minutes marking craters when I really should have been working on something else.

This enabling of easy public participation in the advancement of science is one of the things I love best about the Internet.

Tonight I heard a superb opinion piece by Dr Moira Gunn, host of the weekly radio show TechNation. She notes the political debate over NASA’s budget and President Obama’s new vision for the agency.

The proposed annual budget for NASA is only $19 billion … and do you know what we spend in Iraq every single day? $7 billion.

That’s right. Three days from now, we will have spent on Iraq the entirety of next year’s budget for NASA, and then some. Obama’s proposal to increase the budget of NASA by $6 billion over the next five years, really says that in half-a-decade, NASA will receive one more day in Iraq. (Yes, try to contain your enthusiasm.)

Gunn advocates a much larger investment, both in NASA and in science education & innovation in general—advocacy best championed by a government. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy’s leadership was critical in pushing the country not just towards the Apollo moon program, but towards excellence in science. The United States definitely needs another inoculation of science excellence now.

My angle on NASA’s vision is this: the current debate seems to hinge on whether we’re going back to the Moon, or to Mars—and whether various communities around the country will retain their aerospace industries that work to put humans in space. I wish human space flight weren’t such a political flash point, because it’s not where NASA should direct its energies.

Human space travel is very expensive, and very dangerous. There is, of course, the risk of accidents, such as those to the Challenger and Columbia, but the chief danger in space is cosmic radiation. A trip to the Moon takes about two weeks, but these days people are talking about going to Mars. A manned mission to Mars would take two-and-a-half years, because Mars is so far away. That’s a 2-1/2-year dose of cosmic radiation for each astronaut, and there’s no way to shield it.

Unmanned interplanetary missions have been enormously successful (Mars Rovers, Cassini, Galileo, Ulysses), and several others are en route to their destinations with all systems go (Messenger, New Horizons, Dawn), demonstrating without a doubt the value of further robotic missions. I remain skeptical of the feasibility of manned missions, not only because of their cost, but of the political fallout from the inevitable accidents and loss of life. The age of easy and ubiquitous space flight is still far in the future.

So how about we give NASA a few extra days in Iraq?

NASA TV is replaying the entirety of the Apollo 11 audio feed, timed exactly to coincide with the actual events 40 years ago. I find it entertaining, both to see how technology has changed over 40 years, and to get context beyond the endless replaying of Neil Armstrong’s famous sound bite.

Today the LCROSS mission launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida. On October 8th it will intentionally smash into the Moon’s south pole. The resulting debris cloud will be analyzed for traces of water, as hidden valleys at the Moon’s poles are thought to contain large amounts of water. If so, then these could be used by future lunar exploration stations. Thus LCROSS is very much a preparatory mission for manned missions to the Moon.

To which I say “heart in the right place, but misplaced science priorities.” We need to admit here that the reason for space exploration is science. We must also admit that, in space, robots are better at science than we are. Human space travel is a bad idea for many reasons:

• Space is dangerous. It’s full of radiation from the sun, including cosmic rays. There is no realistic way to shield them. Long-term space exposure will eventually cause death by radiation.
• Space is cramped. Unbelievably claustrophobic. We have been acclimatized to the bright and cheery bridge of the Starship Enterprise, but the reality is about two cubic meters per person. Have you ever seen the Apollo 11 capsule at the Smithsonian in Washington? Six months to Mars and back in a container this tiny? This way lies madness.
• A manned mission requires a return journey. This requires double the fuel & resources.
• Politically, dead astronauts are very bad. What happens during an 18-month manned mission when an astronaut develops appendicitis or an aggressive kidney infection?
• Manned missions cost several orders of magnitude more than a robotic mission. The extra systems and personnel required to keep fragile humans alive are daunting.

In contrast, robotic missions are a piece of cake. While not cheap in absolute terms, they cost a fraction of a manned mission (even a manned mission to the International Space Station). Recent missions have been fabulously successful: Cassini, Mars Rovers, Galileo, Ulysses, Deep Impact. Several other missions are en route to their destinations with all systems go: Messenger, New Horizons, Dawn.

Robots rule!