His competitors did not like the proposal. At the same time, this week Russia turned to NASA and Europe with a request to start jointly planning such a colony
Newt Gingrich, who is competing for the nomination of the Republican Party for the presidency of the United States. Afraid of leaving the space arena to China, and especially that this fact does not bother any of the politicians in Washington. In the confrontation held yesterday by CNN on the eve of the primary elections in Florida, Gingrich explained his vision of space.
Gingrich pointed to the skeptics of Kennedy's vision of putting a man on the moon while one American had yet to leave the confines of the atmosphere as an example of a vision that could be realized. However, he proposed to create an atmosphere and conditions that would allow the private market to carry out the task and take NASA out of the rocket launch business.
His main competitor (who these days is also leading over him) Mitt Romney said that if he, as a company director, had received an offer to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a moon colony from one of the managers under him, he would have fired him. Ron Paul suggested sending some politicians to the moon (and probably meant Gingrich). Oddly enough, the liberal media, led by MSNBC, also mocked Gingrich's idea today.
And one more small note, it should also be remembered that he said these things in Florida, the state most affected by the cuts to the manned space program.
Tammy Plotner, Universe Today reports that Russia is opening talks with NASA and the European Space Agency to establish a manned base on the moon
On January 19, the Russian space agency Roscosmos began talks with the US and Europe regarding the possibility of jointly establishing a research base on the moon. The head of the agency, Vladimir Popovkin, led the discussions with senior officials from NASA and the European Space Agency regarding the establishment of a permanent facility on the moon. "We don't want a man to just walk on the moon," Popovkin told the Westi FM radio station in Moscow. "Today we know enough about the moon, for example about the existence of water in the polar regions. We discuss how to start the settlement of the moon together if NASA and the Europeans.
Russia plans to launch two unmanned missions to the moon over the next eight years. According to Popovkin, the plan should enable the establishment of a permanent base, currently unmanned, on the moon or launch a laboratory that will attack the moon.
The Russians established several milestones in lunar exploration, including the Luna missions in the XNUMXs, one of which was the first to land a spacecraft in a soft landing on the moon and send panoramic images there, the first to photograph the far side of the moon, the first to launch a satellite that orbited the moon, the first to mount all-terrain vehicle missions And the first to bring soil samples to Earth which they shared with the entire global scientific community.
And in the meantime, they are looking for those responsible for the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft crash failure in Russia. President Medvedev ordered to punish those responsible for all the space failures of the past year, including the loss of satellites and bad launchers.
7 תגובות
Year:
The importance of settling on the moon is that it is a "giant" satellite of the earth. It is possible to build observation stations, communication stations, military facilities and the like on it. They can be maintained regularly from the Earth because of the proximity to the Earth (in contrast to the maintenance of facilities on the distant Mars). The uses of these facilities are immediate uses (compared to the uses of facilities on Mars).
Why settle on the moon when you can on Mars?!
The current barrier to launching space programs is the expensive price of leaving the space station, which is over $10⁴ per kg up to the geostationary orbit.
This barrier needs to be broken, with new type engines or a space elevator or any other solution.
Only after we have a cheap option to get out of DHA, it makes sense to discuss whether to establish a colony on the moon or Mars, etc. and how to establish it.
It's hard for me to call this real-time naughty boy a politician, but in my opinion he is on his way to winning the Republican Party and losing shamefully to Obama, which in my opinion is a good thing.
For that matter, the economy is collapsing because the economy is not based in reality (pollution, limited resources, governments, the value of mothers and more - these are just some of the parameters that are "forgotten" in economic models.
Western society is abundant, but produces too much luxury, while at least half of the population can be allowed not to work and live with dignity. This is not the place to talk about the unequal distribution.
Unfortunately, a colony on the moon is too early an experiment - we have not yet succeeded in creating a place that finances itself, even partially, in the most basic ways (like food from water, air) here in Israel.
The Russians show that they are ready to send their people to the most dangerous places without preparation, just to be "first". In another 10-20 years it will be possible to talk about it more seriously, and in general the only thing that can be done on the moon (there is almost no atmosphere there!) is to mine resources - not settle.
For settlement, there is Mars. No other planet or moon comes close to it in terms of habitability.
up up and away!
Nobody needs this crap now. The world economy is collapsing, neoliberalism is rampant, and colonies on the moon is the last thing politicians need to be busy with right now.
I did not see in the video presented or any other video a proposal by Gingritz to establish a colony on the moon (manned or unmanned). It is possible that all Gingritz proposed was something less than a colony, that is, he proposed the establishment of a small base. I am not ready to rely on the commentary of journalists, many of whom mix facts ("what X said") with their own interpretation ("what X meant by his words"). Only a video or his original text (unedited), will clarify what Gingrich said.
On the other hand. Meanwhile, there are no "heavy" spacecraft that can install on the moon even a base the size of the International Space Station. Even the International Space Station ISS is having trouble maintaining. My impression is that there won't be enough spaceships to build a base on the moon even in another 10 years. That is, even if Gingritz means a minimum plan (a base on the moon) it is not worth investing money in such an expensive plan when it is not clear what benefit will arise from it. A space race is not currently on the agenda, neither Russia nor China are going for it, therefore spending money for the purpose of a space race is not justified.
A near realistic plan (in the next 10 years) is:
(1) Improving spacecraft to perform missions near the Earth (mainly satellites around the Earth).
(2) Sending satellites around the Moon and Mars.
(3) Sending space vehicles to land on the moon and Mars *for one-time missions*. ("One-time missions* meaning: not to maintain the vehicles placed by additional launches to them.)
The advantage of the "realistic" plan that I mentioned is that here you can assess whether the investment is worthwhile or not. Money does not grow on trees (allocating money to a certain program prevents the allocation of money to other programs), one should spend *big* money only when there is a reasonable return on the investment.
Any plan to establish manned colonies on the moon needs to take into account the temperature changes there, ranging from -200 to +200 degrees Fahrenheit.