Article Tools
Share
Digg
StumbleUpon
RedditPhoto Gallery
Related Links
Most Popular
The unassuming log cabin has long symbolized the American drive to tame and settle the frontier. But if aerospace engineer Robert Howard Jr., age 36, is successful, 21st-century settlers will live in a dwelling that might resemble an oversized balloon or soup can. As manager of the "habitability design center" at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Howard is helping to create a dwelling that could comfortably house four people on the moon for at least half a year. He is one of many NASA employees who will be speaking at this year's Smithsonian Folklife Festival (from June 25 to 29 and July 2 to 6, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.), which will commemorate the space agency's 50th anniversary.
Howard says this is a heady time to be working at NASA. In 2004, President Bush set a goal of sending humans back to the moon by 2020 and eventually on to Mars. The lunar outpost would be a training ground and launchpad for trips to the red planet.
But there are plenty of challenges to overcome first. To camp on the moon, astronauts need to be shielded from solar radiation. In a waterless environment every drop of H2O, including sweat and urine, must be recycled and purified. NASA engineers are sorting through dozens of possible models for the lunar outpost—from horizontal, aluminum cylinders to inflatable structures that are essentially giant, Kevlar-reinforced balloons.
Whether NASA will reach its goal for "boots on the moon" depends on support from future presidents and Congress. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush announced a similar goal of sending people to the moon and on to Mars, but it was scrapped after Congress balked at the high cost.
And some scientists oppose manned missions. Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas and a Nobel laureate, says space research generally can be done with robotic probes for a fraction of the cost. "Unmanned missions have been tremendously important in making this a golden age of astronomy," Weinberg says, while manned space exploration "costs hundreds of billions of dollars and doesn't serve any important purpose."
But setting up an outpost on the moon is an essential step toward eventually settling other planets, argues John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, who will join the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum this fall. "It's not primarily about science," Logsdon says. "It's to test the belief that humans are destined to live in other places except earth."
Howard echoes that sentiment. "Space symbolizes freedom and opportunity," says the NASA lunar architect, who was an avid Star Trek fan at age 3. "There is an entire universe out there for you to explore... I call it 'space, the unlimited frontier.'"
I'm all for the space program AFTER we educate our children,house the homeless, figure alternative energy sources, clean-up the economy,and bridge the ever widening gap between the middle class and the well to do. Dreams are wonderful but reality must be faced and dealt with.
Posted by Diane Doria on July 11,2008 | 07:51AM
Me too. After all, we obviously should have waited to explore the New World. There's no way it could ever contribute to bettering human life as much as sitting around in pre-industrial Europe waiting for another bout of the Black Death would have done. Let's not repeat that mistake.
Posted by Michael Lamberty on July 11,2008 | 06:49PM
In light of the current exponential population growth rates, the exponentially increasing rate we are consuming our natural resources, deforestation, and global warming...well I, for one, want to get my children's children off planet. The prior statement, "I'm all for the space program AFTER we educate our children,house the homeless, figure alternative energy sources, clean-up the economy,and bridge the ever widening gap between the middle class and the well to do. Dreams are wonderful but reality must be faced and dealt with." Well, THAT'S the dream. It will never happen. You know why? There's no profit in it (except for the alternate energy sources and guess who's actually working on that? NASA. Why? The mission to Mars). There never will be. Wake up and smell the reality. They will find a way to make off planet jobs and research profitable. If it's profitable, it will happen. What do you think Earth is really going to be like in another 100 years? You think gas prices are high? Wait until you have to start paying for clean air.
Posted by Christine Begley on July 15,2008 | 05:41PM
Diane Doria said, "I'm all for the space program AFTER we educate our children,house the homeless, figure alternative energy sources, clean-up the economy,and bridge the ever widening gap between the middle class and the well to do." Well, Diane, what fraction of your income do you spend on something other than education, housing, energy and the environment? What fraction of your income do you donate to people who are poorer than you are? Do you ever go to the movies or eat ice cream? Have you been on a vacation? Do you have any hobbies? If you never spend any money on anything non-essential and you give away half your income to the poor, then congratulations! You are not a hypocrite.
Posted by Bill Hensley on July 30,2008 | 02:19PM