SHARE
flag
the grid

Rob Report


Shooting Down the LCROSS Moon Mission


Lunar bombing boondoggle reveals our dark side


October 15, 2009
Forty summers ago, as Neil Armstrong prepared to make his historic giant leap, my family and households around the world gathered to witness the monumental occasion. Though the slowscan lunar transmission images were grainy and the sound distorted, the importance of the moment on that hot July evening was clear enough. Armstrong's voice brought a collective sigh of relief to millions of viewers "Houston, Tranquility Base here," spoke the flight's commander. "The Eagle has landed."

Standing in stark contrast to Apollo 11's unifying lunar odyssey was last week's $80 million NASA mission that sent a spacecraft slamming into the moon's surface, looking for signs of ice crystals. Further explanations of the rationale behind the LCROSS (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) project make it sound even more bizarre: should there be sufficient evidence of trapped water in the debris plume kicked up by slamming the upper stage of the Centaur rocket near the moon's south pole, it could serve as a possible landing and habitation site (since water could be "manufactured" from the hydrogen-based material) for future moon missions.

"At the core of NASA's future space exploration," states the agency's Web site, "is a return to the moon, where we will build a sustainable long term human presence. As the space shuttle approaches retirement and the International Space Station nears completion, NASA is building the next fleet of vehicles to bring astronauts back to the moon, and possibly to Mars and beyond."

Not to rain on your parade, NASA, but we haven't managed to "build a sustainable long term human presence" here on Earth. So why shoot for the moon?

The moon landing in the summer of 1969, a month before Woodstock, transfixed the country and the world in a way LCROSS never will. Making good on President John Kennedy's lofty goal set earlier that decade, the Apollo 11 mission signified American technological supremacy in the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, which put the first man in space, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, in 1961.

It offered a welcome respite from the deepening disaster of the Vietnam War, civil rights rioting and the assassinations of two Kennedys and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. For a moment, America, rocked by political and social upheaval, once again believed in its greatness, ingenuity and promise.

Four decades later, we could use a dose of that sort of positivity. Last November, a ripple circled the globe—the leading edge of a surge of hopefulness—as our country elected a brilliant orator, a man carrying a message of hope in the face of mounting fiscal, environmental and political crises.

Yet President Obama alone is not capable of lifting the veil of stupification and cynicism that has shrouded our country. Even the unexpected pronouncement that our nation's leader had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize merely opened new lines of political sniping from his detractors.

One liberal voice, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, came to his defense. "Obama is moving too slow for most of us," wrote the man whose movies have taken aim at corporations, gun control, reaction to 9/11, health care and most recently capitalism itself. "[B]ut he needs to know we are with him and we stand by him as he attempts to turn eight years of sheer madness around. Who could do that in nine months? Superman?

"The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years," continued Moore, "as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson light the fuse of their own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations of this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we'd gone mad."

Is it not, then, further lunacy to pursue a Star Trek fantasy for a lunar space station, when we're still searching for intelligent life on Earth? And, alas, scientists and astronomers viewing the LCROSS impact around the world—hoping to see bright flashes or plumes of debris—saw….nothing. Instead, NASA will analyze data from the mission's infrared sensor and the world's largest telescopes, including the 88-inch University of Hawaii instrument at Mauna Kea.

A month ago, Gov. Lingle told the Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce on Maui that she supports two advanced technology solar telescopes, on Haleakala and the Big Island, as they could bring 100 construction jobs and needed revenue. It was a further sign of her misplaced priorities, in the wake of announcements of drastic budget cuts and furloughs.

Perhaps it's time to redirect the $300 million-per-month NASA moon program, announced by President George W. Bush in the wake of the 2003 space shuttle Columbia disaster. Many have said we need an Apollo program-like effort to set our course for renewable energy. Certainly countless other issues could benefit from that level of funding and attention: education, health care, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, rainforest preservation, even seeking to free Tibet through diplomatic efforts. Fill in the blank for a worthwhile cause, however lofty, that you'd propose to spend $300 million on every month.

Think big. It's possible to reach for the stars while keeping your feet planted on solid ground. Rob Parsons, Maui Time Weekly

print
Print
email
Email Link
Comment
Feedback
share
Share
  1. print email
    October 14, 2009 | 06:59 PM

    Perhaps you should return to school and refresh your education before you speak about these kinds of matters? NASA projects aren't some kind of a stage show, they aren't trying to present a spectacle to the ignorant. The data is valuable regardless of whether Joe Average could observe the event from his front porch. A Lunar base is a Star Trek fantasy? People like you have only ever worked against human advancement.

    D M Anderson
  2. print email
    October 14, 2009 | 10:35 PM

    And to think, Rob couldn't be even more ignorant, and he posts THIS.

    Anonymous
  3. print email
    Yeah! I am also one of those "Joe average" people
    October 14, 2009 | 11:02 PM

    With no personal offense Mr. Anderson , I would like to say that the article that Mr. rob has put forth ....is none the less obvious in every aspect ...... For me its not a race for survival but a life with dignity and respect for each and every living thing on this planet.... i am not emotional but yes....Conscious that such a lot of resources and funding ...should have vented through to the needy...or to the process of sanctifying our sins ....yes!, because the manner in which we have exploited her(Earth). We have to equip ourselves with every bit of righteousness ,respectfulness, consciousness to save our planet ...and not wasting our funding and resources in making the same mistakes that we had earlier done..........Thank You

    K.Rohit, student,durgapur,W.B.,India
  4. print email
    lack or research
    October 15, 2009 | 03:58 AM

    Before targeting NASA for its high profile achievements, why not search the national budget for some of these special interest groups and pet projects that are not contributing anything. Make a difference and do some research.

    http://vis.berkeley.edu/courses/cs294-10-fa07/wiki/images/3/3a/FederalBudgetPieChart.jpg

    kyle
  5. print email
    in agreement with D M Anderson
    October 15, 2009 | 04:39 AM

    i fully agree with Mr. Anderson - NASA projects are very valuable to our future and are NOT a waste of time. if you are worried about the needy, demand that we stop hemorrhaging money into senseless wars and funding a bloated military budget. dont get in the way of human exploration and progress just because you cant understand it.

    R. Laz
  6. print email
    don w
    October 15, 2009 | 05:06 AM

    mr parsons ur ignorant

    don wendling
  7. print email
    don w
    October 15, 2009 | 05:06 AM

    mr parsons ur ignorant

    don wendling
  8. print email
    ?
    October 15, 2009 | 06:22 AM

    The article went down the tubes as soon as you wrote the following:
    "Not to rain on your parade, NASA, but we haven't managed to "build a sustainable long term human presence" here on Earth. So why shoot for the moon?"
    Did you let this one simmer in your head for a few hours before you clicked the "publish" button Mr. Anderson. Looks like a late night article written while burning the midnight oil...

    Ryan
  9. print email
    October 15, 2009 | 06:43 AM

    Wow! I didn't know a Luddite could use a word processor! You want to hand out money instead of invest it in our children's future, why don't we just all sit around eating our seed corn, too? The space program and the technology spun off from it have done more to raise the standard of living of every person on Earth than all the so-called "Great Society" leaders.

    If you understand so little about science and astronomy, how about enrolling in a class at the local college? I read your article to my science students who all thought it was a hilarious joke -- until I showed them it was an actual published article. Sadly, I think I damaged their faith in America's 4th estate.

    Dr. Daniel Barth
  10. print email
    Turning Off Space
    October 15, 2009 | 08:28 AM

    I would like to turn off Space for Mr. Parsons, so he doesn't have to worry about it.

    Well, as long as he doesn't mind going without his telephone, internet, TV, emergency response services, weather forecasting, hurricane & tsunami prediction, protection by police and armed forces, and many of the things he relies on at the supermarket, all of which are made possible by space technology.

    Oh, that's the practical... I guess we also have to deny him his computer and anything else created by people whose aspirations in science and technology were motivated by the achievements of the space program...

    Oh.. and I guess in finality when the inventors and producers in society are unable to invent or produce any more of the things he needs to sustain his life based on resources and energy plundered from our planet, he will have to go without the boundless energy and resources harvested from Space that will be providing everyone else with their health, wealth and sustenance as we expand into a multi-planet species.

    And at that unknown but certain even in the future when a rogue impactor threatens to wipe out life on Earth, those of humanity who had the foresight to create the space technology to identify and remove the threat will celebrate together while people like Mr. Parsons go on about their little lives with their little views oblivious to the wonder, magnificence and opportunity of the Universe accessible only through the space technology that will expand our desires and capabilities beyond our home planet.

    Let us know when you want space turned off Mr. Parsons.

    Bob Richards
  11. print email
    Science & Technology Trumps All
    October 15, 2009 | 11:15 AM

    From my perspective, the Science First commentors are missing the point of the article. We needn't worry about a "rogue impactor" threatening our planet. We already have a growing number of them....nearly 6.8 billion. The idea of harvesting "boundless energy and resources" from space isn't likely to save us from ourselves as we continue to foul our nest, our Mother Earth who has sustained us despite how poorly we have treated her. I rather agree with the insight provided by K. Rohit, student living in India. There also is a great distinction between intelligence and common sense. We need more of the latter. Please spare me the idea that we will "expand into a multi-planet species." As the author of the article said, that might be the result of watching a little too much Star Trek. Our most daunting challenge is learning how to live harmoniously on this planet, not to go rocketing off to another.

    Bert W.
  12. print email
    A dollar a month
    October 15, 2009 | 11:52 AM

    $300 million per month? That's about one dollar per U.S. citizen. Why don't you ask for your dollar back and you can use it to fund "education, health care, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, rainforest preservation, even seeking to free Tibet through diplomatic efforts." I'll let NASA keep my dollar.

    Bill Hensley
  13. print email
    This is why newspapers are fading away.
    October 15, 2009 | 04:42 PM

    I don't believe I've heard anyone say 100 construction jobs on a solar telescope as "a misplaced priority." It's 100 folks working.

    Michael Moore on the other hand is all problem and no solution. His dramatic stances in front of silent buildings with a megaphone reminds me more of a barker than a liberal spokesman.

    Lastly, fact checking was a serious business in the press. Not anymore. Perspective and place in history have no place in the 4th estate. What has happened to that?

    Talking away the Apollo program as a salve to the violence of Vietnam and the dissent of Woodstock is absurd. Simply put, you had people in both places at the same time up to their noses in mud wondering what the hell was going on. We seem to forget the Killing Fields began after Vietnam ended.

    The Apollo program launched their own version of LCRoss. At Saturn VB booster weighing 35,000 lbs (3.5 times more than LCRoss) in 1970. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? I found this tidbit on the NASA website in minutes.

    I'm sorry to say ideology doesn't sell newspapers, story's do. This was all the former. If I want my party propaganda I'm more than capable of finding it without Mr. Parson's or Mr. Moore's wisdom. I only wish there was more fact and perspective than flummery.

    Ed McEneney
  14. print email
    "Free Tibet through diplocatic efforts"?
    October 15, 2009 | 04:55 PM

    So that's what you think we should do with that $300 million a month?

    Rob, thanks for topping your featherbrained column with this howler. Been a hard day, and the belly laugh felt great!

    Arch Stanton
  15. print email
    Tibet
    October 16, 2009 | 07:44 AM

    What, human rights and religious freedom in the world community holds no importance to you? Dpn't upset China because they make all our cheap goods? The word missing in your life may be "compassion." At least someone is thinking outside the box of the economic system that suppresses our true human nature and leaves us squabbling for resources.

    Sally Rhodes
  16. print email
    We're not against Tibet
    October 16, 2009 | 09:04 AM

    Sally, you have misunderstood the criticism. The "howler" is the notion that all we need to do to free Tibet is to spend $300 million a month on it. What's that going to do? It's not about money.

    The main problem with Mr. Parson's column, however, is that he sets up a false dichotomy: that somehow we have to choose between solving all the world's problems or exploring outer space. This is false in two ways. First, it is not clear that we even can solve all the world's problems, no matter what we do or how much money we throw at them. Second, there is no reason we can't invest in both at the same time. That's how it works in the real world. Think about your family budget. Most of your money goes toward immediate needs: food, clothing, shelter, transportation. But you put some aside for the future: the kid's college fund, your retirement, saving up to buy a house. You also spend a little on things that are just for fun: movies, cable TV, going out to eat.

    The United States spends the great majority of its budget on immediate needs: defense, Social Security, debt service. But a tiny fraction goes for everything from NASA to the National Endowment for the Arts. Even if you zeroed out NASA, the NEA, and all other discretionary spending, it would only make a small difference to what you're able to do on the big ticket items. That's because we spend so little, relatively speaking, on those things to start with. NASA's budget is only about 0.5% of the total federal budget. You may think even that little is not worth the investment, but I see it as a small investment in the future.

    Bill Hensley
  17. print email
    You...
    October 18, 2009 | 03:07 PM

    ..are a douch.

    Bill Framp
  18. print email
    October 19, 2009 | 12:43 PM

    Maui Time needs to dump Rob Parsons if they even want a shred of respectability now.

    ...
  19. print email
    not bad
    October 25, 2009 | 08:47 AM

    Better article than I would have expected had I read all the comments first

    mrintegrity
  20. print email
    October 30, 2009 | 11:09 PM

    Read those links to understand LCROSS mission more.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4317333.html
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/FAQs/index.html
    Firstly, LCROSS has a great meaning to human space exploration.
    Secondly, 79 millions NASA has spent on it was absolutely NOT a huge number as you thought.
    Thirdly, the impacts have no harmful effects on Moon. It's ridiculous when somebody says that "oh no, LCROSS may change the Moon's orbit".
    Lat but not least, saving our Earth and exploring the outer space are two different matters.
    You can save money by saving energy, stopping the war, but not cutting of the budget for human exploration. There would have been no America if Columbus have had to cancel his trip due to budget constraint. Lol.
    Please think carefully and learn more about things if you want to criticize them.

    Kate.
  21. print email
    thanks 4 nuthin'
    November 22, 2009 | 01:00 PM

    i researching on critical thinking skills, and clear you r the worst in it . u go off with pastg events that got nuthin to do with this. secreat money spending is of course a big problem that nasa is doing and yet not people reseaching. you anit u just referr. but wat ever my point this is a shi**y articule.

    deffine
Reader Feedback Submission
Use this form to submit Reader Feedback.
* required value
Your Name*

Town

Email (not shown on website)

Subject

Comment*

Verification*


Calendar Search
Event
calendar icon
Zip Code Proximity
of
Entertainment and lifestyle news for Maui, Hawaii and the surrounding Islands. Maui Time Weekly is Mauis only independent and locally owned newspaper. Mail this link to a friend
Web Analytics