While browsing through the BBC's web site today, I discovered an article, "Flying on the Wings of 'Eagle' ", about a vehicle that is a prototype for the next excursion to the moon, and possibly beyond.
Aside from that, though, the article is very interesting. I was actually surprised to learn that Altair will be very similar to the Eagle, which landed on the moon 40 years ago today. " "We wanted it to be a bit more Star Wars or Star Trek but the physics gets in the way," says John Connolly, chief architect of Nasa's new Altair Moon Lander." Further in the article he says: "... the Apollo engineers got a lot of things right."
|
LUNAR LANDERS - EAGLE v ALTAIR
|
I read the entire article before I watched the video at the top of the article. For what it is worth, I recommend this sequence. It gives a bit more perspective to what is seen.
The vehicle is, according to the article, in its third prototype, and is likely to go through a dozen more. To me, that seems excessive. All this for a vehicle that may never get beyond a prototype. But, if I were a NASA engineer, I would be designing it until the day the booster rocket took it away.
Reading the article and watching the video, I am amazed at the difference in technology today. In 1969, there were not computers on every desk, cell phones, the Internet, email, or any number of other technical marvels we take for granted today. Eagle was, I believe we will see, as similar to Altair as a Model T is to the Toyota Prius.
If I had to make a wager, I would give less than ten percent odds of the US beginning another space venture for a very long time. Very long translates to another twenty years. Oh, eventually space exploration will begin again, but I don't think we will see it in my lifetime.
I am truly mixed about exploring the moon or Mars now. I believe that space exploration is going to happen, and it is possible that a challenge such as JFK provided for the first trip to the moon would be as beneficial now as it was then. But, there are so many earthbound missions that must also be addressed, and I am not at all sure they would be if there was the huge diversion of going to Mars. Then again, we aren't likely to spend the money to address the earthbound mission, so we might as well expand our horizons and hope that a Mars Mission would change the US and the world as much as Apollo has.
I, too, have very mixed feelings about spending on space travel when there are so many in dire need ere on earth.
I'm not willing to say "we aren't likely to spend the money to address the earthbound mission, so..." But I do know that human beings must be stretched if they are to survive and that ultimately my argument would mean no science, no arts, no collective challenge. And I would rather see space research as the R&D engine than warfare. If I am going to use up my energies battering my head against a wall, trying to get money switched away from one objective towards earthbound deprivation, I would rather direct them towards the military sponge.
In any sense other than scientific and technological, I'm not sure whether Apollo has changed the world? I'd be interested to hear detail on that?
Posted by: Felix Grant | July 21, 2009 at 02:17 AM