Aside from the technical challenges of such an endeavor, the biggest challenge of them all may well be in the politics of it. It would take much longer than Apollo, which spanned a little over two administrations (if you count Kennedy and Johnson as one administration).
By the time Nixon came into office, the success of the project was no longer in doubt. A longer, more complex project, like the proposed one to Mars, lends itself to political interference. Could there be any doubt that under the slightest pretext, a new administration would ditch the previous administration's initiative? Isn't that what happened this time? Didn't Obama ditch Bush's Constellation project to Mars?
Sure, the costs were going to be higher than initially planned, but isn't that always true? Besides, NASA doesn't spend that much money in comparison with the rest of the budget. It could be doubled and it wouldn't make that much difference in terms of the overall budget.
If there's ever going to be anybody going to Mars, it would likely have to go via the Moon first. That's because the Moon is relatively easy to reach now. Easy to reach technically and politically. The same principle will apply to the project to Mars. Once it becomes easy enough technically and politically, it will be doable. Right now, it is too much of a challenge because it will take too much time for one administration. A new administration will terminate a long commitment.
If Obama wants to go to an asteroid, he might get that. But he'd better hurry. He may want to complete the project before his second term ends, if he gets one.
Update: 1/6/11, approx. 7:20 am
I'm back at it, adding links to my "interesting reading" section on the left sidebar. I found the Free Mars site, which yielded this interesting tidbit. If our politicians get their heads out of their backsides long enough, they might realize that we'll lose the next space race.
No comments:
Post a Comment