|
 |
To Infinity and Beyond…
by Paul McGoldrick
The United States celebrates, this week of July 20, 2009, the successful Moon landing of the Apollo 11 mission with its lunar module, the Eagle, four decades ago. A mighty achievement pushed by then President Kennedy seven years earlier.
Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report) invited the Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Maryland, Dr. Robert (Bob) L. Park, as a visitor to his show on the anniversary, just as the White House invited the three astronauts – Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin (the two who stood on the moon’s surface), and Michael Collins (who remained in the orbiting command module) – to congratulate them on their feat. The president also listened, it is reported, to the former astronauts' wishes that manned missions should be restarted: with a trip to Mars.
Dr Park was very scornful of manned missions, and I have to agree with him that they seem to be less than purposeful.
The sight – from that absolutely dreadful RCA monochrome camera – of Armstrong climbing down the ladder from the flimsy aluminum-foil-like lander is something that we will never forget. We probably all remember, just as we do with the Kennedy assassination, where we were at that time.
But the purpose of the moon landing, and its later incarnations, was fairly...purposeless. As has been pointed out, the US planted a flag, played golf, and drove around in a car while on the surface. The whole series of flights leading to Apollo 11, and the later landings, was to make the Soviets look like technical goons at a time when the Cold War was at its peak. Neither side during that horrible period of “Assured Mutual Destruction” would have admitted that they had no idea of how many “special weapons” (in US military parlance) would have actually exploded on reaching their targets – if they even did arrive.
In my opinion the US was very deliberate in initially lagging behind in the space race, allowing the Soviets to make the first satellite orbits of the Earth empty, then with animals, and then men, with the sole purpose of establishing that no one had the rights to prevent or complain about orbital flight over others’ territories. The US did not claim “air” space when the Soviet satellites flew over; the Soviets could not later claim that US satellites could not fly over their territories.
So, accepting that the trips to the moon were basically anti-Moscow showmanship – but never understating the brilliance of the engineering minds that went into the project – what purpose would there be in manned excursions to Mars? Is there any kind of sensor that we cannot build today on robotic landers for something that only man could detect? I very, very much doubt it. So, again, the only obvious purpose would be to show that it could be done.
And to effect a Mars landing we are expected to build a complete base on the Moon. How many trips would that take for the accommodation, the staff, and the space ship equipment to be delivered and constructed? Who is going to man the craft for the expected six months of travel, each way, when Mars is at its closest distance of about 35 million miles? (When Mars is at its furthest from us, at about 340 million miles it is unlikely to be good timing for a trip of five years, each way.) How big does the craft have to be to carry a year’s worth of food? Will they only drink water from their recycling toilet: a technology that so far kind of dogs the International Space Station? Will there be enough sunlight to power an orbiter around the planet?
If man commits to a Mars expedition it can only be seen as a way to claim the planet for the US for some reason. I can hear it now, after that fateful radio signal takes four minutes to reach us, “In the name of the president and people of the United States of America we claim this planet and all its minerals and other assets as the fifty-first state of the Union. God bless Mars, and God bless America!”
|
|
|
|
|
