Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:643 sci.space:5201
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!thumper!karn
From: karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_
Message-ID: <1042@thumper.bellcore.com>
Date: 11 Apr 88 08:13:44 GMT
References: <47032@sun.uucp> <1290@hubcap.UUCP> <4076@whuts.UUCP> <2786@charon.unm.edu>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 64
Summary: Yes, more cheaply and effectively...

> It seems to me that long term observations of some objects would be
> easier to carry out on the moon, as opposed to a satellite.  (Which
> would be orbiting the moon....at times having the moon itself eclipse
> the very object under observation!)

You're forgetting that a base on the moon's surface would also be eclipsed
by the moon itself. Once an object set, you'd have to wait 2 weeks, not just
12 hours, to see it again.  From lunar orbit you'd have even less time to
wait.  (Please don't tell me about siting bases on the moon's poles. You'd
not be shielded from the earth, which was the whole point of this exercise,
and a single base would never see half of the sky).

Not that many astronomical observations require such long and uninterrupted
views of a single object. Remember that the Space Telescope will be
similarly limited, yet it will still be a very powerful instrument.


> Come on!  This is a weak argument.  For one thing, the same store and
> forward technology could just as easily be used for the moon to earth
> relay satellites. 

Agreed. But if you need lunar satellites for communications, why not just
put the instruments there too?

> This may be true...but what about running cables to the other side of the
> moon to carry electricity while the telescope is in the lunar night.

Now YOU'RE way out on a limb (weak pun unintended) here. Ever hear of
the engineer's corollary to Occam's Razor? The simplest and cheapest
way to do job reliably is usually the best way.

> Just thought I`d say something. The radio telescope on the moon is
> a great idea.  Even if people use it as an excuse for getting men &
> women in space, so what!  What`s wrong with that?  Isn`t that the goal
> we all have...or am I being silly

Now we come to the real heart of the matter. You're now admitting what I
said in my first item, that everyone was falling all over themselves trying
to find some practical excuse, no matter how stretched, for putting as many
people in space as possible.  Isn't this exactly the mistake NASA made with
the Shuttle? Obviously it didn't learn much the first time, because now it's
doing it all over again with Space Station.

Look, I really *do* enjoy manned missions.  I was one of the few people
around here to see Challenger blow up on the TV in real time, because the
major networks (and most other people) had long tired of shuttle launches by
then.  Not me.  But at least I try to be up front about it -- I admit that I
enjoy manned missions strictly for entertainment and/or educational value.
My share in a Shuttle launch is a lot less than a movie ticket.

But I don't try to rationalize that sending up seven people is the best way
to launch a communications satellite, or conduct earth resources
photography, or any of a long list of things that have been done perfectly
well and far more cheaply (if with less glamor) with unmanned launchers.
The one aspect of the STS-51L mission that really did require a human
presence in space was the part everyone was looking forward to -- Christa
McAuliffe's science lesson. The shuttle is admirably suited to this sort of
thing, which is completely worthwhile if inspires youngsters into careers in
engineering or science. But don't kid yourself -- for the vast majority of
practical space applications, you're a lot better off in the long run by
going after the simplest and most direct approach to the problem, and only
VERY rarely does this require humans in space.

Phil