Stuck in the Cave

For Earth Day of this year Bill Maher ran a piece on his HBO show entitled “New Rule: Make Earth Great Again.” When I finally saw the bit in June, I was writing a piece on the Saturn V, so I saved this critique until now. Essentially, Maher believes we should squash the idea of colonizing Mars because it gives us free rein to destroy Earth. Money used to conduct Mars landing missions and colonization were also targeted by Maher because the money could be spent repairing or improving Earth. Maher also stated that evolution had shaped humanity to thrive only on Earth, and he made clear his opposition to being a part of a multi-planetary species.

I know, that is a lot to absorb. Stated within The Space Endeavor's mission statement is the advocation of space colonization. And, as you can imagine, I have several issues with his line of thought. My goal here is take his key points, outlined in the first paragraph, and offer a strong rebuttal. 

Oh, and Buzz Aldrin is my spirit animal for this article.

Maybe you should ask Buzz about Mars, Bill. 

First, it should be stated that Mars is not a back-up planet for humanity, and destroying Earth is not a good idea. However, being a good custodian of Earth and hoping to colonize Mars are not mutually exclusive ideas. We can take care of Earth and have a permanent human presence on the fourth planet. Money is an often-cited excuse to oppose robust space exploration, but that argument falls short too. America is the wealthiest country in the world, which makes the U.S. more than capable of funding grand adventures in space. Other nations can spend more on space, but, like America, there is a terrible misalignment of spending and taxing priorities. So, on Maher’s two largest points, Earth being first and money, his argument appears to be very weak.

Another argument Maher made is just downright silly. Claiming that evolution had shaped humanity to only thrive on Earth has a major fundamental flaw—evolution has also shaped us to possess enough cognitive abilities to develop the needed tools and machinery to venture into space. Therefore, why should we restrain ourselves to only one planet if the technology can be created to explore new ones? Humanity can explore space, and we should not squander that gift.

Finally, Maher said he does not believe we should become a multi-planet species, which a perfectly valid opinion to have—but I must disagree. Humanity cannot chain itself to only living on Earth forever because it goes against our very nature to push boundaries and explore. Not to mention the possibility that a threat to human existence could come from space, such as an asteroid. If we choose to pull back on exploring deep space, our chances of averting that disaster diminish. Continuing to be a one planet species will likely sign a premature death certificate for human civilization as we know it.

My reaction to Maher's little rant. (GIF Credit: giphy.com)

I understand that the segment was designed to be funny, and Maher has a point about not destroying Earth, obviously. My problem was the strong implication that humanity should stay grounded on Earth simply because it is our original home. Bill Maher’s thoughts on Mars colonization and exploration appeal to the lowest, simplest, naivest, and darkest aspects of humanity. This type of appeal has often been used throughout history to exploit people through populist movements.

Constantly gravitating towards the simplest answer in space policy, or public policy in general, usually leads to less than favorable results. We can take care of Earth and colonize Mars at the same time. I never said it would be easy, but that is what makes each challenge a worthy endeavor. Civilization can do amazing things assuming we have the courage to repel the cynics and the doubters. Hence, the real thrust behind my critique—attacks directed towards exploration and advancement will ultimately leave humanity stuck in the cave. 

Can't wait until we explore this beautiful world. (Photo Credit: NASA)

Here's a link to Bill Maher's thoughts on Mars, but be ready for some deep bull sh-t. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrGFEW2Hb2g

If you desire more space related content, which I know you do, check out The Space Endeavor's Facebook page!!

Keeping Up with Human Spaceflight News

Staying informed about news in general has been quite the task lately, and human spaceflight news is no different. Over the past few months two large and important stories jumped out of NASA circles. First, as mentioned in a previous blog post, the Trump administration asked NASA to evaluate placing a crew on the first flight of the Space Launch System (SLS). Earlier this month, that plan was formally ruled out by NASA officials. Second, a relatively detailed definition for a lunar orbiting space station came out of NASA. Although the lunar space station story is from March, it has taken me this long to get a grip on my feelings and thoughts—albeit a loose one. Before I rush to my opinions, let’s cover some background information for both stories.

Before the Trump administration requested NASA to study placing a crew on the first flight of the SLS, the schedule called for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) to fly the Orion spacecraft around the Moon without a crew. A second Exploration Mission (EM-2) would fly astronauts around the Moon around 2021 (hopefully). This strategy of an uncrewed EM-1 mission followed by a crewed EM-2 mission still won the approval of NASA managers, thus rejecting the idea proposed by the administration. A crewed EM-1 mission would have increased costs, delayed the launch date, and would have been much riskier. These factors ultimately led NASA to stick with the current crew and mission arrangement.

  

Artist Concept of  SLS Block 1A During Launch (Credit: NASA)

While NASA was tinkering with the idea of adding a crew to the EM-1 mission, details emerged on the agency’s planned lunar orbit (cis-lunar orbit) space station. Construction will begin in the early 2020s with a launch of the SLS carrying the new station’s Power and Propulsion Bus (PPB). Other modules, structures concerned with habitation, will be added to the PPB in later missions. A Russian airlock module will also be added for easier station based spacewalking. Maximizing consumable usage and minimizing waste will be critical design goals for the station, which will prove to be no easy task. Each crewed shift on the lunar outpost will feature a dedicated supply vehicle—NASA still must determine whether the supply ship will be provided by a public or private organization. Although, I would place my bets on a private company providing the supply vehicle.

Overall, the lunar station will provide a platform for dress rehearsal Mars missions and a hub for returning robotic and crewed spacecraft from lunar surface operations. Design flexibilities will also allow Russian and possibly Chinese spacecraft to use the station.

NASA Lunar Space Station Concept (Credit: Popular Mechanics)

Now my opinions.

Leaving the EM-1 mission uncrewed appears to be the best option. Placing a crew on this mission would suffer from serious drawbacks (increased cost, delayed launch, and higher risk). Even with an uptick in funding, the increased risk associated with adding a crew serves no valid purpose without a clear goal in mind. Apollo 8’s trip around the Moon was risky as well, but the risk was taken to increase the likelihood of meeting President Kennedy’s goal. Developing complex hardware like the Orion spacecraft and SLS should be taken in a step-by-step fashion to decrease risk and increase the chances of success towards the end goal. This process can be hastened with adequate funding and human resources, but that is not the case with the American space program right now.

Mixed emotions do not begin to describe my feelings towards the lunar space station concept. Frankly, I am an advocate of virtually any human space exploration that extends beyond low Earth orbit. However, I feel using the lunar station as a means for Mars mission testing or getting to the Red Planet expends more resources and time than a direct path. I would advocate for a path similar to the one outlined in Robert Zubrin’s A Case for Mars. Building and testing habitation, propulsion, and Mars landing hardware in the lunar environment before traveling to Mars could be more efficient. For example, NASA could build and test the Mars mission hardware by long duration Moon landing missions. Eventually, this could lead to an Apollo 10 style dress rehearsal for a Mars landing once NASA officials felt necessary objectives were met.

Another issue I have with the proposed lunar station revolves around Russian involvement. It is no secret tensions between the United States and Russia have been high for many years now, and this tension could derail future joint endeavors. U.S. and Russian officials continue to cooperate on the International Space Station because the project is already completed. I would advise NASA to work with the Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese on future projects to avoid potential issues with Russia stemming from international politics.  

I would love to hear your thoughts on either issue!! And, as always, check out The Space Endeavor’s Facebook page for more space related content!

Sources used:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25872/nasa-cis-lunar-orbit/

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/12/nasa-rules-out-crew-on-first-sls-flight/