The Caltech expert tells Softpedia his views on the matter

Jun 1, 2009 07:26 GMT  ·  By
NASA has recently hosted many contests for lunar base plans. But robots shouldn't be taken out of the picture just yet, some say
   NASA has recently hosted many contests for lunar base plans. But robots shouldn't be taken out of the picture just yet, some say

Lately, there has been much fuss about the possibility of building a base on the Moon within the next couple of decades. The idea is naturally not new, with plans for such a facility dating back at least 40 years. But, recently, NASA has engaged actively in devising plans and designs for a future base, as well as possible defenses against radiation, the main enemy of any lunar expedition.

But not everyone is so excited about the idea of conducting manned missions on the Moon or Mars. There are those who believe that robots are still our best bet, and their arguments cannot be disregarded. To get a better idea of what the future could hold for space exploration inside the solar system, we spoke to Crafoord Laureate G.J. Wasserburg, who is John D. MacArthur Professor of Geology and Geophysics (emeritus) at the California Institute of Technology.

When the idea of a lunar base was first proposed, did it raise criticism? What were the main objections?

In 1969 it was brought forward. It was a plan for a very large manned space endeavor to continue on the Apollo type approach. I served in ~1970 on the working group for a Lunar Base. If I remember correctly, it was run out of JPL and Headquarters. It was recognized that exposure to solar flare activity and cosmic rays was a major hazard. This meant a very heavily shielded "living quarters" with limited exposure. There was no water on the moon and providing water and a local environment was a serious problem. [...].

President Nixon recognized that the level of NASA funding was far too large and placed strong budget constraints on the NASA program. The Shuttle was part of the Shuttle-Tug-Lunar Base plan. We got the Shuttle (supposedly to give frequent launches at low per pound costs to the whole military and civil enterprise). That was never delivered. The original GAO report (1974) describes the issues quite well.

What are the main obstacles in creating such a facility?

The current shuttle launches, including the space craft and the crew support, run about one billion dollars per launch. That is for low earth orbit.

Should people be sent to man it, or should robots do the job?

To explore the Moon or Mars or any other planetary object, the effective means is with advanced robotic systems. They are far cheaper and easier to support and run compared to any piloted mission. They can also do much more and be less susceptible to irradiation. If they die/when they die, you have not lost a “hero astronaut”, but a heroic robot that you can replace. They do not have to return to Earth. If you want samples, then that matter is easily solved. It was solved before!

Do you think the scientific benefits of such an endeavor outweigh the costs?

The scientific returns of a piloted mission are far less than for a robotic mission. With piloted missions, the main driver is to try to keep the astronauts alive! They cannot function without very sophisticated support systems and lots of robotic support systems. One suit puncture and ...! With available and advanced analytical systems, controlled remotely from Earth, you can do better with robotic systems than with an astronaut who is enormously hindered (and at great risk) in the space environment.

What is the current stance that NASA has on this issue?

NASA is lost in the dream of piloted missions because that is the source (or believed to be the source) of the NASA budget. They are now re-reviewing what their role and function is.

Would you favor manned missions to other targets in the solar system?

No. I was raised on Buck Rogers, I enjoy Science Fiction, but I do not believe that the Buck Rogers approach is achievable from what is now so well known about the physics and chemistry of space. Remember how little-if any-science was done using people in space. There was the glory of the Apollo achievement; but that was done and is no guide as to how to proceed. This attachment to a “manned program” has led to a long history of USA failures in space and at a very high cost.

How do you see manned space exploration 10 to 20 years from now?

It should be in a very diminished role, limited to repairs and construction in low earth orbit. Even that will require a major effort and a new launch capability. You might ask why is the USA buying launches from other countries for com-satellites and for manned transport. Prof Wasserburg specializes in cosmochemistry, aqueous geochemistry, and geochemistry, having already written numerous research papers in these fields. He is also D.H.C. at the University of Chicago, the University of Brussels, and the University of Paris, and a Sc.D.H.C. at the Arizona State University, the University of Rennes, and the University of Torino. He has been involved with the JPL, Caltech, NASA and the manned space flight program for many years.