Some recent selections from the SPACE.com mailbag.

Readers respond to Leonard David's article "Whiz Kids Choose Cyberspace Over Outer Space, NASA Chief Complains."

To the Editor:

I just finished reading your article about how young people searching for work will likely gravitate towards cyberspace rather than outer space. NASA complains it can't find young, qualified people to apply for work? I am 30 years old with a masters degree and 8 years of experience in the military. I have been trying to get into NASA for a year. They seem to have no trouble offering technical work, but they still rely on internal hiring when it comes to the headquarters level. Strategic planning, policy and legal analysis, program analysis, etc. are becoming stale at NASA. Headquarters should open up to the talent available among the American work force. After all, it's not bad engineering that causes repeated mission failures and ridiculous maintenance oversights with the space shuttle fleet. It's the leadership that needs help.

Paul Spudis' opinion piece "Next, Go Back to the Moon" drew numerous reader responses. Here's a selection:

To the Editor:

Yes yes and yes. I agree. I will add that it seems to me the only justifications for immediate Mars exploration rather than moon exploration is that it has more of an emotional attraction than a practical one. The moon definitely makes more scientific and practical sense as a starting point and should have funding to reflect that fact.

Andrew Lundell
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
 
 

To the Editor:

Paul Spudis writes: "By going to the moon and mining the abundant water ice at the poles for rocket propellant, we will be able to access GEO (geosynchronous orbit) with as much machine and human capability as is required to build, service and operate the comsats of the new century. Such capability is worth literally trillions of dollars."

I don't get it.… The statement, as I understand it, comes down to this: Use the water and lower gravity of the moon to launch vehicles into Earth orbit, and this saves us money.

Huh?

The moon as it exists now is a barren wasteland. In order to reap any economic benefit, the vehicles must be "built" there too. What sense is there in sending a vehicle to the moon to be fueled and sent back to Earth for orbit? None. The only way a launch from to the moon to earth orbit makes sense is if the vehicle was built there. And that means stocking the moon with all of the facilities necessary to produce the vehicle, a process that would take many decades to do and even more to become profitable. Think of the many facilities and people required to build today's satellites, let alone the future's. That's an awful lot of infrastructure.

Sending a vehicle to the moon for long-range exploration makes some sense. As a fueling and launch point, the lower gravity of the moon would be a great place to send a vehicle with empty fuel tanks about to embark on a long-term mission. But I just can't see how the moon serves any useful purpose in putting something in orbit around the Earth.

Adrian Forte, Chicago, Illinois
 
 

To the Editor:

I fully agree with P.D. Spudis!

The moon needs at first a communication and technical infrastructure for further exploration, scientific observations and preparation of permanent human presence. This should be performed by robots between 2000 and 2010 supported by temporal visits of international crews. A manned moon program should be based on cooperation of all interested space agencies (NASDA, ESA, RAKA, NASA, etc.). Half of the money spent by such an international holding should be provided by the private sector. Clear rules and laws should ensure that the interests of the public, as well as the commercial interests of the companies, will be secured. Labor division is the magic formula for cost-saving technologies and balanced benefits for the participating parties. Maybe a streamlined United Nations space agency could take over management and coordination (only of the moon program). It is not sure that there are really useable water resources at the poles, but even if not, there will be ways to make a moon colony self-sustaining. This will enforce the development of technologies which are also badly needed in the future of the terrestrial civilization. Recycling of water and any kind of consumables in nearly closed sub-ecological systems is a main research area of enormous importance for the future of overpopulated Earth. All the systems useful for the development of a Mars colony could be first extensively studied on the moon's surface.

The moon would allow us to study all biological and technical phenomena associated with reduced gravity (but not weightlessness!). Of course, the key to the surface of the moon is a manned moon-orbiting station that will not only act as the bridge between ISS/Beta and the surface of the moon, but also to guide robotic exploration and provide emergency capabilities for all kinds of crews. Let us go to the moon first!

Dieter Kaemmer
Frankfurt, Germany
 
 

To the Editor:

I agree with [Paul Spudis'] initial assertion, about the two engineering projects that enjoy long-term funding stability. That bothers me, because I disagree with [his] assertion that [he has] built a case to return to the moon fitting in either category.

While the water on the moon is a tremendous find, I think the physics which says it is cheaper to go directly to Mars, [rather] than land on the moon to refuel, will diffuse the argument.

It is also true that access to GEO is easier from the moon, but I believe that argument will fall apart too. The huge satellites you speak of will require huge boosters to fly up on and, to my knowledge, none are past the conceptual stages. Besides, the most common thing that kills GEO birds is a lack of fuel, and an automated refueler could do the same job.

Where does that leave us? I'm not sure. I'm a proponent of a humans-to-Mars mission, but not in the model of Apollo. We'll see what happens.

Tom Hill