In my first post here at worldchanging.com I discussed Peter Schwartz' concerns about the energy future and his suggestion that we should develop alternative sources such as hydrogen (fuel cells). I didn't mention it then, but Schwartz, who had worked on the Apollo program at NASA, said at the time that we should make the energy initiative an essential priority and throw resources behind it, just as we had thrown resources behind the space program to put a man on the moon.
So when I followed a Slashdot pointer to this article from the National Review, which says the Bush Administration wants to make space and the moon a national priority again, I realized they didn't get the message. While I'm a lifelong fan and promoter of space travel, I'm wondering if it's the right priority for a program that will require, not just big piles of money, but a coordination of systems to support it. I suppose one rationale might be to leave the planet after we're done using and fouling its resources...? (The excerpt below mentions the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, but some of us are still looking for a bit more terrestrial intelligence as a first priority.) [Link]
There are ideas and proposals that could offset concerns as to the value of returning to the moon and, perhaps, traveling beyond. Geologists are eager to take lunar-core samples, which could tell much about the solar system's past and how the moon itself was formed. It has recently been suggested that sunlight collected on the moon and beamed to Earth could provide a no-pollution source of power. Bill McInnis, a leading NASA engineer before he resigned in despair over shuttle-safety issues and ultimately took his own life, long lobbied for a return to the moon and talked of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the folly of putting our antennae on Earth. "The signals we're looking for are so weak that the effects of somebody turning on a light a hundred miles away are stronger," he said. "The place to do it, the place to be free of Earthbound interference that's the other side of the moon. The moon is the ultimate space station, it is where we can really learn things." Certainly, long-term lunar experience would facilitate a trip to Mars.
A world-changing take on all this might suggest combining the project of transition to a hydrogen economy with the goal of space exploration (and colonization). We need better, more efficient fuel sources for space exploration – an early productional use of fuel cells has been in space travel – so there's a precedent. Space and energy scientists in the audience should find each other and talk, and we should all consider sending our cards and letters to the administration and our legislators urging them to find ways to merge the two goals... a National Space and Energy Administration?
Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!
it's all part of the pnac plan, right there on page 12 :D
'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service U.S. Space Forces with the mission of space control.'
you have to be more cynical!
Posted by: smerkin on 4 Dec 03
That's not nearly cynical enough.
To be truly cynical, remember the last time a president named George Bush vowed, with emotion ringing in his voice, to make a Bold New Effort in space travel. And then remember what happened next.
That's how you do cynical. ;)
Posted by: the Fourth Man on 4 Dec 03
"the Bush Administration wants to make space and the moon a national priority again"
The FIRST Bush Administration made brave noises about a Mars mission, which resulted in nothing, beyond a few studies.
Space exploration is pricey, and getting the resources together to do it means having a control economy which can put together publicity stunts, or, in an open society, some broad consensus that its a good thing to do and thus worth spending tax dollars on.
Bush might make a brave speech about new frontiers and returning to the glory days of past exploration, but, like his promise to increase money to fight AIDS, it won't mean a thing unless he's willing to fight for funding.
As for tying space exploration to energy reform . . . you expect THIS administration to go for that?
Posted by: Stefan Jones on 4 Dec 03
Energy policy should be tied to empire-building.
Oh wait, it already is!
Posted by: Dr. Mangrove on 4 Dec 03
Addition point here: don't forget that China is on its way to the moon. The next decade is going to see a reawakening of the 1960s rivalry between the U.S. and Russia. At stake is the moon -- a potential source of resources, space for colonization, or at the very least (for the less sci-fi minded), the national prestige that comes with space leadership, which the Chinese take very seriously, thereby forcing the World's Only (Other) Superpower (that's the USA) to do likewise ... again.
Posted by: Alan AtKisson on 9 Dec 03
